Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 for July 19, 1999

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Issue]
[Pages 16506-16650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 16506]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.

July 19, 1999
July 19, 1999

SENATE--Monday, July 19, 1999

The Senate met at 12:01 p.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Gracious God, You have made this life but a small part of the whole
of eternity. You have defeated the enemy of death and made it a
transition in living. Our life here on Earth is only an inch on the
yardstick of forever. You are Lord of earth and of heaven. It is in
this confidence that we join this prayer with the millions of prayers
for the Kennedy and Bessette families. Grant them supernatural
strength, comfort, and courage in their time of immense anguish over
the plane accident involving John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn,
and her sister, Lauren Bessette. O dear God, we speak of these three
remarkable young leaders in the present tense for, regardless of the
outcome of this tragic accident, they are alive with You.
This morning, our hearts go out in profound love and caring for our
friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, and the entire Kennedy family. They have
endured the excruciating pain of grief so often. And yet, through it
all, they have shown us the resiliency of faith in You and the
uplifting strength of an indefatigable commitment to public service. No
American family has given more or served this Nation more faithfully.
Now we praise You for the life of John F. Kennedy, Jr.--for his
winsome, winning way, for his commitment to service and, along with his
wife, Carolyn, for his affirmation of life.
Now we ask You to continue to surround the families with Your
everlasting arms and heal their aching hearts through Him who is the
Resurrection and the Life. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Roberts is now designated to lead
the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Honorable Pat Roberts, a Senator from the State of Kansas, led
the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader, Senator
Roberts, is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin a
period of morning business until 1 o'clock.

Order of Procedure

Following morning business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
begin debate on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization
bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as a reminder, a cloture motion on the
motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill was filed on
Friday, and that vote has been scheduled to take place at 10:30
tomorrow morning. Therefore, that cloture vote will be the first vote
of this week.
For the information of all Senators, it is the intention of the
majority leader to complete action on as many appropriations bills as
possible prior to the August recess. Therefore, Senators should expect
votes into the evenings and on Mondays and on Fridays all throughout
the next 3 weeks.
I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor. I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the
hour of 1 o'clock with Senators permitted to speak therein for not to
exceed 5 minutes each.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an
additional 10 minutes, if necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

____________________

BRITISH-AMERICAN PARLIAMENTARY GROUP

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this week a delegation of British Members of
Parliament will visit the Senate in the latest in a long line of
biennial exchanges fostered by the British-American Parliamentary
Group. My good and true and long-time friend, Senator Stevens, and I
serve as co-chairs for the American delegation. These exchanges date
back to the aftermath of World War II, when both sides recognized the
value of maintaining the kind of close working relationship that can
only be realized through personal interaction and camaraderie. After
graciously hosting Senator Stevens and me in 1997, when we visited
London and York with several other Senators, Lord Jopling later this
week will arrive in Washington with Members from the House of Lords and
the House of Commons. Lord Michael Jopling is a former Member of the
House of Commons. This weekend, I am pleased that the group will be
meeting at the famous Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, West
Virginia, to discuss defense, trade, and environmental issues of
concern to our great nations.
As an avid student of history, particularly Roman and Greek history,
Persian history, English history, and American history, I remind all
who will listen that those roots are essential in understanding the
development of the American Constitution. In the Senate chamber, and
while walking through the halls of our columned Capitol building, I am
daily reminded of the unique and enduring legacy bequeathed to
Americans by our English, Scot, Welsh, and Irish ancestors. The Minton
tiles paving the corridors as well as the very language of debate which
rings across the Senate floor in sonorous spoken cadences recall this
powerful legacy. Even the physical being of the Capitol building
itself--its white marble and sunny sandstone gleaming amid graceful
stands of stately trees and curving drives--owes a nod of thanks to
informal and inviting landscaping design pioneered in Britain.
And, less visible but more pervasive, the strong skeleton of
government and law in the United States carries the indelible genetic
markers of British origin--its DNA shaped by centuries of struggle
between monarchs and parliaments before mutating into a new form under
the guidance of the British citizens that became our Founding Fathers.
Though certainly not an exact clone, like Dolly the sheep, the American
bicameral legislature and our legal system based upon British Common
Law bear witness to this sturdy inheritance.
From the defining moment at Runnymede in 1215, when the English
barons forced King John to give his assent to

[[Page 16507]]

a charter of liberties, the belief in fundamental written guarantees of
rights and privileges has become a treasured inheritance on both sides
of the Atlantic. Unknown or unpracticed in many parts of the world, the
concept of individual rights guaranteed by law is a jewel in the crown
of British history. Other documents written since the Magna Carta, and
comprising the unwritten English Constitution, including the Petition
of Right, 1628, and the English Bill of Rights, 1689, have also found
new life on distant shores in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And the concepts of ``habeas corpus,'' presentment and trial juries,
``just compensation,'' and the right against self-incrimination, all
pillars of American jurisprudence, migrated to the United States from
England and English law.
To my mind, however, one of the greatest legacies bestowed upon the
United States by these generations of British lawmakers is in
establishing control over the power of the purse in elected officials
of the people, rather than in the executive. Seven hundred and two
years ago, in 1297, Edward I reluctantly agreed to the ``Confirmation
of the Charters,'' promising not to levy taxes without the common
consent of the realm.
Parliament took on its original form during the reign of Edward I,
who has been called the father of Parliament. Parliament divided into
the House of Commons and the House of Lords along about 1339, 1341-42,
during the reign of Edward III, who reigned from 1327 to 1377, a total
of 50 years.
Paired with this spending authority came the right to audit how funds
had been expended. These powers of appropriation and audit, the
fraternal twins of legislative might, shaped and tested by British
experience, were united by the American Founding Fathers in a single
paragraph of article I, section 9, of the U.S. Constitution. It states
that, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of
the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published
from time to time.'' And so it is this sentence, together with the very
first section of article 1, which invests in the Senate and the House
of Representatives their broad scope to check the power of the Chief
Executive and defend the interests of their various constituencies.
For this, as in so many things, I give thanks to my English
forbearers, who shed their blood at the point of the sword in wresting
from tyrannical monarchs the control of the power over the purse. That
struggle lasted for hundreds of years, until finally, in 1689, under
the English Bill of Rights, it was guaranteed. As for William of Orange
and Mary, who assumed the joint rule over the British people,
Parliament required that they accede to and agree to the Declaration of
Rights, which had been drawn up in February of 1689. Once they agreed,
then they were crowned joint monarchs. In December of that year, the
English Declaration of Rights was put into statute form and designated
the English Bill of Rights.
This is a pearl beyond price, and one which I hope to pass down
unblemished to my descendants. Never again, after that English Bill of
Rights had been put into statute form, would Kings levy taxes--excise
or other taxes--upon the British people without the approval, the
assent and consent of Parliament. I have fought with every ounce of
energy that I could muster against such mutations of the legacy passed
down to this country through a thousand years of blood and English
history as the constitutional amendment to balance the budget and the
line-item veto.
Our common past has built a history of cooperation between the
British and the American people that has always prevailed over our
differences. In this century, our sons, brothers, and fathers have
stood shoulder to shoulder against common enemies from the
battlegrounds of world wars to conflicts in the Persian Gulf and in the
Balkans. Together, we have stood against the Soviet bear. We have stood
fast through changes of governments and shifts in political power.
While not always smooth, just as relations between family members are
not always smooth, Anglo-American relations have weathered bigger
storms than Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO expansion, and differences in how to
approach the problem of global climate change.
Our blood ties are stronger than the vast and deep ocean of waters
that are between us. And those unbreakable bonds will see us through to
the next century and beyond, because we are brothers made so through
the parenthood of historical experience. Exchanges like those fostered
by the British-American Parliamentary Group are the nectar, the
ambrosia, that sweetens and sustains the close ties between our
nations. I look forward to this week's opportunity to join again at the
flower of good fellowship.
I second the words of Winston Churchill, who said in a speech in the
House of Commons on August 20, 1940:

The British Empire and the United States will have to be
somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for the
mutual and general advantage. For my own part looking out
upon the future, I do not view the process with any
misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop
it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it
roll, let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible,
benignant, to broader lands and better days.

Senator Stevens, our other colleagues who have agreed to join with us
at the Greenbrier, and my wife Erma and I welcome Lord and Lady
Jopling. My wife and I were in England--in York, as a matter of fact--
in August of the year before last, on the day that Princess Diana was
killed, and on which we returned to the United States after meeting
with the British-U.S. Parliamentary Group. I had the pleasure of
chairing the group when we Democrats were in control of the Senate. On
that occasion, I took the members of the British group down to the
Greenbrier, in Greenbrier County at White Sulphur Springs. We enjoyed
it. We all look forward to going there again.
Again, I welcome Lord and Lady Jopling, and the British members of
this year's exchange.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. As I understand it, we are in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. THOMAS. I can speak for approximately 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

____________________

SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about a bill introduced on
Friday on Social Security in which I and other sponsors were involved.
I mention it because it seems to me that it is one of the issues that
is most important. I just came back from Wyoming, and I talked with
folks about issues. Social Security is one of those that is, of course,
a top priority.
Obviously, most everyone knows Social Security has to be changed if
we are to fulfill the goals all of us want, and that is to protect
Social Security for those who are now beneficiaries, to keep it going
for those who are now paying in and will pay in for many years and can
then expect to be beneficiaries. Those are the things that have to
happen, and there have to be changes to cause that to happen.
We have a rapidly aging population. When we started Social Security,
there were some 30 people working for every one who was drawing
benefits. An individual paid $30 a year into Social Security in the
1930s. Then we got to where there were five people working for every
one who was a beneficiary. Now I believe it is less than three, and we
will soon be to the point where there will be one individual working
for every one person drawing benefits. We have to make changes. Of
course, people are living longer, so that also brings new demands on
the programs.

[[Page 16508]]

What are the options? There are several that are fairly obvious, some
of which are not particularly popular. A tax increase: We already pay
12.5 percent of what we make into Social Security. That is a rather
high percentage. For many people that is the largest tax they pay. So
tax increases are not particularly a good option.
We could cut benefits. I do not think people generally want to cut
benefits. There may be some changes made in benefits because people are
living longer and there are changes in our lives.
The third alternative is one which I think probably has the most
appeal, and that is to get a higher rate of return on the money we are
putting into Social Security and have been putting into it for some
time. That is the part of the bill we have introduced.
It is a bicameral, bipartisan bill that enhances the program through
private accounts. It will take a portion of the money you and I put
into Social Security--I believe it is about 2 percent of the 12.5
percent--and that becomes a personal account for each person. It can be
invested then at the direction of that account owner. It can be
invested in equities, stocks, it can be invested in bonds, or it can be
invested in a combination of those things. It will be invested by a
private investor such as the Federal employees program is now. You will
have a broad choice. The owners will not be doing the investing, but
they will be choosing the kinds of investment they want.
This can then accumulate as a nest egg for the owner. If the owner is
unfortunate not to live long enough to receive the benefits that will
accrue to his or her estate, it will be the owner's.
We have been talking a lot about a safety box, some way to take the
money that comes in to Social Security and ensure it is used for that
purpose and not spent for some other purpose or not loaned to the
general fund. This probably and certainly is the best way to do that.
I make the point that we are not looking at total privatization. Some
people accuse us of that. That is not the case. It is a partial
privatization. It puts money in so it can earn more than it has earned
in the past. As most people understand, excess in the trust funds now
has to be invested in Government securities. It has a relatively lower
return, lower than if you and I invested those securities. This is a
change for improvement.
We need to work on the lockbox. We tried five times to pass the
lockbox legislation to have some way to ensure Social Security funds
coming in are not expended for other things, and that they are, indeed,
kept for the purpose of maintaining and strengthening Social Security.
That is what we want to do.
There are some other good features of the plan. It is more
progressive. It guarantees larger benefits for low-income workers. It
increases widow benefits, which has been unfair in the past. It repeals
earnings limitations, if you are a beneficiary and choose to continue
to work. In, in fact, there are several incentives for continuing to
work. Since people are living longer and are healthier, there is more
reason and opportunity and willingness to work.
This bill is designed to protect current retirees. Current
beneficiaries will not be affected by the changes. It is aimed
primarily at young people who are beginning to pay into the program.
Almost all young people 20 years old say: We probably won't get
anything out of this; all we will do is pay. That is very unfair, and
we can change that.
There is a great deal of talk about doing something with Social
Security, but, frankly, the administration and our friends on the other
side generally have not come up with a plan. Now we have a bipartisan
plan which is before the Senate. We can do something that will make the
changes we propose to make and which are good for the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S.
1390 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business now closed.

____________________

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of
the motion to proceed to H.R. 1555, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill (H.R.
1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, frankly, this is a very important debate
that starts today on a very important bill, H.R. 1555, and there is a
very important amendment that we will allude to and talk about this
afternoon with reference to reorganizing the Department of Energy in
ways that have been suggested by many in order to minimize security
risks in the future and maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of
the department of the Department of Energy that works on the nuclear
weapons installations, facilities, and research within that department.
I note the presence of Senator Levin on the floor, and I want to be
as accommodating as he would like in terms of his using time. I am
prepared to speak a lot today about history and the like, but whenever
he is ready, I will be glad to yield to him.
I am going to start today's debate by inserting into the Record a
June 30, 1999, column from the Wall Street Journal, written by Paul C.
Light. He is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and the author
of ``The True Size of Government,'' Brookings, 1999.
I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Loose Lips and Bloated Bureaucracies

How can Washington prevent future security breaches like
the one at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory? Last week
former Sen. Warren Rudman, chairman of the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and head of a special
investigating panel, recommended a ``new semi-autonomous
agency'' within the Department of Energy that would have ``a
clear mission, streamlined bureaucracy and drastically
simplified lines of authority and accountability.''
Mr. Rudman is right to focus on the structure of the
department, not the failures of one or two key bureaurcrats.
For the Energy Department has never had more layers of
management than it does now--and its leadership has never
been more disconnected from what is happening at its bottom.
Secretary Bill Richardson last week appointed a security
``czar,'' Gen. Eugene Habiger, to serve as the fulcrum for a
newly rationalized chain of command. But the czar may merely
add one more layer to a meandering, mostly unlinked
collection of overseers who can easily evade responsibility
when things go wrong.
At the department's founding in 1979, its secretary, deputy
secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretary
``compartments'' contained 10 layers and 56 senior
executives. By 1998 those four compartments had thickened to
18 layers and 143 senior executives, including an assortment
of chiefs of staff and other alter-ego deputies who fill in
whenever their bosses are out.
The problem in such overlayered, top-heavy organizations is
not a lack of information on possible wrongdoing. Lots of
people knew about the vulnerabilities at Los Alamos. The
problem is finding someone who is

[[Page 16509]]

ultimately responsible for taking action. Which department
executive does Congress hold accountable for the security
breach? The secretary? His chief of staff? One of the two
deputy chiefs of staff? The deputy secretary? Undersecretary?
Assistant secretary for defense programs? For environmental
management? For science? How about the principal deputy
assistant secretary for military applications? Deputy
assistant secretary for research and development? Defense
laboratories office director? Perhaps the assistant secretary
for strategic computing and simulation? Or the inspector
general, deputy inspector general, or assistant inspector
general?
The answer is everyone and no one. And the diffusion of
accountability continues down into the University of
California, the contractor that supervises the Los Alamos
laboratory and three other DOE facilities. Whom does the
federal government hold accountable at the university? The
president? The senior vice president for business and
finance? Vice president for financial management? Associate
vice president for human resources and benefits? Assistant
vice president for laboratory administration? The executive
director for laboratory operations? Director of contracts
management? The manager for facilities management and
safeguards and security?
No wonder it takes a crisis to focus attention. With 15 to
25 layers just to get from the top of the department to the
top of Los Alamos, information is bound to get lost along the
way, and no one is accountable when it does.
The Department of Energy is hardly alone in such senior-
level thickening. Forced by repeated hiring freezes to choose
between protecting the bottom of government and bulking up
its middle and top, federal departments and agencies have
mostly sacrificed the bottom. In 1997, for the first time in
civil service history, middle level employees outnumbered
bottom-level ones. Nearly 200,000 senior and middle-level
managers have retired from government in the past few years,
and almost everyone next in line has been promoted--all at a
cost of $3 billion in voluntary buyouts for what turned out
to be a big retirement party with no effect on the basic
structure of government.
Some of the lower-level jobs have disappeared forever with
the arrival of time-saving technologies. Others have migrated
upward into the middle-level ranks as professional and
technical employees have added lower-level tasks to their
higher-paid duties. Still others have migrated into the
federal government's contract workforce which numbered some
5.6 million employees in 1996.
Meanwhile, the top of government has grown ever taller.
From 1993 to 1998, federal departments created 16 new senior-
level titles including principal assistant deputy
undersecretary, associate deputy assistant secretary, chief
of staff to the under secretary, assistant chief of staff to
the administrator, chief of staff to the assistant
administrator and--lets not forget--deputy to the deputy
secretary.
Spies will be spies, and the Los Alamos espionage probably
would have occurred regardless of the width or height of the
government hierarchy. But the breach would have been noticed
earlier and closed sooner had the top been closer to the
bottom. If Congress wants to increase the odds that nuclear
secrets will be kept in the future, it could do no better
than to order a wholesale flattening of the Energy Department
hierarchy. Then it should do the same with the rest of the
federal government.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about what
Mr. Light discusses in this column on the 30th day of June, 1999, and
set it a bit in perspective. As Senators and those listening today
might recall, starting about 3 months before this article written by
Paul C. Light appeared in the Wall Street Journal, word broke through
the media in the United States of the possibility that the People's
Republic of China had, in fact, breached security at Los Alamos
National Laboratory and, indeed, they may have some of the most
significant and profound secrets with reference to our nuclear weaponry
in their possession. That broke in the New York Times in a series of
articles, and thereafter it was in the headlines and on the front pages
of our papers for 3 or 4 weeks. Now it seems to have dwindled a bit
because Congress and the executive branch are working on what we ought
to do about it.
Frankly, one of the purposes for my being on the floor today and
tomorrow and for as many days as it takes until we can take up the
intelligence bill, H.R. 1555, which I have little to do with because I
am not on that committee, is an amendment that would permit us to
organize within the Department of Energy that aspect of the Department
of Energy's work that has to do with nuclear weapons.
The reason that is important is because the American people should
not be misled, nor should we let this issue go to sleep. The issue is a
serious one. The issue of who develops and protects our nuclear
weapons, and are they doing it in the best possible way, should be
front and center with the American people because if, in fact, the
security was breached to the extent that the Cox committee report had--
that is a House Member's name; he was chairman of a joint committee in
the House that prepared a report commonly known as the Cox report. If
it is as bad as he and other House Members say in that report, and as
bad as some others who have reported on it say, then clearly we are at
risk that the Communist Chinese has sufficient information to develop,
over time, a very significant arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Coupled with the fact that they are moving rapidly with respect to
delivery systems, then clearly in the next millennium we will have a
new adversary in the world. It will no longer necessarily be Russia as
a successor to the weapons systems and delivery systems--the U.S.S.R.--
but, essentially, we may have both Russia and China with substantial
nuclear weapons. We may feel secure with our Air Force and our Navy and
with our Army, as we have had these skirmishes in the past 3 to 5
years, but we will still be looking at a very dangerous world.
As a matter of fact, it may be the only single source of real power
and military might that Russia might have for the first 50 or 100 years
in the next millennium. And that is enough for a country that is not
doing very well to be a bit dangerous. It is certainly enough for the
world to be dangerous and America to be in danger and fearful if the
Chinese Communist regime has a determined and dedicated and significant
nuclear arsenal.
With that as a background, and with many hearings in both bodies--
some joint, some singular by different committees--over the weeks since
this was first broken, we have heard all kinds of evidence about how
this happened--some of it in secret, some of it public. As a Senator
from New Mexico, I have had to learn about nuclear weapons because two
of the laboratories are in my State, and I happen to be chairman of the
committee that funds all of the Department of Energy. I have said that
there is so much that went wrong that there is plenty of blame for
everyone. This is not exclusively a problem that occurred within that
laboratory at Los Alamos. It is not exclusively a problem that
something happened within the Department of Energy. It is not totally
dispositive of this issue to stand on the floor of the Senate and say
the FBI didn't do their job right--which they didn't. The problem is,
it was a comedy of errors. Everybody seems to have messed up on this
one.
Frankly, it seems that enough time has passed for us to be on the
verge of fixing it, and so let's talk a minute about how we are going
to fix it, and then I will read excerpts from the article that I asked
be printed. First of all, there is no question that we received a
formidable report from the PFIAB Commission, which is made up of five
members. It is a presidentially appointed group.
The President did something different about this one than in the past
in that he asked them to do the report and to plan to release it to the
public. They did. It was released to the public, and its principal
spokesman and chairman was the very distinguished former Senator from
New Hampshire, Mr. Rudman.
We will talk at length about what they recommended. But suffice it to
say they found that the management structure within the Department of
Energy was in such a state of chaos that it could not control, in the
form and manner that it existed over these past years, the security of
valuable secrets and information within the laboratories; that it was
incapable of doing it because it was disorganized, or organized in a
manner where there was no accountability. So that if you wanted to
blame the FBI for something that happened out of their Santa Fe, NM,
office, they could clearly, if they chose, say: Yes, but somebody else
fell down on the job.
If you asked the Director of the laboratories, he would say: Nobody
ever

[[Page 16510]]

told me about it. Nobody brought me on board. I thought since they were
doing an investigation of an individual that they were in charge of the
investigation, and I didn't have anything to do with it.
There are many examples, real and anecdotal, that say the Department
of Energy is incapable of maintaining within its current framework of
management such a significant system as the nuclear weapons system of
the United States of America.
Frankly, it pains me to come to the floor and say that I have arrived
at that conclusion unequivocally. And it pains me to say that I arrived
at it some time ago. As a matter of fact, there will be a big argument
made that we should move slowly.
I would like in due course, if not today, tomorrow, to outline why
the time has come to fix it in the manner recommended by the Rudman
commission, which is a Presidential commission. How much more time do
we need?
I will tell the Senate that 2 to 3 weeks before the Rudman report was
issued, this Senator from New Mexico was busy working with Senators
developing the exact same model that the Rudman commission ultimately
recommended to the Congress and the President of the United States for
restructure, in a formidable way with significant changes, of the
entire apparatus that functions within DOE and produces for us safe,
sound, and reliable nuclear weapons and that has all of the ancillary
functions which are related to that.
Having said that, it was not just yesterday that there were
recommendations that the Department of Energy was straining under its
own bureaucracy and that the nuclear weapons laboratories were victims
of it. In fact, we will allude to at least two prior reports and
recommendations to that of the Rudman commission by which clearly we
are sending a loud and clear signal: Fix it. It is not working. It is
the risky way you have it done.
I would add, it is not only risky as to security, but let me suggest
there is a substantial lack of efficiency and the ability to manage the
nuclear weapons system adequately and frugally to get the very best we
should have. It is almost an impossibility within the structure of the
Department of Energy, a hybrid department made up of many different
agencies and groups thrown together in a haphazard way. And then we
expect the nuclear weapons part of it to function under the overload of
management, rules, and regulations that apply across the board to any
kind of function within the Department, some so removed from nuclear
weaponry that you wouldn't even think of them being in the same
personnel department, in the same environmental department, or in the
same safety and health departments.
With that, let me move to the Wall Street Journal article and paint a
little history along with this writer, Mr. Light.
He starts by saying:

I could not say it any better.
Continuing on:

At the department's founding in 1979, its secretary, deputy
secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretary
``compartments'' contained 10 layers and 56 senior
executives. By 1998 those four compartments had thickened to
18 layers and 143 senior executives, including an assortment
of chiefs of staff and other alter-ego deputies who fill in
whenever their bosses are out.
The problem in such overlayered, top-heavy organizations is
not a lack of information on possible wrongdoing. Lots of
people knew about the vulnerabilities at Los Alamos. The
problem is finding someone who is ultimately responsible for
taking action. Which department executive does Congress hold
accountable for the security breach? The secretary? His chief
of staff? One of the two deputy chiefs of staff? The deputy
secretary? Undersecretary? Assistant secretary for defense
programs? For environmental management? For science? How
about the principal deputy assistant secretary for military
applications? Deputy assistant secretary for research and
development? Defense laboratories office director? Perhaps
the assistant secretary for strategic computing and
simulation? Or the inspector general, deputy inspector
general, or assistant inspector general?
The answer is everyone and no one. And the diffusion of
accountability continues down into the University of
California, the contractor that supervises the Los Alamos
laboratory and three other DOE facilities. Whom does the
federal government hold accountable at the university? The
president? The senior vice president for business and
finance? Vice president for financial management?

And on it goes. I will jump down in the article to another full
quote:

No wonder it takes a crisis to focus attention. With 15 to
25 layers just to get from the top of the department to the
top of Los Alamos, information is bound to get lost along the
way, and no one is accountable when it does.

I am going to skip a little bit of the article and move down to the
end of it with another quote. I will insert it with the underline parts
being that which I read.

Spies will be spies, and the Los Alamos espionage probably
would have occurred regardless of the width or height of the
government hierarchy. But the breach would have been noticed
earlier and closed sooner had the top been closer to the
bottom. If Congress wants to increase the odds that nuclear
secrets will be kept in the future, it could do no better
than to order a wholesale flattening of the Energy Department
hierarchy. Then it should do the same with the rest of the
federal government.

The reason I read excerpts from the article is that it is quite
obvious to me this man has his finger right on the problem.
Let me now proceed to a discussion of the latest thorough
investigation of the Department of Energy and its mission as the
primary functionary in nuclear weapons from research to security to
safekeeping, et cetera. Let me move to the latest thorough report, and
then we will go back to some others that existed prior thereto.
I don't know that I want to make this report a part of the Record,
but everybody should know if they want to read what has been said by
the latest contingent of reputable, dedicated, knowledgeable Americans,
I am reading from ``Science at its Best, Security at its Worst,'' a
report on security problems of the U.S. Department of Energy by a
special investigative panel, the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board, of June 1999.
There are plenty of these reports around for anybody who wants to
participate in this discussion. We will make them available. We will
see that some are in the Cloakroom for people who might want to review
them. I will talk a little bit about the significance of this report
and why I think the time has come to adopt its principal
recommendations.
For those who wonder what we are trying to do, obviously, we had to
draw from a lot of people to do what was recommended in this report.
While Members may not find every word of the extensive amendment I will
soon allude to in detail within this report, let me repeat, for anybody
interested in the security of the weapons laboratories and the nuclear
weapons activity of our Nation, the amendment we are trying to call up
as part of H.R. 1555 is the recommendations from this report.
Let's get in the Record what this report is. This report is the
result of a March 18, 1999, President Clinton request that the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, commonly known as
PFIAB, undertake an inquiry and issue a report on ``The security threat
at the Department of Energy's weapons lab and the adequacy of measures
that have been taken to address it.''
I will read the names of the board members and make sure the Senate

[[Page 16511]]

and everybody knows who they are: The Honorable Warren B. Rudman,
chairman; appointed members are Ms. Ann Z. Caracristi, Dr. Sydney
Drell, Mr. Stephen Friedman, to form the special investigative panel.
They are the members. They were given detailees from several Federal
agencies, including CIA, FBI, DOD, to augment the work of the staff.
They spent 3 months interviewing 100 witnesses, received more than 700
documents encompassing thousands of pages, and conducted on-site
research and interviews at five of the Department's National
Laboratories and plants: Sandia National Lab, Pantex in Texas, Oak
Ridge in Tennessee, Livermore in California, and Los Alamos in New
Mexico.
This report and an appendix that supports it, both of which are
unclassified, are now before the Senate. A large volume of classified
material which was also reviewed and distilled for this report has been
relegated to a second appendix and is authorized for special kinds of
authorized recipients.
This report examines the 20-year history--which I just alluded to in
reading the excellent article by Mr. Light--of security and
counterintelligence issues at the laboratories, with an issue on five
laboratories that focus on weapons and related weapons research. It
looked at the inherent tensions between security concerns and
scientific freedom at the laboratories. In effect, they looked at the
institutional culture and efficacy of the Department. They looked at
the growth and evolution of foreign intelligence and the threat
thereafter to the National Laboratories, particularly in connection
with foreign visitors programs, the implementation of effective
Presidential Decision Directive No. 61, the reforms instituted by the
Secretary, and other related initiatives.
At some point in time within the last 5 or 6 months when it started
to evolve that, in fact, there could have been a very serious,
significant, prolonged, and persistent breach at Los Alamos, the
President of the United States--and others might argue that the
timeliness of the President's actions is an issue. I am not sure that I
will argue that point. My point in what I will discuss today and
tomorrow, and for however long it takes to get this bill up and get
this amendment considered, is going to be discussing how we fix what is
wrong with this Department of Energy as it relates to nuclear weapons
and how we do it now--not 6 months from now, not a year from now, but
now.
Eventually, the President issued a Presidential decision directive
which is called No. 61. Now, that suggested in no uncertain terms that
some things be changed in the Department, and changed forthwith.
However, those were things the Department could do without any
legislation. They preceded the thorough recommendations that were made
by the Rudman commission. Then it included additional measures to
improve security and counterintelligence.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the page of the
abstract of the Rudman report, with the panel of members and the staff.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Panel Members

The Honorable Warren B. Rudman, Chairman of the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Senator Rudman is a
partner in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and
Garrison. From 1980 to 1992, he served in the U.S. Senate,
where he was a member of the Select Committee on
Intelligence. Previously, he was Attorney General of New
Hampshire.
Ms. Ann Z. Caracristi, board member. Ms. Caracristi, of
Washington, DC, is a former Deputy Director of the National
Security Agency, where she served in a variety of senior
management positions over a 40-year career. She is currently
a member of the DCI/Secretary of Defense Joint Security
Commission and recently chaired a DCI Task Force on
intelligence training. She was a member of the Aspin/Brown
Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the Intelligence
Community.
Dr. Sidney D. Drell, board member. Dr. Drell, of Stanford,
California is an Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics
and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has served
as a scientific consultant and advisor to several
congressional committees, The White House, DOE, DOD, and the
CIA. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a
past President of the American Physical Society.
Mr. Stephen Friedman, board member. Mr. Friedman is
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Columbia University and
a former Chairman of Goldman, Sachs, & Co. He was a member of
the Aspin/Brown Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of
the Intelligence Community and the Jeremiah Panel on the
National Reconnaissance Office.

pfiab staff

Randy W. Deitering, Executive Director.
Mark F. Moynihan, Assistant Director.
Roosevelt A. Roy, Administrative Officer.
Frank W. Fountain, Assistant Director and Counsel.
Brendan G. Melley, Assistant Director.
Jane E. Baker, Research/Administrative Officer.

pfiab adjunct staff

Roy B., Defense Intelligence Agency.
Karen DeSpiegelaere, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Jerry L., Central Intelligence Agency.
Christine V., Central Intelligence Agency.
David W. Swindle, Department of Defense, Naval Criminal
Investigative Service.
Joseph S. O'Keefe, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary of Defense.

Mr. DOMENICI. I note the presence of the cochairman of the committee
that actually has jurisdiction and is in control of the bill, H.R.
1555, Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.
I say to the Senator what I said to one of his staff members who was
on the floor. Whenever the Senator is ready, I will relinquish the
floor and yield. I am prepared to speak today and tomorrow and however
long is necessary until we all get together and get the bill up and get
the amendment to it called up. I am not here today to keep others from
speaking. My responsibility with reference to the amendment which we
propose is to start talking about the significance of it and of the
Rudman report to the future security prospects for our nuclear resource
development by the Department of Energy.
I started on that report of your good friend and mine, Senator
Rudman. This is not a bad breaking point for me if the Senator desires
to speak.
Mr. KERREY. I have a unanimous consent request, and then I am pleased
to let the Senator continue.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden, I ask
unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to David
Auerswald, an American Political Science fellow on the Democratic staff
of the Foreign Relations Committee, during the pendency of H.R. 1555,
to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities for the United States Government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what I want to do, in the presence of my
friend, is recap. I heretofore, I say to the Senator from Nebraska,
made the point of why we need some dramatic, drastic, and significant
reform of the Department of Energy as it applies to nuclear weaponry in
all its context. I have indicated there are a number of reports that
point in the direction of doing something very different, not just some
new boxes in the Department.
I said I would start with a review of the Rudman report as to what
they recommend, because the amendment I will be proposing and of which
Senator Kerrey is a cosponsor is our best effort to incorporate into
the bill language the Rudman recommendations. We are not inventing
something new, although some of us were on that trail before the Rudman
report. It is essentially an effort to convert these recommendations,
of which my colleagues are fully aware, to a bill, and that legislation
will be presented when we are on the bill. We do not know when that
time will come. We are now on a motion to proceed to that bill.
Let me now, in my own way, talk a bit about the Rudman report. The
Senate is now fully aware of who the commissioners are, what their
origins are, and the fact that this is the first such report that has
been made public. In the past, Presidents have used them, but they have
not made them public. The President asked from the outset that this
report be made public. That was prudent because we were in such a

[[Page 16512]]

state of confusion and chaos regarding how much of our future security
was actually stolen. This was a good way to say some people are
recommending ways to fix it. It is public.
Let me state to the Senate, and those interested, some of the
significant findings of this report. Remember, the reason the report is
significant is not because it is the only report of its type, but it is
the last one recommending drastic change. These findings I am going to
be talking about are in support of the bill we want to introduce,
because they are in support of the Rudman commission's recommendations.
Findings found at pages 1 through 6--I am going to pick out the ones
I think most adequately present the issue and the reasons for doing
something.
No. 1, from my standpoint:

More than 25 years worth of reports, studies and formal
inquiries--by executive branch agencies, Congress,
independent panels and even the DOE itself--have identified a
multitude of chronic security and counterintelligence
problems at all the weapons labs.

I give this fact at the outset because I am very concerned there
still will be some in the public, at the laboratories and in the
Senate, who will say we need more time. Remember, the finding I just
stated was that for 25 years there have been reports, studies, and
inquiries that addressed the issues in this amendment we want to call
up on the bill.
No. 2:

Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture
of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and at the labs
themselves--conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting
to happen.

Those are not my words. I might have phrased it differently.
Essentially, in the amendment we want to call up, we are also trying to
change the organizational disarray. We are trying to change it so that
managerial neglect will be harder to be vested in this part of the DOE.
We are addressing the culture, but we are not destroying the actual
necessary component within these laboratories of freedom for
scientists. But freedom is not absolute for scientists who work on
nuclear weapons. We want to give them as much freedom as is consistent
with minimizing security risks, and that means there has to be pushed
through management a change in the culture without changing the
scientific excellence.

. . . DOE headquarters and at the labs themselves--
conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting to happen.

The way it is phrased one would think they were doing something
intentional in that regard. I would not have used ``conspired.'' It
happened that way because of the way it is managed and the way the
culture has developed.
Let me move down to another couple I think are very important:

DOE has a dysfunctional management structure and culture
that only occasionally gave proper credence to the need for
rigorous security and counterintelligence programs at the
weapons laboratories. For starters, there has been a
persistent lack of real leadership and effective management
of the DOE.

They also factually concluded that the Department--and this is very
important--is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is
incapable of reforming itself. Why do I pull that one out? Because we
are hearing that we do not need to do everything this report recommends
because the Secretary is going to do it. As a matter of fact, the
Secretary is a friend of mine. He is from my State. He served in the
House and I in the Senate, and I have great respect for what he did. He
has done more in the Department in the past few months than anybody we
have had around in terms of seeing that it is really risky and things
are dangerous there; we have to get on with fixing them.
The point is, the Rudman commission said the Department's bureaucracy
is so dysfunctional that it cannot reform itself. For those who will
come to the Chamber either in opposition to the amendment or indicating
we should go slowly because the Secretary is doing some things, I will
keep reading them this statement.
This is not our statement. This is the statement of five of the best
people around appointed by the President of the United States to tell
us how to fix this. In fact, I will tell you one of them, Dr. Drell,
would be picked by anyone on any five-member commission that was going
to survey and recommend how we should handle nuclear weapons within our
bureaucracy better.
He is on this, and he agrees. They are saying the Secretary cannot
fix it because the bureaucracy is so rambunctious, so overlapping, so
inconsistent that it cannot fix itself.
Last:

Reorganization is clearly warranted to resolve the many
specific problems with security and counterintelligence in
the . . . laboratories, but also to address the lack of
accountability that has become endemic throughout the entire
Department.

I am going to move to a couple more facts. We all know--no, we do not
all know; some of us know because we have been around here long
enough--that we can look at who have been the Secretaries of Energy
over time, and the Rudman report has something to say about that.
This is a complicated Department, but if you know anything about it,
it runs all the nuclear weapons activities in the country. For
starters, one would think: Boy, we ought to put somebody in who knows a
little bit about that.
The report says:

The criteria for the selection of Energy Secretaries have
been inconsistent in the past. Regardless of the outcome of
ongoing or contemplated reforms, the minimum qualifications
for Energy Secretary should include experience in not only
energy and scientific issues, but national security and
intelligence issues. . . .

I am not going to list the Secretaries in the last 30 years since the
DOE was formed, and prior to it ERDA, but I am going to merely say
there have not been very many Presidents who gave serious consideration
to who should be the Secretary in the same context that the five-member
commission looked at what should be the qualifications.
There will still be some who will say: Well, look, we have a
Secretary who is trying. This has just come upon us. Let's go a little
slower.
The Rudman commission made another finding, and it is the following:

However, the Board is extremely skeptical that any reform
effort, no matter how well-intentioned, well-designed, and
effectively applied, will gain more than a toehold at DOE,
given its labyrinthine management structure, fractious and
arrogant culture, and the fast-approaching reality of another
transition in DOE leadership. Thus we believe that he has
overstated the case when he asserts, as he did several weeks
ago, that ``Americans can be reassured; our nation's nuclear
secrets are, today, safe and secure.''

That is an allusion to a statement by our Secretary of Energy. I take
it Secretaries have tried to tell us they are doing everything they can
within the structure they have and that we are moving in the direction
of making things safe.
This board--I frequently call it a commission--the Rudman board, has
taken a look at that statement versus what they think you can do in
that Department, and they have concluded that things are still kind of
at risk.
I note today, in the presence of the press the new securities czar,
the distinguished four-star general who was appointed, is saying: We're
working on it, but it is at least a year away in terms of having
something in place. I note that is in the news today.
What did this distinguished board--sometimes referred to in my
remarks as commission--actually recommend by way of reorganizations? I
want everyone to know I am going to repeat that there are other
reports, prior to this, that recommended dramatic changes within the
Department, and I have not yet alluded to them. I am only talking about
the Rudman recommendations.
They suggest that:

The panel is convinced that real and lasting security and
counterintelligence reform at the weapons labs is simply
unworkable within DOE's current structure and culture. To
achieve the kind of protection that these sensitive labs must
have, they and their functions must have their own autonomous
operational structure free of all the other obligations
imposed by [the department].

In order to do that, they say it can be done in one of two ways.

It could remain an element of DOE but become semi-
autonomous--by that we mean

[[Page 16513]]

strictly segregated from the rest of the Department. This
would be accomplished by having an agency director report
only to the Secretary of Energy. The agency directorship also
could be ``dual-hatted'' as an Under Secretary, thereby
investing [him] with extra bureaucratic clout both inside and
outside the department.

They go on to say:

Regardless of the mold in which this agency is cast, it
must have staffing and support functions that are autonomous
from the remaining operations at DOE.

Essentially, when you read the recommendations, the most significant
words are their functions must have their own autonomous operational
structure free of all other obligations imposed by DOE management.
You get that one of two ways. You get it semiautonomously--which I
have just read--or you can take it out of the Department of Energy in
toto, stand it free, i.e., NASA. They have suggested those are the two
ways.
Those of us who have been involved for years think that we ought to
start by trying to convince the Senate and House that we should make it
semiautonomous, leaving it within the DOE, for a number of reasons, and
only if all fails should we go the other route.
This Senator is very concerned about the laboratories that make us so
strong and contribute so much to our science effectiveness in the
world, that they remain the very best. I would not, for a minute, be
talking about restructuring if I did not think those laboratories could
continue to do work for others, work for other agencies, and work for
the Department of Defense and nuclear weapons. I believe they can and
they will. I believe they will, under the amendment about which we are
talking.
So while there is much more to talk about, in summary, H.R. 1555,
which is the annual intelligence authorization bill, the sooner we can
get it up on the Senate floor, the sooner we can bring up this
amendment, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski, et al. amendment, which has
every chairman of every committee who is involved in this as
cosponsors, along with a number of other Senators, and the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who is here on the floor with us,
Senator Kerrey, and Senator Feinstein of California. As soon as we can
start debating it--obviously, we are willing to listen; we do not claim
that every ``t'' is crossed right and every ``I'' is in the proper
place, but we believe the format to accomplish what the Rudman five-
member board recommended is within the four corners of that amendment,
and that is what we ought to be looking at now in the next few days to
get it done.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has done a
very good job of outlining an urgent need to change our law governing
the Department of Energy. I have high praise for him and Senators
Warner, Murkowski, Kyl, and, on our side, Senators Levin, Bingaman, and
Lieberman, who have worked to try to fashion a piece of legislation, a
law that will balance our need for secrecy and our need for security.
I appreciate very much, I say to the Senator, his leadership on this
and the sense of urgency that he has brought to the need to change our
law. My hope is that we, at the end of the day, at the end of this
debate--I do not think there is going to be very much objection to
moving to this bill--my hope is that we can get a very large majority,
if not a unanimous vote in support.
I know the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has some amendments he
wants to offer. He has talked to me a little bit about them. We will
have a chance to talk about those, I guess, tomorrow when we come to
it.
But there is no question that the laboratories have been a tremendous
source of pride and a tremendous source of discovery and a tremendous
success story as far as delivering to the United States of America
things that have made the United States of America more secure and more
prosperous.
Likewise, there is no question that over the years--over the last 20
years or so--since the Department of Energy was created, there has been
sort of a gradual buildup of layers of bureaucracy that make it more
and more difficult for any Secretary of Energy, whether that individual
has the requisite skills or not, to know what is going on in the
laboratories and to have the authority needed to manage those agencies
so those laboratories, as Senator Rudman, chairman of the PFIAB says in
the title of his report, can get both the best science and the best
security simultaneously. We unquestionably have the best science. I am
quite certain the Senator from New Mexico believes the same way I do.
In visiting the labs, in particular the lab that is under question, Los
Alamos, most of the people I have met there described themselves as
being very conservative to extremely conservative on the question of
security and expressed their concern that their reputation for keeping
the United States of America safe has been damaged. Of all the people
who are anxious to get the law changed so that the lab's reputation for
being the world's finest both for science and security can be restored,
there are no more powerful advocates of that than at Los Alamos
Laboratory from Dr. Brown on down.
This is an unusual opportunity because normally the intelligence
authorization bill goes through almost with unanimous consent. Since I
have had the opportunity a few years to come here with the chairman,
with usually about 15 minutes' worth of conversation and without a lot
of interest, the bill goes through. The good news this year is that it
will not go through quite so quickly. It is good news because it gives
us an opportunity to examine what it is this bill does and what it is
this bill does not do.
Unfortunately, current law does not allow us to tell the people of
the United States of America either how much we spend on all of our
intelligence collection, analysis, or dissemination efforts, or does it
allow us to tell what the individual components of that are. I say
``unfortunately'' because I do believe quite strongly that we would be
better off changing the law so the public did know both of those
things. I believe that unless the people of the United States of
America support what it is we are doing with our intelligence efforts,
it is very difficult, over a long period of time, to sustain that
effort. I myself am very much concerned that at the moment the general
public does not either understand what it is we do on the intelligence
side, or as a consequence of some very highly publicized failures are
they terribly confident that we are doing a very good job of collecting
intelligence, analyzing that intelligence, producing that intelligence,
and then disseminating that intelligence to either warfighters or to
national policymakers.
I have had the good fortune of watching the men and women who do this
work for a number of years. I am not only impressed with their skills,
but I am impressed with their patriotism and impressed with their
successes, most of which I cannot talk about on the floor this
afternoon.
Let me make the case, first of all, for secrecy. I think there are
times when it is absolutely vital and needed. When we have warfighters
on the field, as we recently had in Kosovo, we obviously can't provide
the target list to the public and let people know where it is that
these pilots are going to be flying. We cannot obviously provide
battlefield information. Otherwise, we are going to increase the risk
to these warfighters. It is always difficult in an environment where it
is just the United States, let alone where there are 18 allies, to
contain that intelligence and not have a terrible example of something
where intelligence information got to our enemies, and as a
consequence, they were better prepared, and as a consequence either we
were not as successful as we wanted to be or there were casualties as a
consequence.
It is a life-or-death matter that we keep these secrets. We have
asked men and women to put their lives at risk, and we have to protect
their interests. Otherwise, we will find it very difficult to find
volunteers to go on these missions.
It is needed for military operations. It is needed for some covert
operations

[[Page 16514]]

as well, where the President has signed a finding. He has asked that
certain things be done, again, in the interest of the United States,
overseen by the Congress. Today, I have very high praise for this
administration in that regard. Since the Aldrich Ames spy incident
where Aldrich Ames, traitor to his country, not only gave up U.S.
secrets, he gave up secrets that led to the deaths of many men and
women who were working on our behalf, this administration has
increasingly come to the oversight committees, one in the House and one
in the Senate that were created in 1976, with what are called
notifications of errors, notifications of problems and mistakes that
were made on a weekly basis.
We are receiving information that the executive branch thinks we need
to know in order for us to make judgments about what it is we think the
United States of America ought to be doing. So there is a lot more--in
fact, it feels like a fire hose at times--notifications that are
occurring in both the House and the Senate committee.
Indeed, our committee was notified about this particular incident in
1996, and I think we responded appropriately to it at the time. We
pushed back and asked for additional counterintelligence. When I say
``this particular incident,'' I am talking about the notification of
the possibility that the Chinese had acquired what we now know in
published accounts to be details about a weapons system known as the W-
88, our most sophisticated nuclear weapon, that the Chinese had
acquired that through espionage in the 1980s.
We were notified of that in 1996, 11 years after it was suspected to
have happened. I think the committees were properly notified, and I
think the committees properly responded and measured the relative
threat to other things in the world and pushed back and responded, I
thought, in an appropriate fashion. There was much more that we
probably could have done. I will let history judge whether or not we
did enough. The point is, there are secrets. As a consequence of those
secrets, under law, under a resolution we have created, the Senate
Committee on Intelligence and the House has done the same. Those
committees have congressional responsibility for hearing these secrets
and making judgments, first, about what kind of structure, what kind of
budget, and what kind of operations we are going to approve.
I make the case that secrecy is needed in order to maintain our
security both for military and for our operations. There are sources
that we use, there are methods we use, both of which must be kept
secret in order for us to continue to recruit and in order for us to
continue to operate with a maximum amount of safety for, again, the men
and women who have chosen, as a result of their patriotic love of their
country, to serve their country in these missions. We need to make
certain we provide them with the secrecy needed for them to conduct
their operations.
However, there are times when secrecy does not equal security. It is
a very important point for us to consider as we both debate this bill
and try to think about how we want to write our laws and think about
how we are going to do our operation. Sometimes secrecy can make
security more difficult.
There is a recently declassified report called the Venona Report that
describes the acquisition of information about spies inside the United
States during the post-World War II era. In that report, there is a
very interesting moment when General Omar Bradley, who at that time was
in charge of intelligence, made the decision not to inform the
President of the United States that Klaus Fuchs and others were spies
for the Soviet Union. The President was not informed. Secrecy was
maintained. General Bradley liked President Truman; he was an Army man
like himself. But he made a judgment that secrecy had to be maintained,
that the commanding officer of all our forces, that the President, duly
elected by the people, didn't have a need to know. So a judgment was
made to preserve secrecy.
I believe, as a consequence, policies didn't turn out to be as good
as they should have and security was compromised as a consequence. I am
not blaming General Bradley. I see it from time to time. Indeed, what
caused me to talk about this was my belief that we should change the
law and allow the people of the United States of America to know how
much of their money we are allocating for intelligence and how much in
the various categories is being allocated. I fear that all the public
has are bad stories about mistakes that are being made, the most recent
one being a mistake in targeting inside of Belgrade.
The Chinese Embassy was mistakenly hit one block away from another
target that should have been hit. A great deal of examination of that
has already been done. It caused us a great deal of trouble with the
Chinese Ambassador. Under Secretary of State Pickering had to make a
trip to China. This all occurred at a very delicate time when we were
trying to get the Chinese to agree to some changes in their policy to
ascend to the WTO. It was a big embarrassment.
I get asked about it all the time: What kind of so-and-so's are over
there? Are we getting our money's worth? Are we wasting our money?
Couldn't they just have spent $2 on a map that was readily available to
show where the Chinese Embassy was? Why spend billions of dollars on
all these folks if they don't even have good enough sense to use a
commercially made $2 map?
There are questions about the failure to predict the detonation of a
nuclear weapon in India over a year ago, which was followed by a
detonation by Pakistan. A third item I hear a lot is that the CIA
failed to predict the end of the Soviet Union, and anybody that can't
predict that doesn't deserve to get a lot of U.S. tax dollars.
It is unfortunate that only the bad stories get out. First of all, on
the targeting of the embassy, it was a mistake, but we were in a war,
for gosh sakes. We are being asked to deliver targets, asked to
identify the targets, and the operation's requirement was to minimize
the casualties to the United States and our allies. Not a single
American or single ally was killed during that entire operation. I
consider that a mark of tremendous success. That did not occur by
accident. There is no shelf of books with one saying ``T'' for targets
in Belgrade and Kosovo. We had to develop those targets on our own and
relatively late. We didn't expect the bombing operation to go on that
long. We had--when I say ``we,'' I mean the administration--the
impression that possibly it would be over quicker, based upon the
experience of 1995.
In short, it was a tremendous success. Not only were we able to
conduct that operation without a single allied casualty, but, in
addition, we reversed the trend of modern warfare in the 20th century.
Modern warfare in the 20th century has seen an increasing fraction of
casualties that are noncombatants. I believe, in this case, except for
the casualties produced by the Serbian army and their military police
and their paramilitary units in Kosovo, there was also success in
minimizing civilian casualties in this effort.
We could not, for example, have implemented Dayton. One of the untold
stories is the success of the intelligence operations. At that time, it
was General Hughes who organized the takeover authority in December of
1995. It was a United Nations operation, transferred over to NATO. They
worked night and day to set up a communications system that allowed us
to know who was and who wasn't abiding by the Dayton agreement--a very,
very complicated agreement. The people who were in charge of developing
our intelligence operation read it, knew it, and disseminated it down
the ranks. Everybody understood what had to be done. It was impressive
that, in a very small amount of time, we were able to put together an
intelligence collection and dissemination effort that enabled us to
implement the Dayton agreement.
There are many other examples, such as the Indian detonation of a
nuclear weapon. In fact, we had the intelligence collection that
predicted and prevented one about 18 months earlier. Nobody should have
been surprised. We

[[Page 16515]]

don't really need to have intelligence officers collecting and
predicting a detonation of nuclear weapons in India when the successful
party in an election promised, and made a part of their campaign a
promise, to detonate if they were elected, to test a nuclear weapon.
Anyway, I think it is very important for me, as somebody who has been
given by my leader the opportunity to sit on this committee and to
observe what is going on, to attempt to correct things I thought were
wrong, make decisions about how much taxpayer money to allocate, about
how to respond to mistakes made and intelligence errors that occur, how
to respond and correct those errors--it is very important for me to say
to taxpayers that my view is that you are getting your money's worth.
According to published accounts, we spend $28 billion a year. I wish
I could provide that number as well as some additional details, but if
that is the current dollar amount, according to published accounts, in
my view, just watching what is done, the American people are getting
their money's worth. There are tremendous threats in the world that our
intelligence agencies collect against. They supply that intelligence to
our warfighters, to our military people. Imagine what it would be like
to be in charge of U.S. forces in South Korea. You have the most
heavily militarized area in the world between North and South Korea.
There are about 37,000 young men and women in South Korea defending
against a possible attack from North Korea, and the question to their
commanding officer is: What are North Korea's intentions? What are they
doing? They need an answer.
It is an extremely hard target to penetrate and to know what is going
on. Those warfighters need to know that information. They can't operate
in the dark. Our intelligence collection operators do that time in and
time out, day in and day out, try to collect, process, produce, and
disseminate intelligence to warfighters and the national policymakers
and decisionmakers, in order that the United States of America can be
as safe as it possibly can be. My view is that they have achieved a
substantial success. They are not perfect; none of us are. But their
substantial success deserves a very high amount of praise.
Mr. President, a related problem we have with intelligence is that
many people presume that the Director of Central Intelligence, who
manages the CIA and other national intelligence efforts, controls it
all. Not true, though the Brown commission report that was assembled
after the Aldrich Ames betrayal recommended that increased authority be
given to the Director of Central Intelligence to budget and select
personnel for these other areas. For many reasons, these authorities
were not granted the Director. The current Director, Mr. Tenet,
controls far less than they realize, under law.
I don't believe that is a healthy situation. We were successful 2
years ago in getting the Director, under statute, some additional
authorities. But my view is that it is not enough to match authority
with responsibility. We have not done that. We are holding the Director
responsible for intelligence failures in many areas over which he has
no real direct budget authority or personnel authority.
So the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has properly identified
a problem at the laboratories, as a result of the structure of the law
that governs the Department of Energy, that needs to be fixed. The
concern is that through some set of facts--today, we don't even know
what the set of facts are--the Chinese probably acquired information
about our nuclear secrets, and, as a consequence, they may have the
capacity to build and deploy very dangerous weapons. They stole secrets
from us, and, as a consequence, we are concerned about how to increase
the secrecy of these labs.
I underscore with this statement that secrecy does not in all cases
equal security. There are times when secrecy will make security more
difficult to achieve. My own view is that the failure under law to let
the public know what our expenditures are, and how those moneys are
spent, decreases our security because, unless I am mistaken in just
sensing citizens' attitudes toward our intelligence agencies, they do
not have a sufficient amount of confidence that they are getting their
money's worth. As a consequence of that lack of confidence, I think we
are having a difficult time acquiring the resources necessary in a
world that is more complicated and a world that, in many ways, is more
dangerous than it was prior to the end of the cold war.
My hope is that this debate about the Department of Energy can occur
relatively quickly, that we can get to it tomorrow, that we can resolve
the remaining conflicts, and that we can get this intelligence
authorization bill passed. Both the chairman and I see the year 2000 as
a watershed year. We were successful last year in increasing the
resources given to our intelligence checks and analysis and production
and dissemination efforts. We need to continue that trend.
We have been downsizing in the 1990s. I believe very strongly that
that downsizing must stop if we are going to be able to honestly say
yes to the American people, that we are doing all we can to keep them
as safe as possible against a real range of threats which are still out
there in the world.
The United States of America is the leading nation on this planet. We
have the strongest economy. We have the strongest military. We have the
longest running democracy. We tend to take sides on issues, whether it
is in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, or someplace else on the
planet. We clearly take sides when it comes to fighting for individual
freedom--for the freedom of people in China, for the freedom of people
in Russia, and throughout this planet. We put our resources and our
reputation and our lives on the line.
In 1996--it has been so long ago--Americans stationed in Saudi Arabia
after the gulf war, flying missions and supporting missions in the
southern area, were killed. We suspect a variety of possibilities as
perpetrators. But they were killed not because they were in Saudi
Arabia by accident; they were in Saudi Arabia defending U.S. interests,
and they were killed because they were targeted by people who didn't
want them in Saudi Arabia.
We take sides, and, as a consequence, we are targets. We are targets
as well because we have been successful. There is jealousy and hatred
towards the people of the United States of America.
We understand the interconnected nature of our economy and of our
diplomacy throughout the world. A problem in Angola can be a problem in
Omaha, NE relatively quickly.
So we forward-deploy our resources. We don't just have missions in
NATO or missions that involve the United Nations. We are forward-
deployed throughout the world in an attempt to make the world more
peaceful, more democratic, and more prosperous. It is a mission the
United States of America has selected for itself. I thank God that it
has. It is a mission that has resulted in enormous success.
I don't know how the rest of my colleagues felt at the time, but I
remember quite vividly and was very moved for moments during Joint
Sessions of Congress--not that Presidents haven't moved me with their
State of the Union Addresses. But far more moving to me was Vaclav
Havel, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, and Kim Dae-jung of South Korea.
All four of these men came to a Joint Session of Congress and said to
the representatives of the people of this country: Thank you; you have
put your lives on the line for our freedom; you put your money on the
line for our freedom; you stayed the course, and we are free.
Since Kim Dae-jung of South Korea gave that address, if I ever ran
into a man who fought in the ``forgotten war'' in South Korea in the
1950s, I am quick to say this. I know there are many criticisms of that
war. Many people wondered whether or not it was worthwhile. Let me tell
you, on behalf of the President of South Korea and the people of South
Korea, that that war was worth fighting.
All one has to do is look at the difference between living in freedom
in

[[Page 16516]]

South Korea--an imperfect democracy, as many are; but, nonetheless, the
people of South Korea are free; their standard of living is higher;
they have the liberty to practice their religion, to speak on the
streets--and North Korea, which is a nation of great suffering and
great anguish. Large numbers of people are dying as a consequence of
malnutrition. The country is arguably in the worst condition of any
country on the face of this Earth.
That didn't occur by accident. The world marketplace didn't get that
done. I am a big fan of the marketplace and a big fan of what business
can do. The intervention that liberated the people of South Korea was
not the intervention of Sears & Roebuck; it was the intervention of
American forces, American will, American blood, and American money. The
people of South Korea are free as a consequence.
We didn't make a decision based on the shape of their eyes or based
on the color of their skin or based upon their religion. We didn't do
it based upon a desire to own territory or a desire to own wealth or a
desire to establish a colony. We did it based upon a desire to fight
and to keep the people of South Korea free.
When you take a stand such as that, as the distinguished occupant of
the Chair knows--he has been in politics a very long time, an
outstanding public servant--you know when you take a stand, especially
on a controversial subject, you are apt to provoke some enemies; you
are apt to get people organized against you. They don't agree with the
position on this, that, or the other thing.
The United States has enemies as a result of taking a stand and as a
result of our having taken a stand throughout the world in general on
behalf of freedom.
We provoke animosity in many ways. We are at risk, as a consequence,
not just from nation states--that is the older world where nation
states were the No. 1 threat--today, it is nonnation state actors such
as Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who organize themselves away
from the normal powers and structures of government. Cyber warfare,
biological and chemical warfare--all of these things we have discussed
at length are real and present dangers to the people of the United
States of America.
It is certainly true that our diplomats at the State Department and
our diplomats in other areas of Government have to try to use our
intelligence and produce diplomatic successes, as well as to reduce
threats. But the State Department, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Agriculture--throughout Government--the Congress, and the President of
the United States regularly receive analysis that has occurred after
checks have been done, after analysis has been done, after production
has occurred, and then it is disseminated to people who make decisions
all the time and, hopefully, make better decisions as a consequence of
the intelligence delivered to them.
My view is that this budget decline we have experienced in the 1990s
needs to stop. I hope that this intelligence authorization bill will be
passed by the Senate, that we can go to conference quickly with the
House, and get it to the President for his signature. I have no doubt
that the President, subject to our not putting things on here that the
President can't support, will sign the bill.
One of the things that I think undercuts our ability to do that is
the continued belief we have to keep from the American people how much
money is being spent. I have said that often enough now. I am not going
to offer an amendment. I can count votes. I know that amendment would
not succeed. But I intend to continue to make the point and try to
persuade, especially my friends on the other side of the aisle, that we
will increase the Nation's security by making this information publicly
available to the American people.
Again, the point here is that 100 percent secrecy does not always
equal 100 percent security. Sometimes 100 percent secrecy can actually
decrease the security, as a consequence of the right people not getting
the information. As a consequence of discussions not proceeding subject
to compartmentalization that prevented one key person from talking to
another key person, and, as a consequence, neither one of them knew
what the other was doing, the result is that a bad decision was made.
I also would like to discuss an issue that, to me, is extremely
important. I don't know if the Senator from New Mexico has additional
things he wants to say.
Does the Senator from Michigan desire to speak? Since I will be
assigned to sit down for a long period of time, Senators may want to
move on. I think I will have plenty of time to talk about this bill.
Mr. President, I presume they would like to speak. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nebraska and my
friend from New Mexico for their courtesies in sharing the floor so
that we can chat about some of the issues which we will be taking up
when we move to this bill tomorrow, which I hope and expect we will.
One of the issues we are going to be taking up, which will probably
take more time than other issues in this bill, is the Department of
Energy reorganization issue. This comes to the floor on this bill.
Whether it is the best place or not, it is going to happen. I think
everyone wants this reorganization issue to be resolved, hopefully, in
some kind of a consensus manner, if possible, in a way that it can
become law.
There is strong opposition in the House to the reorganization of the
Department of Energy being added to either the Department of Defense
authorization bill or to this appropriations bill, this intelligence
appropriation. That is a fact of life we have to deal with.
I suggest the more we are able to come together in a bill which has
more of a consensus support, the stronger position we are going to be
in, in trying to persuade the House to take up this matter promptly,
for all the reasons the Senator from New Mexico gave, as well as to get
the President to sign the bill. I hope we will take these hours between
now and the time this bill is before the Senate to attempt to work out
some of the differences that do exist.
I simply want to summarize where at least I am in terms of the
recommendations of the Rudman commission. I am for those
recommendations. The label of the agency is not as important to me as
the powers of this new agency--semiautonomous agency, separately
organized agencies, as they are called, including DARPA. I believe we
should have a separately organized agency which is synonymous with, I
presume, a semiautonomous agency.
That does not resolve the issue, simply to agree on a label. The
question then is: What powers will that agency have and what is the
relationship of that new agency to the Department of Energy? That is
the issue we should try to resolve in a consensus manner if we possibly
can.
We want two things to be true: We want this agency to have a
significant degree of autonomy, independence, separate organization,
separate staff, legal advice, personnel advice. We want them to have
their own set of staff so they can operate in a significantly
independent way.
On the other hand, we want the Secretary to be able to run his
agency, to run the overall agency. If it is going to be in the Energy
Department, if it is not going to be carved out of the Energy
Department--which was the other alternative that Rudman suggested as a
possibility--if it is going to be inside the Energy Department, then we
have to have the Secretary be able to implement the policies of the
Department of Energy, which have to apply to all parts of the
Department of Energy, whether or not they are ``separately organized''
agencies within the Department.
That is the balance we are trying to strike. I will come to that a
little bit later, as to how other separately organized agencies within
the Department

[[Page 16517]]

of Defense have struck that balance. Reaching a consensus, instead of
having a significantly divided vote, is going to strengthen the
prospects for reorganization of the Department of Energy along the
lines Senator Rudman has proposed.
Do we need to reorganize the Department? We sure do. For 20 years or
longer, there have been reports after reports after reports of lack of
accountability, of duplication, of an inability for this Department to
function in a very smooth and strong way, particularly as it relates to
elements of national security. We should do something about it. We
should do it now. It doesn't mean we should simply say let's delay it
for some later time. On that, I think, there is a consensus. We ought
to fix this Department, not just say let's do it at a later time.
I hope there is also some agreement that we ought to take the few
days that may be necessary to try to put together a reorganized DOE--
one which has a separately organized agency to handle these nuclear
issues--so we can have a stronger chance of this becoming law. We have
all been frustrated by the breakdown in security which the Cox
commission report highlighted by the so-called PFIAB report, the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which Senator Rudman
chaired. That frustration has been compounded by the fact that past
administrations and past Congresses have received literally dozens of
intelligence studies, GAO reports, FBI briefings, going back to the
mid-1970s, detailing inadequate security safeguards at the Department
of Energy labs and detailing foreign espionage efforts to obtain
sensitive U.S. technology. This has been going on for over 20 years.
This is what Senator Rudman said at a joint hearing of four Senate
committees:

I had our staffs sit down and add up the number of reports
that have found problems with the security of the DOE for the
past 20 years. The numbers are astounding. 29 reports from
the General Accounting Office, 61 internal DOE reports and
more than a dozen reports from special task forces and ad hoc
panels. Altogether, that is more than 100 reports, or an
average of five critical reports a year for the past two
decades.

Here we are, 20 years down the road, Senator Rudman said, still
battling with the same issues. I think you would agree with me, that is
totally unacceptable. All Members listening that day I think were
nodding our heads, without exception.
As Senator Rudman noted last month, security at the Department of
Energy has been an accident waiting to happen for over 20 years. Three
administrations and Congress share the responsibility for not doing
more over the years to heed the warnings of those reports to legislate
corrective action. The challenge is to put that frustration, which we
all share, to constructive use and to put in place an effective and
workable management structure, the Department of Energy's nuclear
weapons program, that ensures our vital national security secrets are
not compromised in the future.
The Rudman recommendations include not just putting in place a
separately organized agency but also putting that agency under the
effective direction and control of the Secretary of Energy. That is
going to be, it seems to me, what we have to resolve. We want it
separately organized, but we want the Secretary to have effective
direction and control of that agency. Those are two goals. Those two
goals can be harmonized. They have been with other separately organized
agencies, including some that I will mention in the Department of
Defense which are used by Senator Rudman as his model, including DARPA.
We should seek both things: That semiautonomy, or that separate
organization, which will put some focus and accountability inside that
agency. If we are going to leave it in the Department of Energy--and
that seems to be the consensus, that we leave it inside the
Department--we must be able to have a Secretary who can effectively
direct and control that semiautonomous or separately organized agency
within his Department. It is a real challenge, but it is doable. We
will do it with some care. They are both legitimate goals.
There have been some steps taken already to achieve those goals. As
the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, we had a Presidential Decision
Directive No. 61 which President Clinton signed over a year ago. The
Rudman report noted, to its credit, in the past 2 years the Clinton
administration has proposed and begun to implement some of the most
far-reaching reforms in DOE's history. In February of 1998 that
directive was signed. The Rudman report highlighted 5 of the most
significant of the 13 initiatives in Presidential Directive No. 61.
First, counterintelligence and foreign intelligence elements in DOE
would be reconfigured into two independent offices and report directly
to the Secretary of Energy.
Second, the Director of the new Office of Counterintelligence would
be a senior executive from the FBI and would have direct access to the
Secretary of Energy. That is a very important question we are going to
have to resolve and take up again, whether or not we want the director
of a new Office of Counterintelligence to be not only a senior
executive from the FBI but to have direct access to the Secretary of
Energy. If we want to hold the Secretary of Energy accountable, which I
do, then we have to access to him directly, it seems to me, a director
of a new Office of Counterintelligence. That will be one of the issues
we will be discussing and hopefully resolve.
Third, existing DOE contracts with the labs would be amended to
include counterintelligence program goals, objectives, and performance
measures to evaluate compliance with these contractual obligations.
Counterintelligence personnel assigned to the labs would have direct
access to lab directors and would report concurrently to the Director
of the Office of Counterintelligence.
The Senate has also acted in a number of ways. We passed significant
legislation this year under the leadership of Chairman Warner in the
Armed Services Committee. We have adopted a series of measures in the
National Defense Authorization Act which were designed to enhance
counterintelligence, security, and intelligence activities at DOE
facilities.
These measures include putting in statute most of the specific
recommendations on security and counterintelligence contained in PDD-
61. For instance, our bill, which is now in conference, includes a
provision establishing separate offices of counterintelligence and
security at DOE, each reporting to the Secretary. That provision, which
the Senate already adopted, is in the DOD authorization conference,
which is going on right now. It is taking up a Senate provision which
establishes an office of counterintelligence and security at the DOE
reporting directly to the Secretary.
That is not inconsistent, in my book, with having a
counterintelligence chief at the agency. I do not view that as being
inconsistent. On the other hand, we have to be clear one way or the
other as to whether or not we believe there is an inconsistency in
having both a counterintelligence person for the entire agency directly
reporting to the Secretary, as well as having this new agency having
its own counterintelligence chief. To me, that is not inconsistent, but
the people who are offering the amendment may view that as being an
inconsistency.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. On page 5 of the amendment, which I think my colleagues
have, we adopted the language that is in the Armed Services bill:

The Chief of Nuclear Stewardship Counterintelligence shall
have direct access to the Secretary.

Secretary of Energy.
Mr. LEVIN. That is somewhat different than the provision in the
Senate bill which established the separate Office of
Counterintelligence and Security at the DOE reporting directly to the
Secretary. We have to work out whether we intend that to be the same or
whether we intend that to be two separate offices of
counterintelligence.
For instance, the new agency, I say to my good friend, is going to
presumably have its own personnel director

[[Page 16518]]

and its own programs inspector general and its own general counsel, but
so is the Department of Energy going to have its own general counsel
and its own personnel director and its own inspector general. There
will be an office in that separate agency, and there will be an office
at the Department. That is not inherently inconsistent. We do similar
things with DARPA and with other separately organized agencies.
It seems to me, to make sure that we are not creating confusion and
lack of accountability, we would want to make that clear in the
amendment that we, indeed, are talking about an office at the
departmental level, as well as now a separate office with some of these
staff functions at this separately organized agency.
Again, that is the kind of language which I think is important we
attempt to work out.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not know how much longer the
Senator wants to speak, but I can only be here about 15 or 20 minutes
and I still have a few comments. I want to listen attentively to what
he is saying.
I believe I heard the Senator mention four or five things. I ticked
them off as he mentioned them, and we find there may be two that are
not in the bill which were thought to be management techniques. Three
out of five or three out of six are in the bill. I am willing to work
on anything my colleagues want to work on, except I want to make sure
of what I consider to be the most important recommendation of all, when
the Rudman report says:

To achieve the kind of protection that all these
laboratories have, they and their functions must have their
own autonomous operational structure free of all the other
obligations of DOE management.

If we start with that, then I think we can work on that in terms of
how you get there and make sure it means what you want it to mean.
Frankly, I am very pleased this afternoon because I heard both the
Senator from Michigan and the cochairman of the Committee on
Intelligence say they want to get on with the bill and they want to try
to work on the amendment to get it as bipartisan as we can.
Frankly, if that is the way we are moving, I am ready to say, let's
work on it. I have given my colleagues my draft. It is the final draft.
As soon as my colleagues have amendments, we want to look at them. I
have three or four Senators to check with, and I am sure my colleagues
have, too, but I do think you clearly understand, in the way the
Senator has expressed it, that it will have its autonomous functions
within that agency.
The Senator has a great concern, and if I was not positive that we
had satisfied it, I would not be here.
On the second page, paragraph (C), we say:

The Secretary shall be responsible for all policies of the
agency. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship shall
report solely and directly to the Secretary and shall be
subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary.

That was put in because everybody said we ought to do that. It was a
little earlier than some of you think. My colleagues missed it for a
while. It is there.
At the end of the page we also say:

That the Secretary may direct other officials of the
Department who are not within the agency for nuclear
stewardship to review the agency's programs and to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the administration
of these programs, including consistency with similar
programs and activities of the Department.

The Senator from Michigan has expressed a concern about that one.
This may not be exactly the wording he would like, but I believe it
moves in the direction of one of his previous concerns.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico. Senator
Rudman has said the following, in addition to the quotation my
colleague cited:

That the Secretary is still responsible for developing and
promulgating DOE-wide policy on these matters.

Then he said, and this is in his memorandum of clarification dated
June 30, the second paragraph from the bottom:

He is still responsible----

Talking about the Secretary----

for promulgating DOE-wide policy on these matters, and it
makes sense to us that a Secretary would want advisers on his
or her immediate staff to assist in this vein. We understand
that is why Secretary Richardson recently created DOE-wide
czars to advise him on security and counterintelligence.

There is a need for a Secretary who is running a Department to have,
as Senator Rudman points out, advisers on his or her immediate staff to
assist him in developing and promulgating DOE-wide policy on these
matters.
I want to take up the suggestion of my friend from New Mexico. It is
possible we can achieve both, as the DOD does with DARPA and other
separately organized agencies, or what I think the Senator from New
Mexico would indicate are semi-autonomous agencies, agencies which are
not separate from a Cabinet-level agency; they are not separate from
the Department. We are not creating a new department, and I do not
think the Senator from New Mexico wants to create a new department. We
want this inside a department which is subject to departmental-wide
policies and a Secretary who is able to effectuate those policies.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can I comment?
Mr. LEVIN. Sure.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is a fair statement that the Senator made about
what I would like to see. I also stated on Friday past, the first time
I ever said this as a Senator who has been involved with these nuclear
activities since I arrived--and I have been chairman of the
subcommittee that appropriates it for almost 6 years--if the
semiautonomous agency is weakened, to the extent it is really just
another of blocks on a chart, I will wholeheartedly support taking it
all out of the Energy Department and making it a freestanding
department. In fact, I am almost looking at this that if it were a
freestanding agency like NASA, and moved within the Department, how
would the Secretary control it? I am beginning to think of it that way.
He still would have to control it so long as it is in his Department.
But I think we have said that in the amendment.
We are willing to work with you on whether there are better ways to
make sure he still is the boss; that is what you are talking about,
that he is in control. The Under Secretary in charge of this new
semiautonomous agency is not totally independent or we would not call
him ``semiautonomous.''
Mr. LEVIN. Exactly.
Mr. DOMENICI. If we wanted him independent, we would put him out here
like NASA and call him an Administrator or Director. So as long as we
are thinking the same way, we are willing to work with you.
Mr. LEVIN. As I understand what you are saying, you want one
Secretary to be able to have effective direction and control of this
quasi-autonomous agency that is in his Department. With that standard,
if that is a standard which you also accept, it seems to me that we
ought to be able to find common ground. Whether that includes all the
other Senators who have interests in this, neither of us can say. But
as far as I am concerned, the test for me is whether or not we leave
the Secretary of Energy like the Secretary of Defense with DARPA,
having effective direction and control of that separately organized
agency which has been called here a semiautonomous agency. That is my
standard.
I am going to continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle; and our staffs will share some amendment language which at least
this Senator is working on. There are other Senators who have
amendments as well. We will get you our amendment language by the end
of the day in the spirit of trying to achieve some kind of a joint
position on this going into the debate tomorrow.
I am happy to yield the floor. I heard my friend from New Mexico
indicate that he is only able to stay a few more minutes. I am
basically done. There are a few more thoughts I have about some of the
separately organized agencies inside the Department of Defense and the
way they are organized. They were used as the models by Senator Rudman.
If we follow those models, I think--not exactly and not precisely--but
if we follow the spirit of those models, we will have a Secretary of
Energy

[[Page 16519]]

who can effectively direct and control his semiautonomous agency that
would be created, including, it seems to me, to be effective, the use,
as Senator Rudman pointed out, of advisers on his immediate staff to
assist him in effectively directing and controlling--which are my last
words, not Senator Rudman's.
I yield the floor and thank my friend from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I will not take very long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank you for recognizing me.
I say to Senator Levin, I have read that part of the Rudman report
which talks about the Secretary having adequate input and having staff
to make input. Let me tell you what I would be very worried about; and
I remain worried about it as we talk with the members of the staff of
the Secretary.
I think the worst thing we could do is to create this semiautonomous
agency on paper but make it still like it is subject in every detail to
the Secretary of Energy and his staff. So I am not going to sit by and
tell you I agree because I do not agree that we should say on the one
hand an Under Secretary is going to run it, and it is created with
autonomous authority for him, and then say the Secretary's office can,
with various staffers, run it day by day. Because then all we have done
is created autonomy and then taken it away.
There are two ways to take it away. One is very direct. For example,
just take out the environment and say they do not have control of the
environment. That is one way. The other is to put it all back into the
Secretary in detail so his staff can be running it.
I think you and I would be serving our country terribly if we created
it, in a poor manner, semiautonomous and then found in 5 years, when it
was set up, that three strong men in the Secretary's office were
running it. I think that would be the worst ending we could have
because we would be back to seeing how good they were at things; and
without that, it would be an unsuccessful operation. There would be
more masters rather than just the one we are looking for.
Having said that, I want to speak for a moment--because I forgot to
during my opening remarks--about the kind of science that exists at
these laboratories, especially our three deterrent laboratories and two
that help them that are partially in this mode, and a little bit about
the origin of all this work.
I want to start by ticking off a few names. This is by far not the
entire list.
This whole scientific entourage that we have here which we call the
nuclear weapons laboratories, the great crown treasures of our science-
based research, was started in an era when America did not have enough
scientists of its own who were nationalists, American born and raised,
educated in America.
So guess what the list of the early Manhattan Project scientists who
helped us get a bomb sounded like. They sounded like Italians. Enrico
Fermi; he was an Italian. He was at one of the other laboratories in
the country. Both he and his wife were taken to Los Alamos and they
became some of the principal players. It sounded like Hans Bethe; it
sounded liked Edward Teller, Carl Fuchs--and the list goes on.
Frankly, we were taking a real gamble because they knew what they
were doing, each and every one of them. Collectively, they knew they
were preparing an atomic bomb for the United States of America to
either win the Second World War or to use it to stop it. They were
working at a ferocious pace to get it done before the Germans got it
done. We all remember that as we read about it.
Those scientists had contacts all over the world, whatever kind of
world it was at that point in time. The same thing is happening today.
We should not be surprised that we have marvelous Chinese scientists at
our laboratories. They are American born, American educated, and I
assume some are naturalized citizens, and they are among our best.
It just so happens that the Chinese seem to have breached our
security in some intricate ways, not the way the Russians did it. They
did not come along with a big bribe and pay somebody off. They did it
in an intricate way by little bits and pieces. Since the Chinese
scientists who make their nuclear program work are intimate about
Americans in science, would you believe that it is our understanding
that the chief scientist in charge of their nuclear weapons development
has a Ph.D. from one of our universities? You do not think he knows
American scientists of his era? He was apparently a very good nuclear
physicist or scientist--Ph.D.--from one of our universities. We
understand in the hierarchy there may be six or seven who were educated
as MIT or Caltech or someplace, and they are running their program.
The point of it is, we cannot, in some fit or frenzy, put a wall up
around these laboratories and say these scientists cannot exchange
views around the world; they cannot travel to conferences.
Let me ask you, do you think they would stay at the laboratories, if
they are among the greatest minds around, if you told them they can be
only half a scientist, that they cannot go to a conference where
Chinese scientists are coming who may exchange views on something
extraordinarily new in the field of physics which has nothing
necessarily to do with nuclear bombs? The truth of the matter is, if
you try it, do you know who the losers will be? The losers will be the
American people, because we won't have the greatest scientists in those
laboratories. What has made us the most secure nuclear power in the
world? Our scientists. We talk about everything else, but it is the
scientists over the last 40 years, successors to this list I gave --
incidentally, I did not mean to imply that there weren't many early
scientists who were American; obviously there were. Some of the leaders
were Americans, no question about it. We should not leave the
impression that we don't want scientists, whatever their national
origin is or whatever their basic culture is, working in our
laboratories and we want to muzzle them; for if we put a wall around
the laboratories, it will be a matter of a decade and nobody will want
in the laboratories, much less out of the laboratories. Instead of
worrying about getting secrets out, we will have to worry about getting
enough good things to happen where there are some secrets.
I want to make that point so everyone will know that my approach and
the approach I am working on with other Senators to create this
semiautonomous agency is not directed at closing these laboratories,
closing the lips and the brains of scientists and putting them behind a
bar up there.
When I was a young boy, believe it or not, we had a family that could
all fit in one big car. On a number of occasions we drove from
Albuquerque to Los Alamos because we were inquisitive. We had heard
that if you went up there, they wouldn't let you in. So we would drive
up, and they wouldn't let us in. We would drive up to these big gates,
and that was the Los Alamos scientific laboratory. No trespassing. So I
was there. That was the early version of this. Now they have grown into
much larger institutions, much more sophisticated kinds of science.
In addition, because my friend Senator Levin has been talking about
things that concern him, I will mention two or three things that I want
everyone to know.
First, what is a semiautonomous agency and what is an independent
agency? The best I can tell Senators is, a model of independence would
probably be NASA. I don't know the best model for a semiautonomous
agency within a department, but I will tell my colleagues that what it
means is described very clearly in the Rudman report, that the
functions of this agency must be autonomous and not subject to the
everyday rule of the larger department.
If we are not prepared to do that, then let's not kid ourselves and
say we have done it halfway. It must be done in a way that is
consistent with the agency director reporting only to the

[[Page 16520]]

Secretary of Energy and in a manner that would assure that its
functions are autonomous, even if it means we must have a duplication
of functions. Because if there is one set of functions, we are back
where we are. If it is not subject to the Secretary's power, then it is
not semiautonomous; it is autonomous.
I think we are on the same side, trying to make it semiautonomous,
which means the Secretary is still all powerful. Having said that, let
me say that as we proceed, I am willing to look at the document line by
line as it gets introduced--it has been circulated--and cite where I
believe we have covered most of the aspects that are of concern and
that have been expressed as of concern on the floor, save two.
One of them has to do with the laboratories being able to take work
for other agencies, for the Defense Department and from the Energy
Department, and thus remain laboratories that are diversified, that
are, thus, very attractive to scientists. I will insert in the Record,
and not read much from it, testimony given in the Committee on Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Committee on Science
Subcommittee on Energy in the House, by William Happer.
Dr. Happer is one of the distinguished scientists in the United
States and used to be in the department. He concludes in the statement,
in reference to the new agency:

I do not think that the ANS need hinder the support by
other parts of DOE, or by outside agencies, of science at the
Weapons Laboratories. As a former director of the Office of
Energy Research, I saw, at very close quarters, how work was
funded by my office at the Weapons Laboratories, and how
other Federal agencies--for example, the National Institutes
of Health, or DARPA--arrange to have work done. The creation
of an ANS within DOE might actually help the interactions
between the Science Laboratories and the Weapons Laboratories
if it leads to better management [at the semiautonomous
agency].

I ask unanimous consent that the Happer statement of July 13 in its
entirety be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Testimony of William Happer

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on current
proposals to restructure the DOE. I am a Professor of Physics
at Princeton University and Chair of the University Research
Board. I am also the Chairman of the Board and one of the
founders of a high-tech startup company, Magnetic Imaging
Technologies, Inc., which makes images of human lungs with
laser-polarized gases. So I have experience with the business
world outside of academia. I have had a long familiarity with
the activities of DOE, as a practicing scientist, as a member
of advisory committees for DOE Weapons Laboratories and
Science Laboratories, and as the Director of the Office of
Energy Research under Secretary of Energy James Watkins
during the Bush administration.
The DOE has many missions, but none more important than
nuclear stewardship, that is, ensuring the safety, security
and reliability of the US nuclear stockpile. Connected with
this mission are--or at least used to be--many others, the
construction and operation of nuclear reactors for the
production of special nuclear materials, the enrichment of
stable isotopes, the construction of scientific facilities to
learn more about the fundamental scientific issues connected
with nuclear weapons, and how to ensure the safety of those
working with dangerous materials--radioactive, toxic or both.
I could go on, but my point is that the DOE weapons program
is so challenging that it needs the most capable technical,
scientific and managerial talents available. As long as the
United States maintains its own nuclear weapons and feels it
necessary to cope with those of others, we must ensure that
the part of DOE responsible for nuclear weapons functions as
well as possible.
Regretfully, I must agree with various assessments,
stretching back many years, that DOE's missions--including
the nuclear weapons mission--are often poorly managed. The
recent Rudman and IDA reports, the Galvin report of a few
years ago, and many others have clearly spelled out what is
wrong. The DOE has become a bureaucratic morass, with many
paper-pushing, regulatory offices competing to build up their
staffs of FTE's and SES billets, to take credit for successes
of increasingly-harried, front-line scientists, engineers and
technicians, and to avoid responsibility for anything that
may go wrong. The recent revelations of Chinese espionage and
the DOE reaction to it are but one example of how difficult
it is for the DOE to cope with serious real and potential
problems in the weapons program, and other DOE programs as
well. So I support a reorganization of DOE along the lines
suggested in the Rudman report. If a reorganized DOE with a
more efficiently operating Nuclear Stewardship Agency (NSA)
is a result of the Chinese espionage, at least we will have
some benefit from the regrettable affair.
I have no illusions that a semiautonomous Nuclear
Stewardship Agency within DOE will correct all of the
problems we are struggling with, but I am sure that the
current DOE structure will not work. I say this as a
pragmatist and an experimental scientist. We have tried to
make the current structure work for many years and it always
fails. When one of my experiments does that again and again,
I try something else.
We have several reasons to be hopeful that a semiautonomous
agency could work. The example of NSA within the Department
of Defense (DoD) has often been cited as a successful,
semiautonomous agency, and there are other precedents like
DARPA in DoD or the Naval Reactor Program within DOE. I like
the word ``Agency,'' which comes from the Latin root ``to
do.'' An agent does something for you. Some in the current
structure of DOE and its supervisors seem not to care if
anything ever gets done. This is not acceptable for any
worthwhile mission, but it is simply not tolerable for
Nuclear Stewardship.
Nuclear weapons, ours and those of our potential
adversaries are real and very dangerous. They are too
important not to take very seriously.
There is a wise old saying, sometimes ascribed to the
Chinese, that ``The best fertilizer for a farm is the feet of
the owner.'' Someone has to own the mission of nuclear
stewardship, or at the very least someone must be a dedicated
Steward. To succeed, the Steward must have the means to
manage. As best I understand the proposed the Agency for
Nuclear Stewardship, it will give the Steward both ownership
and the means to do the job.
You cannot be a good Steward of the Nuclear Weapons mission
of DOE unless you control all of the key functions,
manufacturing, security, research, safety, etc. There is
never enough money or enough personnel to do everything that
is needed, so the Steward will have to balance many competing
needs: the security of plutonium facilities; human resources;
environmental, safety and health requirements; research
needed to ensure that aging nuclear weapons remain safe and
effective; counterintelligence precautions--the list is
extremely long and every issue is important. However, someone
must make the decision on how to distribute finite resources
to do the best possible job. With the current DOE structure,
various offices can demand that this action or that be taken
with no concern for the broader problem of how to optimize
finite resources of funds and people. One unfunded mandate
after another comes down from headquarters or the field
office. It is not possible to fully respond to all of the
mandates. So the poor front-line troops do the best they can,
and a year later another GAO report comes out saying that
this or that requirement was not met. There is substantial
duplication, triplication or even quadruplication of roles in
DOE, with the front-line DOE contractor, the DOE site office,
the DOE field office and headquarters all contributing to
some issues.
I have testified before that part of DOE's problem is that
it has too many people at headquarters and in the field
offices. I would hope that the ANS Steward would not be
saddled with making work for every DOE employee currently on
a payroll related to the ANS mission. But I am a realist, and
if every employee remains, the system could probably still be
made to work better with the sort of crisp management
structure envisaged for the ANS. Almost all of the DOE civil
servants I met during my time there were good and talented
people, determined to do something to earn their keep. It is
a shame that so many of them are used for counterproductive
activities.
Some would say letting the ANS Stewart control most of the
important oversight now assigned to various independent DOE
offices would be letting the fox watch the hen house. I do
not think this needs be the case, and in any event the
current structure is not working. The proposed ANS Steward
will have a clear list of responsibilities, and will have to
report annually to the Secretary of Energy--and through the
Secretary to the Congress and to the President--on how well
these responsibilities have been fulfilled, and why the
allocation of funds and people for safety, security, research
programs, etc. is optimum. One could also enlist the aid of
other federal agencies for periodic tests of how well the ANS
is fulfilling its mandate. For example, another competent
federal agency could be tasked to try to penetrate the
computer security of the ANS.
Concerns have been raised about possible bad effects of ANS
on DOE science. Indeed, one of the strengths of the DOE
weapons laboratories has been the strong basic science done
there and the close ties their scientists maintain to other
DOE laboratories and to the rest of the scientific world.
This has paid important dividends to our country and we do
not want to lose these benefits in a restructuring of DOE.
One of the benchmarks on which the Nuclear Steward will be
judged

[[Page 16521]]

should be the health of science in the Weapons Laboratories.
To help maintain ties of the laboratories to the entire
scientific world, visits by foreign scientists to the weapons
laboratories should continue, but we should redouble our
efforts to be sure such visits do not result in the loss of
classified information. Those of you who have visited weapons
laboratories realize that non-classified scientific work is
often done ``outside the fence'' where security issues are
less urgent. The Steward should ensure that there is a graded
system of visitor controls. It would be silly to follow the
same procedures for a scientist coming to talk to colleagues
about human genome sequencing as for one who may be
interested in weapons-related topics. Visitor controls should
be very stringent in the latter case, but relatively light in
the former.
I do not think that the ANS need hinder the support by
other parts of DOE, or by outside agencies, of science at the
Weapons Laboratories. As a former Director of Office of
Energy Research, I saw, at very close quarters, how work was
funded by my office at the Weapons Laboratories, and how
other federal agencies--for example, the National Institutes
of Health, or DARPA--arranged to have work done. The creation
of an ANS within DOE might actually help the interactions
between the Science Laboratories and the Weapons Laboratories
if it leads to better management within the ANS.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERREY. 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. KERREY. Madam President, this bill doesn't normally get a lot of
attention, but because of the concern over the loss of secrets through
our laboratories at the DOE, we are going to have a debate about an
amendment to restructure the Department of Energy.
I want to make a point that I made earlier, which is that secrecy and
security are not the same thing. Sometimes secrecy equals security.
Sometimes secrecy can make security more difficult, harder for us to
accomplish the mission of keeping the United States of America as
secure as we possibly can.
I am not going to offer an amendment to this bill, because it has
been defeated pretty soundly in the past--although I must say I am
tempted to do so--to disclose to the American people how much is spent
on intelligence gathering. Right now, under law, we cannot do that. I
want to call my colleagues' attention to what is happening. Our first
vote is on cloture. I think cloture will be invoked pretty easily. Our
leader is not going to hold anybody up from voting for cloture. Maybe
we can go right to the bill.
Listening to Senators Domenici and Levin earlier, I think they may be
able to solve their differences. The vote may end up being unanimous,
which is my wish. I hope we can continue to move closer together on
that piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation on which
Senator Domenici and others have been working.
I want to call my colleagues' attention to what we do every year
basically, and that is, the authorization of appropriations for the
intelligence bill is very small, as a consequence of not being able to
disclose to the American people what is in the bill. The House bill
contains six titles. The Senate bill, which will be offered as a
substitute for the House bill, also contains six titles. The first two
titles are identical. Titles I and II in the House bills are identical.
Then there are general provisions, and then each bill has additional
things in there.
But you can see the problem we have getting public support for
intelligence collection. That is one step in the process of
intelligence. We collect with imaging efforts, we collect with signals
intercepts, we collect with human intelligence, and we have measurement
intelligence. We have all sorts of various what are called INTs that
are used to gather raw data.
Then somebody has to take that data and analyze it. What does it
mean? What does this data mean? What is the interpretation of it?
Oftentimes secrecy can be a problem because one compartment may not be
talking to another.
This administration and others have worked to try to bring various
people together so there is more consultation than there has been in
the past. But oftentimes decisions have to be made very quickly.
Sometimes interpretations of public information are made, and an
adjustment is made.
Let me be very specific. About 80 percent, in my view, of the
decisions that most elected people make in Congress having to do with
national security are made as a result of something they acquired in a
nonclassified fashion in a TV report, in a radio report, in a newspaper
report, or a published document. Staff analyze it and come and say:
This is what we think is going on--about 80 percent of the information
that we process.
I would say that would probably be on the low side. It may be even
higher than that. Indeed, the President may be in a similar situation.
He may be making a decision on a very high percentage of publicly
accessible information as opposed to classified information.
That is quite the trend. The trend is both healthy and at times
disturbing because more and more information is being made available to
the public that was not available in the past. The good news is
citizens have more information. They process that information. We have
a lot of independent analysts out there.
In a couple of years, when metering satellite photographs are
available, we are going to see competing analyses being done over
images. This is what I see when I take that photograph.
I say this because I think it is true that it is very difficult, for
any length of time for the Congress and the President to do something
the public doesn't support, especially when it comes to spending their
money.
In this case, I just hazard a guess. I never polled on this. But
certainly I take a lot of anecdotal stories on board from citizens who
question whether or not they are getting their money's worth. Is all
the money we are spending worthwhile when we aren't able to tell where
the Chinese Embassy is in Belgrade? A $2 map would have told us where
it was. When we were unable to forecast a class of facility, when we
were unable to foresee that India was going to test a nuclear weapon
following an election, during which the party that was successful
campaigned, and their platform said, if we are elected and we come to
power, we are going to test a nuclear weapon? Many failures, in short,
are out in the public, and the public acquires the information. I think
it has caused them to lose confidence that they are getting their
money's worth.
It is a real crisis for us. It is a real challenge for us because,
again, if you look at the document we will be voting on sometime in the
next couple of days--usually this thing goes through very quickly and
we don't have much time to consider it. In an odd way, I thank the
Senator from New Mexico for bringing so much attention to the
Department of Energy's need for restructuring because it has given us
some time to pause and look at this piece of legislation.
As I said, the two most important titles, the ones you will see in
almost every intelligence authorization bill, is title I and title II.
Title I has five sections. It authorizes appropriations. It give us
classified schedule authorization, personnel ceiling adjustment
authorization, community management account authorization, and
emergency supplemental appropriations. That is in the House bill. The
Senate bill has four titles. It is quite revealing when you go into
title I.
Again, normally, if this is a Department of Defense authorization,
each one of these titles would provide the detailed and specific number
of how much is being spent, all the way down to the very small
individual accounts that would be disclosed to the public. There would
be a great debate going on. The committee report comes out. The budget
comes out. The bill is reported by the Armed Services Committee.
Editorials are written. Journalists and specialists say we are spending
too little; we are spending too much; we need to build this weapons
system, and so forth. A great public debate then ensues when the
committee brings

[[Page 16522]]

the bill up and reports it out for full consideration by the Senate.
I think that debate is healthy. The public participates and helps us
decide what it is we ought not be doing. Sometimes we still put things
in we shouldn't and some things we should. We still make mistakes. That
public debate helps us.
Under this authorization, what you see in section 101 is the
following: The funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 2000 for the conduct of intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the following elements of the U.S. Government:
the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency,
the National Security Agency, the Department of the Army, the
Department of the Navy, the Department of Air Force, the Department of
State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Energy, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Conference Office, and
the National Imagery and Mapping Agency--11 different Government
agencies are named but no dollar figure is included. The only dollar
figure in this entire budget comes in section 104 where the public
learns we are authorizing $171 million to be appropriated for the
Community Management Act of the Director of Central Intelligence. We
have that piece of information.
Later in the bill that we will be voting on, we learn $27 million is
available for the National Drug Intelligence Center. Then later, a
third time we get another number. We learn $209.1 million is authorized
to be appropriated to the Central Intelligence Agency's retirement and
disability fund for fiscal year 2000.
That is all the public learns. That is all the public knows. The
public does not know how much we spend in each one of these agencies,
nor how much the committee is recommending in this authorization bill,
nor the total amount of dollars being spent.
We have had debates about this before. There are good arguments
usually filed against it: This is going to deteriorate our national
security; we need to maintain, in short, a secret in order to preserve
national security.
I have reached the opposite conclusion, that this is a situation
where the preservation of a secret deteriorates our national security
as a consequence, first of all, of not having a public debate about
whether this is the right allocation but, most importantly, as a
consequence of deteriorating citizens' confidence that we are
authorizing and appropriating the correct amount.
In short, keeping this secret from the American people has caused
difficulty in retaining their consensus that we ought to be spending an
amount of money they do not know in order to collect, analyze, produce,
and disseminate intelligence. I think that is a problem for us.
Again, I have not done any polling on this, so I don't know. I
typically don't poll before I make a decision, to the consternation of
my staff and supporters. But my guess is, just from anecdotes, there is
a deterioration of confidence.
It bothers me because my term on the Intelligence Committee--thanks
to the original appointment by our former Democratic leader, George
Mitchell, from the great State of Maine, and also Leader Daschle's
confidence in retaining me on this committee--over time my confidence
has increased.
Indeed, the argument in my opening statement about this bill is that
we have drawn down intelligence investments in the 1990s as we have
drawn down our military from roughly 2 million men and women under
active duty uniform to 1.35 million. We have also drawn down our
intelligence efforts to a point where I don't believe we can do all of
the things that need to be done either today or in the future.
As I said, I have to collect intelligence. I have to analyze the
information. I have skilled people who can analyze it. These images
delivered from space very often mean nothing to me when I look at them.
It requires somebody who is not only skilled but can process it in a
hurry and can make something of it in a hurry.
In the situation with India, where we had difficulty warning the
President that a test might occur, again, according to published
accounts, the Indians were aware that we, first, were able to identify
a year earlier they were about to test, and we warned them not to test,
as a result of overhead imaging. And they took evasive measures in the
future.
These are very difficult things to tell. You have to hire skilled
people to do it. That is the analysis. The next piece is the
production. It is getting very exciting but also very complicated.
There is a lot of competition with the private sector to do this
production work.
Back in the ice age when I was on the U.S. Navy SEAL team, we were
given a map if we were going to do an operation in an area in Vietnam.
We would look at a map and say: This is the area we will operate in.
The map might be 10 years old. Then we would supplement that with human
intelligence. Somebody would say: There are some changes here that
aren't quite the same as the map.
Today an image is used. It is enhanced. It is remarkable how quickly
we can deliver very accurate pictures of theaters of operation to the
warfighter to disseminate differently, produced in a much different
way, and enable that warfighter to have a competitive edge on the
battlefield.
Indeed, anybody who is thinking about becoming an enemy of the United
States of America knows we have tremendous capability on the
intelligence side. We get warnings, and those warnings are delivered
when threats begin to build. Oftentimes a mere warning enables the
heading off of a potential threat that could have erupted into a
serious conflict and would have resulted in a loss of lives.
The effort to collect, analyze, produce, and disseminate to the right
person at the right time, and to make a decision, is not only
complicated, but it is also quite expensive. It is not done
accidentally.
I hope this year is a watershed year and we are able to authorize
additional resources for our intelligence agencies. If we don't, at
some point we will have a Director of Central Intelligence in the
future deliver the bad news to Congress that there is something we want
to do but we can't because we cannot accomplish the mission we want to
accomplish--not just because of resources but also because it is
getting harder and harder to do things we have in the past taken for
granted, such as intercept signals, conversations, or communications of
some kind between one bad person and another bad person with hostile
intent against the United States.
Increasingly, we are seeing a shift in two big ways away from nation
states. In the old days, we could pass sanctions legislation or do
something against a government that was doing something we didn't like.
What do we do if Osama bin Laden starts killing Americans or
narcoterrorists or cyberterrorists say they hate the United States of
America and are going to take action against us? It is very difficult--
indeed, it is impossible--for diplomacy to reduce that threat. We need
to intercept and try to prevent it and, very often, try to prevent it
with a forceful intervention.
Not only is it shifting away from the nation state, making it harder
both to collect and to do the other work--the analysis, the processing
and dissemination, or production of dissemination--the signals are
becoming more complex and difficult to process, and they are becoming
more and more encrypted.
I have had conversations with the private sector, people in the
software business, who say we have to change this export regimen that
makes it difficult for these companies to sell encryption overseas.
This administration has made tremendous accommodation within the
industry to try to accommodate their need to sell to companies that are
doing business all over the world.
Don't doubt there is a national security issue here. There is
significant interception, both on the national security side and the
law enforcement side. That encryption at 128 bits or higher is actually
deployed. We will find our people in the intelligence side coming back
and saying: Look, I know

[[Page 16523]]

something bad happened, and do you want to know why I didn't know? I
will tell you why I didn't know. I couldn't make sense of the signal.
We intercept, and all we get is a buzz and background noise. We cannot
interpret it. We can't convert it.
In the old days, we converted with a linguist or some other
technological application. In the new world, we are being increasingly
denied access to the signals. As described by the technical advisory
group that was established on the Intelligence Committee, it was
described as number of needles in the haystack but the haystack is
getting larger and larger and harder, as a result, for the intelligence
people to do the work they need to do.
The chairman is moving to the floor. I know he will make a brilliant
and articulate statement.
Earlier, the Senator from New Mexico offered a statement on his
amendment that he hopes to offer tomorrow. Senator Levin was here as
well. I believe there is reason to be encouraged that we will move this
bill quickly tomorrow, and reasonably encouraged, as well, that the
differences which still exist on this bill can be resolved, and we can
get a big bipartisan vote and move this on to conference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I have been listening in my office,
before I came to the floor, to Senator Kerrey's comments. While we
don't agree on everything, we agree on most things working on the
Intelligence Committee.
I want to say this about the distinguished Senator from Nebraska who
is the vice chairman of the committee. We have tried to work together
on very tough issues in the Intelligence Committee and tried to bring
them to the floor of the Senate together--not separately. I think it
says a lot when we can do this. I certainly have a lot of respect for
the Senator from Nebraska and enjoy working with him. One thing about
him, he is candid, and that goes a long way on anything.
I think we have to devote our time and our effort in the Intelligence
Committee and in the Senate to what works, what works best on basic
intelligence gathering, as well as counterintelligence, where there is
a shortfall.
In that spirit, Madam President, I rise in support of the motion to
proceed to consideration of H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 2000.
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am
deeply disappointed that certain Members of the minority have decided
to oppose this motion. I hope it will be short lived. The intelligence
bill, I believe, is a balanced, thoroughly bipartisan piece of
legislation that is critical to our national security.
Some Senators are objecting to the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment
to restructure the Department of Energy, not the underlying bill. I am
a cosponsor of that amendment, as is the distinguished vice chairman of
the Intelligence Committee, Senator Kerrey.
Basically, this is essentially the same proposal that prompted a
filibuster threat when it first was offered to the Defense
authorization bill back before the Memorial Day recess. At that time,
the argument was, ``it's too soon, it's premature, there haven't been
any hearings yet.''
Whatever the merit of those arguments at the time, I believe, they
are wholly without merit today. The Intelligence Committee has held two
open hearings on the Kyl amendment and DOE security and
counterintelligence issues, including a joint hearing with the Energy,
Armed Services, and Government Affairs Committees that more than 60
Senators had the opportunity to attend. The Intelligence Committee also
held a detailed, closed briefing on the report of the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, also known as the Rudman report.
We heard testimony from Secretary of Energy Richardson twice, from
Senator Rudman twice, and from the sponsors of this amendment.
I also should point out that, long before the current controversy,
the Senate Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis, identified
problems in DOE's counterintelligence program and took steps to address
those weaknesses. Most importantly, it sought to energize the
Department of Energy to allocate the necessary resources, and take the
necessary steps, to eliminate these vulnerabilities.
Since the Kyl et al amendment was first offered, the sponsors have
negotiated extensively, and in good faith, with the Department of
Energy in order to address the concerns that Secretary Richardson has
expressed, without changing the underlying thrust of the amendment,
which is to create a semiautonomous agency for nuclear security within
the Department of Energy.
Last month, the need for action was dramatically reinforced by the
publication of the Rudman report, entitled ``Science at its Best;
Security at its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the U.S.
Department of Energy''--a report on security problems at the U.S.
Department of Energy.
I commend former Senator Rudman and also Dr. Drell, and others, who
were so involved in this work.
The Rudman report found among other things, that:

At the birth of DOE, the brilliant scientific breakthroughs
of the nuclear weapons laboratories came with a troubling
record of security administration. Twenty years later,
virtually every one of its original problems persists. . . .
Multiple chains of command and standards of performance
negated accountability, resulting in pervasive inefficiency,
confusion, and mistrust. . . .
In response to these problems, the Department has been the
subject of a nearly unbroken history of dire warnings and
attempted but aborted reforms.

Building on the conclusions of the 1997 Institute for Defense
Analyses report and the 1999 Chiles Commission, the Rudman panel
concluded that:

The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy
that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself. . . .
Reorganization is clearly warranted to resolve the many
specific problems . . . in the weapons laboratories, but also
to address the lack of accountability that has become endemic
throughout the entire Department.
The panel is convinced that real and lasting security and
counterintelligence reform at the weapons labs is simply
unworkable within DOE's current structure and culture. . . .
To achieve the kind of protection that these sensitive labs
must have, they and their functions must have their own
autonomous operational structure free of all the other
obligations imposed by DOE management.

To provide ``deep and lasting structural change that will give the
weapons laboratories the accountability, clear lines of authority, and
priority they deserve,'' the Rudman report endorsed two possible
solutions:
One was the creation of a wholly independent agency, such as NASA, to
perform weapons research and nuclear stockpile management functions; or
two, placing weapons research and nuclear stockpile management
functions in a ``new semiautonomous agency within DOE that has a clear
mission, streamlined bureaucracy, and drastically simplified lines of
authority and accountability.''
The latter option, or the second approach, is the one contained in
the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski; amendment. Examples of organizations of
this type are the National Security Agency and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, DARPA, within the Defense Department.
The new semi-autonomous agency, the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship,
would be a single agency, within the DOE, with responsibility for all
activities of our nuclear weapons complex, including the National
Laboratories--nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and disposition of
fissle materials.
This agency will be led by an Under Secretary. The Under Secretary
will be in charge of, and responsible for, all aspects of the agency's
work, who will report--and this is very important--who will report
directly and solely to the Secretary of Energy, and who will be subject
to the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Energy. The
Secretary of Energy will have full authority over all activities of
this agency. Thus, for the first time--yes, Madam President the first
time--this critical function of our national Government will have the
clear chain of command that it requires.

[[Page 16524]]

As recommended by the Rudman report, the new agency will have its own
senior officials responsible for counterintelligence and security
matters within the agency. These officials will carry out the
counterintelligence and security policies established by the Secretary
and will report to the Under Secretary and have direct access to the
Secretary. It is very important that this happen. The agency will have
a senior official responsible for the analysis and assessment of
intelligence within the agency who will also report to the Under
Secretary and have direct access to the Secretary.
The Rudman report concluded that purely administrative
reorganizational changes are inadequate to the challenge at hand: They
say: ``To ensure its long-term success, this new agency must be
established by statute.''
For if the history of attempts to reform DOE underscores one thing,
it is the ability of the DOE and the labs to hunker down and outwait
and outlast Secretaries and other would-be agents of change--yes, even
Presidents.
For example, as documented by Senator Rudman and his colleagues,
``even after President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive
61 ordering that the Department make fundamental changes in security
procedures, compliance by Department bureaucrats was grudging and
belated.''
At the same time, we in the Senate should recognize that our work
will not be done even after this amendment is adopted and enacted into
law. As the Rudman report warned, ``DOE cannot be fixed by a single
legislative act: management must follows mandate. . . . Thus, both
Congress and the Executive branch . . . should be prepared to monitor
the progress of the Department's reforms for years to come.''
It is an indication of how badly the Department of Energy is broken
that it took over 100 studies of counterintelligence, security, and
management practices--by the FBI and other intelligence agencies, the
GAO, the DOE itself, and others, plus one enormous espionage scandal--
to create the impetus for change.
I am encouraged by what appears to be some progress toward getting to
this bill. I think we all are seeking--and I hope we are--the same
thing: A better and more secure Department of Energy. This nation must
have no less.
I ask my colleagues: please, do not let the Senate become the lastes
obstacle to reform at the Department of Energy.
Stop the delay. Vote for cloture tomorrow morning, and let's get on
with the business of the people and make our labs safe for our future
and our country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I rise in support of the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski-
Kerrey amendment. I will first identify the need for the amendment.
What we found in this issue concerning the Department of Energy is
lack of accountability. What this amendment will do, in a nutshell, is
to create a single agency in the Department of Energy, an Agency for
Nuclear Stewardship, that will undertake all activities of our nuclear
weapons laboratories programs, including the nuclear weapons
laboratories themselves. It puts one person in charge, and that will be
the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship. That is the person in
charge of and responsible for all aspects of the new Agency for Nuclear
Stewardship. It creates a clear chain of command, a new Under Secretary
for Nuclear Stewardship solely and directly reporting to the Secretary
of Energy.
Why do we need this? I believe all my colleagues will agree that the
Department of Energy, as far as its security arrangements are
concerned, is badly broken. To suggest that we should take time to
evaluate at greater length when we have in the report of the
investigative panel, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board--a report which I have before me entitled ``Science At Its Best,
Security At Its Worst.''
I am very proud of the role of the laboratories as far as science is
concerned, but what we have is a severe breach of our national
security.
In summary, the amendment would create a new agency within the
Department of Energy called the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship.
The Agency for Nuclear Stewardship would be semiautonomous because it
would be responsible for all of its activities. It provides that the
Secretary of Energy shall be responsible for all policies of the
agency; that the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, headed by the Under
Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship, would be just that, responsible,
again, to the Secretary of Energy. The Under Secretary for Nuclear
Stewardship shall report solely and directly to the Secretary; and that
individual shall be subject to the supervision and direction of the
Secretary.
Make no mistake about it, the chain of command is to the Secretary of
Energy. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will have authority
over all programs at the Department of Energy related to nuclear
weapons, nonproliferation, and fissile material disposition.
The agency's semiautonomy, as recommended by the Rudman report, is
created by making all employees of the agency accountable to the
Secretary and Under Secretary of Energy but not to other officials of
the Department of Energy outside the agency.
Specifically, the language reads:

All personnel of the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, in
carrying out any function of the agency, shall be responsible
to and subject to the supervision and direction of the
Secretary and the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship, or
his designee within the agency, and shall not be responsible
to or subject to the supervision or direction of any other
officer, employee or agent of any other part of the
Department of Energy.

The Secretary, however, may direct other officials, other departments
who are not within the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, to review the
agency's programs and to make recommendations to the Secretary
regarding the administration of such programs, including consistency
with other similar programs and activities in the Department.
The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will have three deputy
directors who will manage programs in the following areas:
First, Defense programs; that is, the lab directors and the heads of
the production and test sites will report directly to this person;
second, the nonproliferation and fissile materials disposition; and
third, the naval reactors.
The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will appoint chiefs of--
and they are as follows--first, counterintelligence--this must be a
senior FBI executive whose selection must be approved by the Secretary
of Energy and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation--
second, is security; and third is intelligence.
These three chiefs shall report to the Under Secretary and shall
have, statutorily provided, direct access to the Secretary and all
other officials of the Department and its contractors concerning these
matters. It requires the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to
report annually to the Congress regarding the status and effectiveness
of security and counterintelligence programs at the nuclear weapons
facilities and laboratories, the adequacy of the Department of Energy
procedures and policy for protecting national security information, and
whether each DOE National Laboratory and nuclear weapons production
test site is in full compliance with all departmental security
requirements, and, if not, what measures are being taken to bring the
lab into compliance--security violators at the nuclear weapons
facilities and laboratories, foreign visitors at the nuclear weapons
facilities and laboratories.
In other words, what we have is a complete listing of requirements
for the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to report annually to
the Congress. So not only will he report to the Secretary but he will
report to the Congress.

[[Page 16525]]

It requires the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to keep the
Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed regarding
losses of national security information and requires every employee of
the Department of Energy, the National Laboratories, or associated
contractors to alert the Under Secretary whenever they believe there is
a threat to or a loss of national security information.
In order to address concerns that Department of Energy officials were
blocked from notifying Congress of security and counterintelligence
breaches, the amendment contains a provision stating that the Under
Secretary shall not be required to obtain the approval of any DOE
official except the Secretary before delivering these reports to the
Congress and, likewise, prohibits any other Department or agency from
interfering.
As we look over the history of the debacle associated with the breach
of our national security regarding the laboratories, clearly, we have
case after case, as we look to the former Secretaries, where there was
a lack of an effective transfer of information, transfer of security
matters, and just the transfer of everyday activities associated with
responsibility and accountability. The system failed.
The system failed because various people did not have access to the
Secretary who were in charge of responsible security areas that
mandated that they have such access in order to complete the
communication within the chain of command.
As a consequence, I support this amendment. We need this amendment to
protect the national security. We need it to keep our nuclear weapons
secrets from falling into the wrong hands. We have already suffered a
major loss of our nuclear weapons secrets.
According to the House Select Committee, the Cox report, the Chinese
have stolen design information on all of the United States' most
advanced nuclear weapons. This is simply unacceptable.
The question we now face is: Will we lose more national security
information if we do not take action? The answer is: Certainly that we
stand greater exposure. The problem is the management of the Department
of Energy. The problem is lack of accountability and lack of
responsibility.
Let me quote from the report of the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board, the Rudman report. Again, I refer to this report,
``Science at its Best, Security at its Worst.''

Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture
of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and the labs
themselves--conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting
to happen.

This is in the report itself.
Further:

The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy
that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.

Right out of this report.
I quote further:

Accountability at the Department of Energy has been spread
so thinly and erratically that it is now almost impossible to
find.

Right out of the report.
Further:

Never have the members of the Special Investigative Panel
witnessed a bureaucratic culture so thoroughly saturated with
cynicism and disregard for authority.

Further quote:

Never before has this panel found such a cavalier attitude
toward one of the most serious responsibilities in the
federal government--control of the design information
relating to nuclear weapons.

Further:

Never before has the panel found an agency with the
bureaucratic insolence to dispute, delay, and resist
implementation of a Presidential directive on security.

If that isn't evidence enough that the security is at its worst, I do
not know what other points to make. To date, the only DOE people who
have been removed from their jobs as a consequence of the question of
who is accountable are: Wen Ho Lee, who is alleged to have engaged in
espionage at Los Alamos, is yet to be even charged with anything--not
everyone a security violation; a gentleman by the name of Notra
Trulock, the person who uncovered the alleged espionage and pushed
perhaps too hard to stop it--which I might add, the Department of
Energy felt a little uncomfortable with. He was shuffled off to a
sideline position in the Department of Energy because he was too
aggressive in bringing this matter to light. A gentleman by the name of
Vic Reis, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy for Defense
Programs, has, I understand, resigned because he disagrees with the
officials down there and happens to support the pending amendment, the
Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment.
Not a single high-level bureaucrat at the Department of Energy, the
FBI, or the Justice Department has been removed, demoted, or
disciplined over this massive failure. One has to wonder with all the
talent associated with these agencies who bears the responsibility for
failure in this case?
The questions we must answer are certainly clear: How long are we
willing to put up with this? Do we want to continue with the status
quo? Our proposal is pending the cloture vote tomorrow. Those that are
in opposition--who feel perhaps a bit uncomfortable with this--do they
have a proposal to fix it? Clearly, they don't. We want to fix the
problem.
For reasons that I fail to understand, the administration is very
reluctant to address this problem with a strong proposal for
identifying accountability in the Department of Energy. Unfortunately,
Secretary Richardson is opposed to our amendment as it stands. When it
came up the last time on the defense bill, Secretary Richardson sent
two letters threatening a veto by the President. Why doesn't the
administration want to do anything significant to correct this problem?
They seem to be willing only to rearrange the deck chairs, so to speak.
They seem to be willing to make changes, but only those that ultimately
result in the status quo.
We want to steer the ship in a different direction so that it won't
hit another iceberg. This Nation should not have to suffer from another
massive loss of our most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets. The
President's own intelligence advisory board agrees with our legislative
solution. That is what the Rudman report said.
Our amendment is patterned after the Rudman report. Let me again
quote from this report:

The panel is convinced that real and lasting security and
counterintelligence reform at the weapons labs is simply
unworkable within the Department of Energy's current
structure and culture. Further, to achieve the kind of
protection that these sensitive labs must have, they and
their functions must have their own autonomous operational
structure, free of all of the other obligations imposed by
the Department of Energy management.

Well, today we have a situation where everybody is pointing the
finger at everybody else. No one wants to take the responsibility. No
one wants to be held accountable.
Fundamentally, the issue is how to create accountability and
responsibility at the Department of Energy. I encourage my colleagues
to examine our amendment because that is just what it does. It creates
accountability. It creates responsibility. No longer can we have a
situation such as we have seen within the Department, where it is
impossible to determine who bears the responsibility for the Wen Ho Lee
breach of security. It creates accountability and responsibility by
establishing a new Agency for Nuclear Stewardship inside of the
Department of Energy to be headed up by a new Under Secretary of
Energy.
This new agency is now made responsible for all aspects of our
nuclear weapons programs, including the previously loosely-managed
laboratories. If there is a problem in the future, we will know who to
point the finger at, who to hold responsible, a single agency with a
single person heading it and in charge of all aspects of nuclear
weapons programs. Our amendment also requires the new Under Secretary
to report to the FBI and Congress all threats to our national security.
No longer will we be kept in the dark, having to pretty much depend on
the New York Times to find out what is going on.

[[Page 16526]]

The Secretary of Energy is uncomfortable with this reorganization.
Evidently, his idea is to rely on the same old management team,
everyone in charge but no one responsible, no clear identifiable
accountability.
In conclusion, let me quote the testimony of Mr. Vic Reis. This came
up late last week. Mr. Reis is the Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Defense Programs. He testified before the Energy Committee last week.
I might add, Mr. Reis' responsibility in the line of command is that
the lab directors report directly to Mr. Reis.
Mr. Reis said:

You may recall at previous hearings, Mr. Chairman, you
noticed me in the audience and you asked for my opinion as to
who or what was to blame for the security issues at the
national laboratories. I responded that I didn't think you
would find any one individual but that there were
organizational structures of the Department of Energy that
were so flawed that security lapses are almost inevitable.

Now, this is the gentleman to whom heads of the labs report. He says
that you can't find any individual to blame. The organizational
structure was so flawed that security lapses were inevitable.
Then Mr. Reis went on to say:

The root cause of the difficulties at the Department of
Energy is simply that the Department of Energy has too many
disparate missions to be managed effectively as a cohesive
organization. The price of gasoline, refrigerant standards,
Quarks, nuclear cleanup and nuclear weapons just don't come
together naturally. Because of all this multi-layered
crosscutting, there is no one accountable for the operation
of any part of the organization except the Secretary, and no
Secretary has the time to lead the whole thing effectively.
By setting up a semi-autonomous agency, many of these
problems will go away.

Madam President, in short, if you want espionage to continue at the
laboratories and maintain the environment where it can occur, then
stick with the present system. But if you, like me, want to stop this
atmosphere where espionage can flourish, I think you should vote for
the motion and invoke cloture for the amendment.
What we have here is a situation where I think it is appropriate that
we identify where the differences are between the Secretary, Senator
Kyl, Senator Domenici, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Murkowski and in our
amendment. What we do is we create a single semiautonomous agency, as I
have indicated, that reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. The
new Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will be responsible for
both setting policy and implementation of policy, subject to the
overall supervision and direct control of the Secretary of Energy.
I want to make that clear: Subject to the overall supervision and
direct control of the Secretary of Energy.
Evidently, that is not what the Secretary wants. The Secretary is
willing to allow the new Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to
implement policy but not set policy. There is a big difference,
implementing and setting. More significantly, the Secretary wants to
allow any part of the Department of Energy to set the policies that the
new Under Secretary would have to follow. So somebody else is setting
it.
The Secretary's proposal would violate our fundamental concept; that
is, clear and identifiable lines of authority and responsibility--in
other words, a direct chain of command. We have been discussing our
differences, but so far we seem to be unable to resolve them.
There is one other thing I will mention that was said the other day
that relates to this matter under discussion. Two current nuclear
weapons lab directors and one former lab director said at a hearing
that while they could report their problems and issues to Mr. Reis, who
is their supervisor, that Mr. Reis has no clear line of authority to
pass those up through the chain of command to the Secretary.
So here we have it. This substantiates the justification for our
amendment. Here is the gentleman who is responsible to have the input
from the lab directors report to him, the three labs, Livermore,
Sandia, Los Alamos.
But the gentleman in charge, Mr. Reis, under the current structure
and chain of command within the Department of Energy, has no clear line
of authority to pass those recommendations, those matters, up through
the chain of command to the Secretary. So here you have the person that
is responsible to get the information from the lab directors, but there
is no provision, no requirement, no line of command up to the Secretary
so that policy matters can be addressed. That one observation with
these three lab directors illustrates the problem we are trying to fix
with this legislation.
As it stands today, there is no chain or lines of authority and
responsibility. Right now, everybody is in charge, but nobody is
responsible. I guess it is fair to say there are several missing links,
if you will, in the DOE chain of command and authority. The purpose of
the amendment is to fix that problem.
I often think back to military concept and a ship at sea. Someone is
in charge of the CON--in other words, the ship is under the direction
of the officer in charge, and he has the CON. There is no question of
where the responsibility sets. If he is relieved, the command of the
ship is taken over and that person accepts the responsibility. In the
DOE, we don't have those clear lines of authority, and that is the
justification for the amendment pending before this body today.
Is this thing broke to the point where it mandates that the Senate
take action? I think it is fair to say that the answer is clearly yes.
The ineptness, the bungling, the pure mismanagement at all levels are
things that have occurred within this agency. The Department of Energy
never took the most basic precautions to guard against the theft of the
nuclear secrets. The FBI conducted feeble investigations. The
Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Reno, virtually ignored
requests for warrants to search Wen Ho Lee's computers. What we have
here are the results of one of the worst cases in the history of this
Nation of our national security being jeopardized.
I have held about 9 hearings as chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on these matters, and three important discoveries
were made by my committee. First, the Department of Energy and the FBI
bungled the computer waiver issue. I have a chart here. The lab
directors, the attorneys, and directors of counterintelligence all
agree that the DOE had the authority to search Lee's computer because
he signed a waiver. Well, this is the waiver. This is a copy of the
waiver that actually Wen Ho Lee signed, dated April 19, 1995:

Warning: To protect the LAN system from unauthorized use
and to ensure that the systems are functioning properly,
activities on these systems are monitored and recorded and
subject to audit. Use of these systems is expressed consent
to such monitoring and recording. Any unauthorized access or
use of this LAN is prohibited and could be subject to
criminal and civil penalties.

Here is the part Wen Ho Lee signed:

I understand and agree to follow these rules in my use of
the ENCHANTED LAN. I assume full responsibility for the
security of my workstation. I understand that violations may
be reported to my supervisor or FSS-14, that I may be denied
access to the LAN, and that I may receive a security
infraction for a violation of these rules.

Now, the issue here is that the FBI claimed that the Department of
Energy told him there was no waiver; no such waiver existed. The FBI
wrongly assumed, then, that they needed a warrant to search. What is
the result of this inept communication? Well, Lee's computer could have
been searched, but instead was not searched for some three years. When
the computer was finally searched, they discovered evidence that Wen Ho
Lee had downloaded legacy codes to an unclassified computer.
The fundamental problem is that nobody was looking at the big
picture. Surely, protecting nuclear secrets and national security
outweighs the feeble attempts that were made to get a possible
conviction.
What we have here is, one, the Department of Energy did not know that
Wen Ho Lee had signed a waiver. They could not find it in his personnel
file because the file had been mislaid. Had they known that, as I
indicated earlier, they could have monitored his computer. Instead, the
FBI said, no, they were doing an investigation, and since

[[Page 16527]]

they didn't have a waiver, his computer was not monitored by the
Department of Energy. Yet, they found later that the waiver existed, as
evidenced by the poster I just showed in evidence.
The FBI and the Department of Justice next bungled the
counterintelligence warrant or the FISA, as evidenced by chart 2. The
FBI, not once or twice, but three times requested warrants from the
DOE. This is chart 2. This is the FISA report. Department of Energy,
FBI, Department of Justice, and the FISA warrant, approved or rejected.
Notra Trulock briefs the FBI. An FBI request was made by John Lewis,
then assistant director of the FBI National Security Division. An FBI
request was made to Gerald Schroeder, Acting Director, Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review. It was rejected. Here is the rejection.
Here is the sequence of events. The first time we had the sequence of
the DOE, FBI, and Department of Justice proceeding to authorize the
FISA warrant to investigate the alleged counterintelligence and
espionage charges alleged against Wen Ho Lee.
The second time, Notra Trulock and others continued to prod FBI's
investigation of Wen Ho Lee. FBI request made to John Lewis, then
Assistant Director of the FBI National Security Division. FBI request
made to Gerald Schroeder. Again, it was rejected. The second time it
was rejected by the Department of Justice.
Now, then the last time, Mr. Lewis, who is up there in the hierarchy,
Assistant Director of the FBI, National Security Division, feels so
frustrated that he makes a personal plea to Attorney General Janet
Reno. Again, Notra Trulock and others continue to prod the FBI. John
Lewis makes a personal request to the Attorney General because he feels
so strongly that there is justification to authorize this
investigation. But the personal appeal falls on deaf ears.
Why was it rejected? What happened? We don't know. Nothing happened.
But we do know that the Attorney General ignored two pleas for help.
Notra Trulock, then DOE Director of Intelligence, personally briefed
Janet Reno in ``great detail'' about the Lee case in August of 1997.
John Lewis, FBI Director of Intelligence, also indicated he personally
pled to Janet Reno to approve the FBI's request for a warrant to search
Lee in August of 1997.
Why did Attorney General Janet Reno ignore pleas from two top
national security advisers? We don't know. We don't know because there
is a great reluctance to provide the committees of jurisdiction with
that information.
I am personally disappointed in the FBI and the Department of
Justice's refusal to testify publicly. Probably 90 percent of what has
been found in closed sessions is not really classified, in my opinion.
What we are looking for here is accountability. We in the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee intend to continue to identify those
persons whose inaction has led to one of the most potentially
catastrophic losses in our national security history. Now we have a
situation where they seem to want to hide behind the smokescreen of
``national security'' or to finger-point and say it is not our
responsibility. That is simply an unconscionable set of circumstances.
Finally, as we address a couple of other points that may come up in
the debate which I think deserve consideration, why create one
semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy? We are creating
a hybrid that has no other identifiable comparison. Let me put that
myth to rest. There are other semiautonomous agencies that function
extremely well. That is what we are proposing with the amendment which
has been laid down.
Let's look at three of those semiautonomous agencies.
DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, is a separate
agency within the Department of Defense under a director appointed by
the Secretary of Defense. It works.
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the
largest bureau within the Department of Commerce. It is a
semiautonomous agency. It works.
NSA, the National Security Agency, was established by Presidential
directive as a separate department organized as an agency within the
Department of Defense. It was structured in that manner and form
because it was necessary that there be accountability and
responsibility within the National Security Agency. It is a
semiautonomous agency.
I encourage my colleagues as we proceed to vote tomorrow--my
understanding is that we are going to have one hour of debate equally
divided on the cloture motion on the amendment--to recognize that the
time to address this is now, that the responsibility clearly is within
this body, and that the amendment we offered identifies the one thing
that was lacking as we look at how this set of security breaches could
have occurred, and that is, it addresses accountability and
responsibility.
For those who feel uncomfortable, I encourage them to recognize that
they have a responsibility of coming up with something that will work.
We think that the amendment pending, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski-Kerrey
amendment--I understand that Senators Thompson, Specter, Gregg,
Hutchinson, Shelby, Warner, Bunning, Helms, Fitzgerald, Lott, Kerry,
Feinstein, and Bob Smith are a few of the other Members of the Senate
who are cosponsoring this amendment.
It is a responsible amendment. Let's get on with the job. Let's put
this issue in the restructured form that provides for accountability
and responsibility, and move on. The American people and the taxpayers
certainly deserve prompt action by this body. We have that obligation.
The time is on the vote tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I see no other Senator wishing time. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO COACH DAVEY WHITNEY, ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I honor a Mississippian who made
numerous contributions to Alcorn State University, to countless young
student athletes and to the community. Coach Davey L. Whitney, Head
Coach of the Men's Basketball team at Alcorn State University, has
served as a leader at this educational institution, a professor of
championship athletics and a mentor for many of his players.
Nearly 30 years ago, Coach Whitney first arrived on the Lorman,
Mississippi, campus. From the beginning, Davey's tenure at Alcorn was
destined for greatness. Within ten years, the Alcorn State Men's
Basketball team went from little notoriety to groundbreaking
achievement. His list of accomplishments is exemplary. His
determination is heroic.
He was the first coach to lead an historically black college team to
wins in both NCAA and NIT tournaments. His teams also won nine
Southwestern Athletic Conference titles. In 1979, Alcorn accomplished
something that no previous historically black college had done--winning
a National Invitational Tournament game--when they defeated Mississippi
State University.
Coach Whitney has been a mentor to many young men. Many of his
players have become successful businessmen. Several of his players even
had successful professional athletic careers in the National Basketball
Association. Larry Smith, who was drafted by the Golden State Warriors,
is now an assistant coach with the Houston Rockets. He is reproducing
Coach Whitney's approach of discipline coupled with a warm personal
devotion for the players.
Coach Whitney's career has not been one without trials. In 1989 he
was fired after losing three successive seasons. Still Coach Whitney
stayed involved in basketball by coaching in the Continental Basketball
Association and the United States Basketball League.

[[Page 16528]]

Coach Whitney also remained close to Alcorn State for the next eight
years, while the Braves struggled and in 1997 Alcorn asked him to
return. After much thought, Coach Whitney returned to the Alcorn State
University Family as head coach. Within two years, he took the
struggling Braves to the 1999 Southwestern Athletic Conference Regular
Season Championship where they not only won, they triumphed. This
tournament championship earned the Braves a berth in the NCAA
Tournament. This marked the first time since the 1986 season that the
Braves have won the Southwestern Athletic Conference regular season
title. This was also the first time since 1984 that the Braves have won
the tournament title and appeared in the NCAA tournament.
Coach Whitney's 442 wins in 28 years--with 10 regular season titles,
four consecutive titles between 1978-82, twelve post season tourneys
and five NAIA district titles--earned him nine Southwestern Athletic
Conference Coach of the Year honors. It is a fitting tribute to Coach
Whitney's accomplishments that he coaches in the complex named after
him. Various groups have recognized Coach Whitney for his renowned
success. USA Today's Reporter Jack Carey wrote, ``At Alcorn State Coach
Davey Whitney is proving not only that you can go home again, but you
also can be darned successful once you get there.'' Whitney is surely a
man worthy of recognition.
Coach Whitney is not only a successful coach but an accomplished
family man. He and his wife of more than 40 years have reared a fine
family of four daughters and one son, all of whom attended Alcorn State
University. He is a member of the National Association of Coaches, the
Mississippi Association of Coaches, the National Black Association of
Coaches, and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., just to name a few.
Mr. President, it is a great honor to pay tribute to Coach Davey L.
Whitney for his athletic accomplishments and his dedication to the
students of Alcorn State University. His efforts are both uplifting and
encouraging. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Davey Whitney
many more years of success.

____________________

BUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget
scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under
Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, as amended. The report meets the requirements for Senate
scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget of 1986.
This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget
through July 14, 1999. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and
revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of
S. Res. 209, a resolution to provide budget levels in the Senate for
purposes of fiscal year 1999, as amended by S. Res. 312. The budget
levels have also been revised to include adjustments made on May 19,
1999, to reflect the amounts provided and designated as emergency
requirements. The estimates show that current level spending is above
the budget resolution by $0.4 billion in budget authority and above the
budget resolution $0.2 billion in outlays. Current level is $0.2
billion above the revenue floor in 1999. The current estimate of the
deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $56.1
billion, $0.1 billion above the maximum deficit amount of 1999 of $56.0
billion.
Since my last report, dated June 21, 1999, the Congress has taken no
action that changed the current level of budget authority, outlays, and
revenues.
I ask unanimous consent to have a letter accompanying the report and
the budget scorekeeping report printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter and report were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report shows the effects of
Congressional action on the 1999 budget and is current
through July 14, 1999. The estimates of budget authority,
outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and
economic assumptions of S. Res. 209, a resolution to provide
budget levels in the Senate for purposes of fiscal year 1999,
as amended by S. Res. 312. This report is submitted under
section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act, as amended.
Since my last report, dated June 17, 1999, the Congress has
taken no action that changed the current level of budget
authority, outlays, and revenues.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosures.

TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 1999 SENATE CURRENT LEVEL REPORT, AS OF CLOSE OF
BUSINESS, JULY 14, 1999
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Current
resolution Current level over/
S. Res. 312 level under
(Adjusted) resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON-BUDGET

Budget Authority................. 1,465.3 1,465.7 0.4
Outlays.......................... 1,414.9 1,415.2 0.2
Revenues:
1999........................... 1,358.9 1,359.1 0.2
1999-2003...................... 7,187.0 7,187.7 0.7
Deficit.......................... 56.0 56.1 0.1
Debt Subject to Limit............ (\1\) 5,536.1 (\2\)

OFF-BUDGET

Social Security Outlays:
1999........................... 321.3 321.3 0.0
1999-2003...................... 1,720.7 1,720.7 0.0
Social Security Revenues:
1999........................... 441.7 441.7 (\3\)
1999-2003...................... 2,395.6 2,395.5 -0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not included in S. Res. 312.
\2\ =not applicable.
\3\ Less than $50 million.

Note.--Current level numbers are the estimated revenue and direct
spending effects of all legislation that the Congress has enacted or
sent to the President for his approval. In addition, full-year funding
estimates under current law are included for entitlement and mandatory
programs requiring annual appropriations even if the appropriations
have not been made. The current level of debt subject to limit
reflects the latest information from the U.S. Treasury.

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

TABLE 2.--SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999 ON-BUDGET SENATE
CURRENT LEVEL REPORT, AS OF CLOSE OF BUSINESS, JULY 14, 1999
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENACTED IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS

Revenues......................... ........... ........... 1,359,099
Permanents and other spending 919,197 880,664 ...........
legislation.....................
Appropriation legislation........ 820,578 813,987 ...........
Offsetting receipts.............. -296,825 -296,825 ...........
--------------------------------------
Total previously enacted... 1,442,950 1,397,826 1,359,099
======================================
ENACTED THIS SESSION

1999 Emergency Supplemental 11,348 3,677 ...........
Appropriations (Act (P.L. 106-
31).............................
1999 Miscellaneous Trade and ........... ........... 5
Technical Corrections Act (P.L.
106-36).........................

ENTITLEMENTS AND MANDATORIES

Budget resolution baseline 11,393 13,661 ...........
estimates of appropriated
entitlements and other mandatory
programs not yet enacted........

TOTALS

Total Current Level.............. 1,465,691 1,415,164 1,359,104
Total Budget Resolution.......... 1,465,294 1,414,916 1,358,919
Amount remaining:
Under Budget Resolution........ ........... ........... ...........
Over Budget Resolution......... 397 248 185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Estimates include the following in emergency funding: $34,226
million in budget authority and $16,802 million in outlays.

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

____________________

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S EXECUTIVE ORDER TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just few minutes
today in support of President Clinton's Executive Order of June 3,
1999, which ordered the Federal Government to undertake a comprehensive
program to save energy, save money and cut pollution.
The Federal Government is the nation's largest consumer of energy,
purchasing energy to light, heat and cool more than 500,000 buildings
and power millions of vehicles. Each year the Federal Government
purchases more than $200 billion worth of products, including enormous
quantities of energy-intensive goods. Current efficiency programs
already save more than $1 billion a year according to an estimate in

[[Page 16529]]

the Wall Street Journal of July 15, 1999. In addition, the government's
vast purchases give it significant market influence to impact the
development, manufacture and use of clean energy technologies.
This Executive Order sets worthwhile--and unfortunately too long
overlooked--goals, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
energy efficiency improvements, increased use of renewable energy,
reduced use of petroleum, water conservation and changes in how we
measure energy use. I believe these goals have tremendous merit and
will deliver the ``win-win'' results of sound environmental and energy
policy, because each goal stresses reduced pollution and reduced costs.
To achieve these goals, the Order sets in place several new
administrative policies for organization and accountability. To begin,
each agency will designate a single officer to oversee implementation.
Agencies will submit a budget request to the Office of Management and
Budget for investments that will reduce energy use, pollution and life-
cycle costs, and they will track and report progress. The Order applies
to all Federal departments and agencies, with an appropriate exception
for the Department of Defense when compliance may hinder military
operations and training.
Federal agencies will be able to employ a range of Federal programs
including Energy Star, sustainable building design research from the
Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency and
others. For example, to the extent practicable, agencies will strive to
achieve the Energy Star standards for energy performance and indoor
environmental quality for all facilities by 2002. Agencies will apply
sustainable design principles to the siting, design and construction of
new facilities--meaning energy use, costs and reduced pollution will be
optimized across a facility's life. And such measures will extend to
transportation, including the use of efficient and renewable-fuel
vehicles.
Finally, the Executive Order endorses the use of ``source energy'' as
a measure of efficiency. Measuring energy consumption by ``source''--as
opposed to ``site''--means taking into account not only the energy
consumed by a light bulb, appliance or other product to perform a
certain function, but also the energy consumed in the generation,
transmission and distribution of that energy to the product in
question. Research in energy use increasingly shows that a ``source''
measurement is a more accurate measure of the total costs that we pay
to operate appliances and other equipment.
Mr. President, I add my sincere appreciation to President Clinton for
executing this Order and endorsing its policies. I believe that if this
Executive Order is properly implemented, it will pay dividends for the
environment and taxpayers.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, July 16,
1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,626,175,786,965.76 (Five trillion,
six hundred twenty-six billion, one hundred seventy-five million, seven
hundred eighty-six thousand, nine hundred sixty-five dollars and
seventy-six cents).
One year ago, July 16, 1998, the Federal debt stood at
$5,531,080,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-one billion,
eighty million).
Fifteen years ago, July 16, 1984, the Federal debt stood at
$1,532,716,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred thirty-two billion,
seven hundred sixteen million).
Twenty-five years ago, July 16, 1974, the Federal debt stood at
$473,710,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-three billion, seven hundred ten
million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,152,465,786,965.76 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-two billion,
four hundred sixty-five million, seven hundred eighty-six thousand,
nine hundred sixty-five dollars and seventy-six cents) during the past
25 years.

____________________

THE TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE REAUTHORIZATION ACT

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act, a bill that has been
reported from the Finance Committee and was filed on July 16th. I
believe this bill is critical for American workers, companies and their
communities. The bill as written would extend authorization for trade
adjustment assistance for two years, and would allow workers and
companies that are negatively impacted by international trade to
receive the assistance currently allowed by law. If we do not pass this
legislation, trade adjustment assistance will expire this October, and
workers and companies that are presently receiving benefits will be
completely cut off from government support. In specific terms, this
means over 340,000 workers across the country, and several thousand
workers in my state of New Mexico, will be without support needed to
maintain their lives and re-train for the future. These are real people
and real lives we are talking about, and we simply can't let this
happen. We must act now to ensure the programs continue.
Let me briefly explain what this legislation is about. In 1962, when
the Trade Expansion Act was under consideration, the Kennedy
Administration came up with a very straightforward proposition
concerning international trade and American workers and companies: if
and when Americans lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements
entered into by the U.S. government, then the U.S. government should
assist these Americans in finding new employment. If you lose a job
because of U.S. trade policy, you should have some help from the
federal government in re-training to get a job.
I find this a reasonable and fair proposition. It suggests that the
U.S. government supports a open trading system, but recognizes that it
is responsible to repair the negative impacts this policy has on its
citizens. It suggests that the U.S. government believes that an open
trading system provides long-term advantages for the United States and
its people, but that the short-terms costs must be addressed if the
policy is to continue and the United States is to remain competitive.
It suggests that there is a collective interest that must be pursued,
but that individual interests must be protected for the greater good.
This commitment to American workers and companies has continued over
the years, and should not be ended now. The reason for continuity is
obvious: globalization is only moving at a faster pace, with the
potential for ever more significant impacts on our country. In my
opinion, the process of globalization is inevitable. It is not going to
stop. Therefore, the question for us in this chamber is not whether we
can stop it, but how we can manage it to benefit the national interest
of the United States.
The picture we see of globalization is that of a double-edged sword,
with some individuals and companies gaining and others losing. The
gains are clear-cut. Exports now generate over one-third of all
economic growth in the United States. Export jobs pay ten to fifteen
percent more than the average wage. Depending upon who you listen to,
it has generated anywhere from two to eleven million jobs over the last
ten years. For those who dislike globalization, I say look in your
kitchen, your living room, your driveway, your office, and see the
products that are there as a result of a more open and interdependent
trading system. Without expanded trade brought on as a result of
globalization we will end up fighting over an ever-decreasing domestic
economic pie.
But in spite of these obvious benefits we cannot ignore the problems
involved with globalization. Every day we hear disturbing stories about
what this has meant for people across the country. In my state we have
seen over the last year a large number of lay-offs and closings in
small rural towns that cannot afford to have this happen. The closing
of three plants in Roswell, Las Cruces, and Albuquerque meant 1,600
people lost their jobs. Next came lay-offs in the copper mines in my
home town of Silver City. These people cannot simply go across the
street and

[[Page 16530]]

look for new work. They are people who have been dedicated to their
companies and have played by the rules over the years. What they
deserve when they lose their job is an opportunity to get income
support and re-training to rebuild their lives. What they deserve is a
program that creates skills that are needed, that moves them into new
jobs faster, that provides opportunities for the future, that keeps
families and communities intact.
TAA offers the potential for this outcome. Although in need of
revision in several key areas--and I am focusing on these areas at this
time--it has over the years consistently helped individuals and
companies in communities across the United States deal with the
transitions that are an inevitable part of a changing international
economic system. It helps people that can work and want to work to
continue to work in productive jobs that contribute to the economic
welfare of our country. We have made this promise to workers in every
administration, both Democrat and Republican, and we should continue to
do so. Although TAA is not without its flaws, it remains the only
program that allows workers and companies to adjust and remain
competitive. Without it, in my opinion we are saying unequivocally that
we don't care what happens to you, that we bear no responsibility for
the position that you are in, that you are on your own.
Senators Roth, Moynihan, and others think otherwise, and I agree
wholeheartedly with them. I believe that this commitment to individuals
and companies and communities must be kept. I urge all my colleagues to
support the passage of this bill when it comes to a vote on the floor.

____________________

THE F-15 AND ISRAEL

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the F-15, the
world's dominant air superiority fighter. The future of this fighter,
perhaps the most successful in the history of U.S. aviation warfare, is
in jeopardy. While both the Senate and the House have taken steps to
save the F-15, the Administration has resisted efforts to preserve a
plan that is critical for our national security.
I was heartened by the recent action of the House Appropriations
Committee to follow the Senate's lead and provide additional funding
for the F-15. Last month, Senator Bond and I successfully added an
amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill to provide $220 million
for four F-15s. Last week, the House Appropriations Committee provided
$440 million to purchase eight F-15 fighters.
While securing domestic dollars is essential to keep the F-15 alive,
foreign sales are just as important for the long-term health of the
program. Hence, my disappointment that the Israeli Government had
selected the F-16 to fill their latest Air Force needs goes without
saying. As Angelo Codevilla writes today in the Wall Street Journal--
and I will ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks--the F-15 gives Israel critical
long-range strike capability to counter regional threats. As one who is
keenly interested in the security of Israel, it was my hope that the
new Barak Government would select the F-15 to enhance its long-range
deterrent capability.
Mr. Codevilla also implies that the Administration was pushing Israel
to buy the F-16, a less capable plane that would not defend Israel as
well--particularly against the threat posed by missiles from Iran,
Iraq, and Syria. While Israel must make its own decisions with regard
to its security, I sincerely hope the Administration was not pushing
our ally to purchase a less capable plane just so that Syria or Iran
would not be offended. Lasting peace in the Middle East will be based
on a sustainable settlement that can be defended through strength, not
by pushing Israel to take steps which limit its ability to defend
itself.
Mr. President, sustaining the F-15 is essential for U.S. airpower as
we enter the 21st century. Preserving the F-15 is also essential to my
home state of Missouri. The 7,000 Missourians who build the F-15 are a
national security asset. Both houses of Congress have sent clear
signals to the Administration that this plane should be saved. It is
time for the President to start listening and take steps immediately to
ensure funding for the F-15 is included in the defense budget.
I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, July 19, 1999]

Clinton's Dreams of Peace Ignore Mideast Realities

(By Angelo M. Codevilla)

What exactly does President Clinton expect from Israel's
new prime minister, Ehud Barak? At a joint news conference
last week, Mr. Clinton declared that he wants Mr. Barak ``to
widen the circle of peace to include Syria and Lebanon and to
revitalize talks among Israel and the Arab world and to solve
regional problems.'' Mr. Barak spoke more cautiously,
declaring his commitment to ``change and renewal'' but also
his uneasiness at Americans who have acted ``as a kind of
policeman, judge and arbitrator at the same time.''
Mr. Barak may be indebted to Mr. Clinton for undermining
his predecessor, but he also is a serious military man.
Israeli officials are sure to spend the aftermath of Mr.
Barak's visit sorting out the vast differences between the
assumptions of the Clinton game plan and Israel's military
realities.
The military threat to Israel used to consist of the massed
armies of its immediate neighbors. But today's most ominous
threat is weapons of mass destruction carried by missiles
from Iraq, Iran, Syria and perhaps Libya. Israel's foes
believe they could break Israeli military power in the
opening minutes of a war by launching ballistic missile
strikes with chemical or biological weapons against
mobilization centers and weapons-storage areas. These
countries have made an enormous investment in new missiles,
most stored in deep tunnels, highly fortified bunkers or
mobile launchers.
Gen. Eitan Ben Eliahu of the Israeli Air Force has
estimated that Syria alone already has some 1,000 ballistic
missiles, and that within a few years most will have long
ranges. Syria does not need long-range missiles to hit
Israel, but with longer ranges, each missile fired from Syria
would develop enough re-entry speed to negate Israel's
budding antimissile system, the Arrow. Already Iran's Shahib
3 missiles--developed with Russian, Chinese and North Korean
help--stress the Arrow; the forthcoming Shahib 4's will
overwhelm it.
To keep up with the increasing capability of enemy
missiles, Israel's Arrow needs to be connected to the
projected U.S. space-based fire-control system. But the
Clinton administration doesn't want this system for the U.S.,
much less for Israel, for fear of violating the 1973 U.S.-
Soviet Antiballistic Missile Treaty. To handle the
overwhelming number of enemy missiles, Israel would need a
U.S. orbital antimissile device. But the administration has
delayed tests of a space-based laser that had been set for
2001. So Mr. Barak won't get any missile defense out of Mr.
Clinton.
The Israeli Air Force has some pretty sophisticated plans
for the nearly impossible job of striking enemy missiles
before they are launched. But these plans require lots of
deep-strike F-15 I aircraft. Israel has only 25; it has been
negotiating for 15 more. Washington would rather see Israel
buy more F-16's, which can't help Israel with its missile
problem. The F-16's are less threatening to Syria, which the
administration sees as the key to peace.
Instead of military help, the Clinton administration will
give Mr. Barak generous instructions in its own conception of
peace in the Middle East. Yet Mr. Barak will be compelled to
note that Mr. Clinton's view of the world clashes with the
one that Israel has been developing for some time, regardless
of its dealings with the Palestinians.
Following the traditional maxim that foreign policy
proceeds from the nature of the regime, Israel has sought
alliances with Turkey and Jordan, because their regimes are
stable, and because their friendship is secured in part by
their enmity with Syria. Israel has talked about cooperation
on missile defense with both Ankara and Amman, which see
themselves as part of the West against Russian-supported
forces in the region. Another main reason why Turkey and
Jordan are interested in the alliance is Israel's deep-strike
capability against Iran and Iraq.
Israel has been wary of Egypt, and even more of Saudi
Arabia, because although the governments in these countries
U.S. allies, instability would vitiate any deal with them. As
for Syria, much as Israel would like a deal with it, its
enmity is mitigated only by its instability.
The Clinton administration is trying to transcend
traditional alliances. In the Wilsonian tradition, it seeks a
settlement including all and directed against none. It
believes that the path to peace includes exchanging military
advantages for goodwill,

[[Page 16531]]

``guaranteed'' by some sort of international contact group.
Thus the Clinton administration would bless the only deal
Syria would accept--Israel's surrender of the Golan Heights--
and call it peace.
Some Israelis would be happy with this, because it would
carry the implicit assurance that the U.S. would assume
responsibility for Israel's borders. It should be crystal
clear, however, that Washington has neither the interest nor
the capacity to hold Syria to any deal, much less to fight
for Israel.
Here then is the choice Mr. Barak must mull on his way
home: He can trust the Clinton team and move his country
toward a deal with its enemies that violates normal rules of
military prudence. Or he can seek the military means of being
useful to his Turkish and Jordanian friends while being
fearsome to states that are enemies of America and Israel
alike.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.

executive messages referred

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH LIBYA--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT--PM 48

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.

To the Congress of the United States:
I hereby report to the Congress on the developments since my last
report of December 30, 1998, concerning the national emergency with
respect to Libya that was declared in Executive Order 12543 of January
7, 1986. This report is submitted pursuant to section 401(c) of the
National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); section 204(c) of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. 1703(c);
and section 505(c) of the International Security and Development
Cooperation Act of 1985, 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9(c).
1. On December 30, 1998, I renewed for another year the national
emergency with respect to Libya pursuant to IEEPA. This renewal
extended the current comprehensive financial and trade embargo against
Libya in effect since 1986. Under these sanctions, virtually all trade
with Libya is prohibited, and all assets owned or controlled by the
Government of Libya in the United States or in the possession or
control of U.S. persons are blocked.
2. On April 28, 1999, I announced that the United States will exempt
commercial sales of agricultural commodities and products, medicine,
and medical equipment from future unilateral sanctions regimes. In
addition, my Administration will extend this policy to existing
sanctions programs by modifying licensing policies for currently
embargoed countries to permit case-by-case review of specific proposals
for commercial sales of these items. Certain restrictions apply.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Department of the
Treasury is currently drafting amendments to the Libyan Sanctions
Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 550 (the Regulations), to implement this
initiative. The amended Regulations will provide for the licensing of
sales of agricultural commodities and products, medicine, and medical
supplies to nongovernmental entities in Libya or to government
procurement agencies and parastatals not affiliated with the coercive
organs of that country. The amended Regulations will also provide for
the licensing of all transactions necessary and incident to licensed
sales transactions, such as insurance and shipping arrangements.
Financing for the licensed sales transactions will be permitted in the
manner described in the amended Regulations.
3. During the reporting period, OFAC reviewed numerous applications
for licenses to authorize transactions under the Regulations.
Consistent with OFAC's ongoing scrutiny of banking transactions, the
largest category of license approvals (20) involved types of financial
transactions that are consistent with U.S. policy. Most of these
licenses authorized personal remittances not involving Libya between
persons who are not blocked parties to flow through Libyan banks
located outside Libya. Three licenses were issued authorizing certain
travel-related transactions. One license was issued to a U.S. firm to
allow it to protect its intellectual property rights in Libya; another
authorized receipt of payment for legal services; and a third
authorized payments for telecommunications services. A total of 26
licenses were issued during the reporting period.
4. During the current 6-month period, OFAC continued to emphasize to
the international banking community in the United States the importance
of identifying and blocking payments made by or on behalf of Libya. The
office worked closely with the banks to assure the effectiveness of
interdiction software systems used to identify such payments. During
the reporting period, 87 transactions potentially involving Libya,
totaling nearly $3.4 million, were interdicted.
5. Since my last report, OFAC has collected 7 civil monetary
penalties totaling $38,000 from 2 U.S. financial institutions, 3
companies, and 2 individuals for violations of the U.S. sanctions
against Libya. The violations involved export transactions relating to
Libya and dealings in Government of Libya property or property in which
the Government of Libya had an interest.
On April 23, 1999, a foreign national permanent resident in the
United States was sentenced by the Federal District court for the
Middle District of Florida to 2 years in prison and 2 years supervised
release for criminal conspiracy to violate economic sanctions against
Libya, Iran, and Iraq. He had previously been convicted of violation of
the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, the Iranian Transactions Regulations,
the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, and the Export Administration
Regulations for exportation of industrial equipment to the oil, gas,
petrochemical, water, and power industries of Libya, Iran, and Iraq.
Various enforcement actions carried over from previous reporting
periods have continued to be aggressively pursued. Numerous
investigations are ongoing and new reports of violations are being
scrutinized.
6. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month
period from January 7 through July 6, 1999, that are directly
attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by the
declaration of the Libyan national emergency are estimated at
approximately $4.4 million. Personnel costs were largely centered in
the Department of the Treasury (particularly in the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, the Office of the General Counsel, and the U.S. Customs
Service), the Department of State, and the Department of Commerce.
7. In April 1999, Libya surrendered the 2 suspects in the Lockerbie
bombing for trial before a Scottish court seated in the Netherlands. In
accordance with UNSCR 748, upon the suspects' transfer, UN sanctions
were immediately suspended. We will insist that Libya fulfill the
remaining UNSCR requirements for lifting UN sanctions and are working
with UN Secretary Annan and UN Security Council members to ensure that
Libya does so promptly. U.S. unilateral sanctions remain in force, and
I will continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to apply these
sanctions fully and effectively, as long as they remain appropriate. I
will continue to report periodically to the Congress on significant
developments as required by law.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, July 19, 1999.

____________________

[[Page 16532]]

REPORT CONCERNING EMIGRATION LAWS AND POLICIES OF ALBANIA--MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT--PM 49

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

To the Congress of the United States:
I am submitting an updated report to the Congress concerning the
emigration laws and policies of Albania. The report indicates continued
Albanian compliance with U.S. and international standards in the area
of emigration. In fact, Albania has imposed no emigration restrictions,
including exit visa requirements, on its population since 1991.
On December 5, 1997, I determined and reported to the Congress that
Albania is not in violation of the freedom-of-emigration criteria in
sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 1974. That action allowed for
the continuation of normal trade relations status for Albania and
certain other activities without the requirement of an annual waiver.
This semiannual report is submitted as required by law pursuant to the
determination of December 5, 1997.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, July 19, 1999.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

At 4:40 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Berry, one if its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 434. An act to authorize a new trade and investment
policy for sub-Sahara Africa.
H.R. 2490. An act making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
resolution:

H. Res. 252. Resolved that the House has heard with
profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable George E.
Brown, Jr., a Representative from the State of California.

____________________

MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

The following bill was read twice and placed on the calendar:

H.R. 434. An act to authorize a new trade and investment
policy for sub-Sahara Africa.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
without amendment:
S. Res. 156. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Committee on Indian Affairs.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. DeWine,
and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1390. A bill to help parents and families reduce drug
abuse and drug addiction among adolescents, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 1391. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 1392. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide tax incentives for the voluntary conservation of
endangered species, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1393. An original bill to provide a cost-of-living
adjustment in rates of compensation for veterans with
service-connected disabilities and dependency and indemnity
compensation for survivors of such veterans, to amend title
38, United States Code, to codify the previous cost-of-living
adjustment in such rates, and for other purposes; from the
Committee on Veterans Affairs; placed on the calendar.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. Res. 156. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Committee on Indian Affairs; from the
Committee on Indian Affairs; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bond,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr.
McCain, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan,
Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Roth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson,
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wyden):
S. Res. 157. A resolution relative to the disappearance of
John F. Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren
Bessette; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. Con. Res. 44. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should
be issued in honor of the U.S.S. New Jersey and all those who
served aboard her; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

DRUG FREE FAMILIES ACT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are all aware that drug use has
decreased overall in the last 15 years. One of the principal reasons
for this is that we were successful in slowing the rate of
experimentation and use among our young people. However, drug use is up
dramatically among the young in the general population. Children as
young as eight and nine are being confronted with the decision of
whether or not to try drugs. This raises the possibility of a new
epidemic of use and addiction. As you know, much is already being done
to help children make the right decision. Prevention education is
provided by various anti-drug groups, but these groups can't be
effective in their teachings if prevention education does not begin at
home. It is vitally important that parents make the time to school
their children on the dangers of drug use and abuse.
Throughtout the years, research has been done on whether or not kids
listen to their parents. The fact is kids do listen. It is clear that
parents have influence in the choices their children make. The problem
is, when it comes to drugs and alcohol, not all parents see a need to
influence their child's decision or are aware of how serious the
problem is. Some are ambivalent about their own past use. Some are in
denial about what's happening. And why is that? A survey by the
Partnership for a Drug Free America shows that less than a quarter of
the parents questioned even acknowledge the possibility that their
child may have tried marijuana. Unfortunately, of those parents
surveyed, 44 percent of their children actually did experiment with
marijuana. If parents aren't aware of the reality of the situation, how
can they prepare the 6 out of every 10 teenagers who are offered drugs
each year.
The problem isn't that the parents don't care. It is that they don't
know. Parents underestimate the reality of drugs. As a result, they
seldom if every

[[Page 16533]]

talk to their kids about drugs. According to a recent PRIDE survey,
only 30 percent of students reported that their parents talked to them
often or a lot about drugs. This seems unfortunate when we look at
evidence that shows drug use 32 percent lower among kids who said their
parents talked with them a lot about drugs. The harsh reality is that
94 percent of parents say they talked to their teens about drugs, yet
only 67 percent of teens remembered those discussions. Even more
disturbing is a public opinion poll by the American Medical Association
that illustrates that 43 percent of parents believe children using
drugs is a serious national crisis, yet only 8 percent believe it is a
crisis in their local schools, and 6 percent in their local
communities.
Today, on behalf of Senators DeWine, Sessions, and Coverdell, I am
introducing legislation that would bridge the gap between parents and
the realities of youth drug use and abuse. The Drug Free Families Act
would promote prevention education for parents. The goal is to promote
cooperation among current national parent efforts. The kind of parent
collaboration that the Drug Free Families Act proposes would unite
parents at the national level to work with community anti-drug
coalitions in the fight against drugs. It would not only help to
educate parents, but help them convey a clear, consistent, no-use
message. Through the Drug Free Families Act, we can give parents the
resources necessary to educate our youth on the dangers of drugs.
It is clear that parents need assistance in educating kids on drug
use and abuse. Parents, not Government, are the key to addressing the
drug problem. We need to help them. I urge my fellow Members to support
the Drug Free Families Act.
From my own experience in my State of Iowa, holding, as I did in
1998, more than 30 town meetings on the issue of drugs, one of the
things I learned from the young people--junior high and high school
young people who came to my meetings--was, in their own words, a
statement on their part of somewhat frustration with their own
families, that their families were not telling them about the dangers
of drugs. There was even the suggestion from some young people that
what we need is a parent education project so parents would be better
at setting boundaries for kids, the necessity of listening to kids, but
most importantly on the issue of drugs: As a parent, get the message
out to young people about the dangers of drugs.
I got the feeling very definitely from young people of my State that
they knew more about drugs, even more about the dangers of drugs and
the availability of those drugs, than their parents do. I think the
surveys I have pointed out today to justify the Drug Free Families Act
justify and back up what the young people of my State of Iowa told me
in those hearings last year.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 1391. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve
benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veteran's Affairs.

filipino veterans' benefits improvements act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Filipino
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1999. The measure would increase
the disability compensation for those Filipino veterans residing in the
United States. These veterans currently receive compensation at the
``peso-rate'' standard which is 50 percent of what is received by their
American counterparts. Second, the measure would make all Filipino
veterans residing in the United States eligible for veterans' health
care. Like their American counterparts, these Filipino veterans would
be subject to the same eligibility and means test requirements in order
to qualify for health benefits. Third, the measure would provide
outpatient care and services to veterans, Commonwealth Army veterans,
and new Philippine Scouts residing in the Philippines for the treatment
of service-connected and non-service connected disabilities at the
Manila VA Outpatient Clinic.
The measure further restores funding to provide healthcare services
to American military personnel and all Filipino veterans residing in
the Philippines. Many of my colleagues are aware of my advocacy on
behalf of Filipino veterans of World War II. Throughout the years, I
have sponsored several measures on their behalf to correct an injustice
and seek equal treatment for their valiant military service. Members of
the Philippine Commonwealth Army were called to serve the United States
Forces of the Far East. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur,
they joined our American soldiers in fighting some of the fiercest
battles of World War II. Regretfully, the Congress betrayed our
Filipino allies by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946. The 1946 Act,
now codified as 38 U.S.C. 107, deems the military service of Filipino
veterans as non-active service for purposes of any law of the United
States conferring rights, privileges or benefits. The measure I
introduce today will not diminish my efforts to correct this injustice.
As long as it takes, I will continue to seek equal treatment on behalf
of the Filipino veterans of World War II.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1391

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino Veterans' Benefits
Improvements Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATE OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFITS TO
VETERANS OF THE PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH ARMY.

(a) Increase.--Section 107 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Payment'' in the second sentence of
subsection (a) and inserting ``Except as provided in
subsection (c), payment''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) In the case of benefits under subchapters II and IV
of chapter 11 of this title by reason of service described in
subsection (a)--
``(1) notwithstanding the second sentence of subsection
(a), payment of such benefits shall be made in dollars at the
rate of $1.00 for each dollar authorized; and
``(2) such benefits shall be paid only to an individual
residing in the United States who is a citizen of, or an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the
United States.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply to benefits paid for months beginning on or
after that date.

SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH CARE OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL
FILIPINO WORLD WAR II VETERANS.

The text of section 1734 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``The Secretary, within the limits of Department
facilities, shall furnish hospital and nursing home care and
medical services to Commonwealth Army veterans and new
Philippine Scouts in the same manner as provided for under
section 1710 of this title.''.

SEC. 4. MANDATE TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR WORLD WAR II
VETERANS RESIDING IN THE PHILIPPINES.

(a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 17 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 1735 as section 1736; and
(2) by inserting after section 1734 the following new
section:

``Sec. 1735. Outpatient care and services for World War II
veterans residing in the Philippines

``(a) Outpatient Health Care.--The Secretary shall furnish
care and services to veterans, Commonwealth Army veterans,
and new Philippine Scouts for the treatment of the service-
connected disabilities and non-service-connected disabilities
of such veterans and scouts residing in the Republic of the
Philippines on an outpatient basis at the Manila VA
Outpatient Clinic.
``(b) Limitations.--(1) The amount expended by the
Secretary for the purpose of subsection (a) in any fiscal
year may not exceed $500,000.
``(2) The authority of the Secretary to furnish care and
services under subsection (a) is effective in any fiscal year
only to the extent that appropriations are available for that
purpose.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 1735 and inserting after

[[Page 16534]]

the item relating to section 1734 the following new items:

``1735. Outpatient care and services for World War II veterans residing
in the Philippines.
``1736. Definitions.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 1392. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives for the voluntary conservation of endangered species,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

THE SPECIES CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 1999

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Species
Conservation Tax Act of 1999.
The Endangered Species Act sometimes is referred to as our most
important environmental law. However, it also is one of the most
controversial. Over the past decade, a debate has raged about whether,
and how, the Act should be revised. In 1995, Congress went so far as to
impose a complete moratorium on the listing of species (fortunately,
the moratorium has since been lifted). Several bills were introduced,
and given serious consideration, that would have radically weakened the
law.
On a more positive note, last Congress, after several years of work,
the Environment and Public Works Committee reported a bipartisan bill,
supported by the Clinton Administration, that would have made a series
of modest, common-sense reforms to the Act. Unfortunately, that bill
was never considered by the full Senate.
There seems, however, to be an agreement on at least one basic point:
we should use more incentives to promote the conservation of threatened
and endangered species, including tax incentives. For example, in 1995,
a group organized by the Keystone Center reported that ``taxes,
including income taxes, estate taxes, and property taxes, affect all
landowners and sometimes significantly affect their land use decisions.
Changes in tax laws, including some that have a relatively small cost
to the Treasury, could yield important conservation benefits.''
Over the years, we have made some progress. The tax code now contains
two significant incentives for conserving land. One is section 170(h),
which allows a charitable contribution deduction for donations of
conservation easements in order to, among other things, preserve
wildlife habitat. The other is section 2031(c), which, with the
leadership of Senator Chafee, was enacted in 1997; it complements
section 170(h) with an estate tax incentive to encourage the
conservation of land for future generations.
The bill that I am introducing today builds on these provisions. It
enhances the section 170(h) and section 2031(c) incentives, and it adds
a new estate tax incentive for land that is managed to protect
threatened or endangered species.
Let me briefly describe each provision of the bill.

Income Tax Exclusion for Cost Share Payments Under the Partners for
Wildlife Program

Tax Code section 126 excludes from income payments received pursuant
to certain agricultural and silvicultural conservation programs; it
specifically excludes payments received pursuant to eight specific
programs, then provides two general exclusions, one for payments
received pursuant to certain state programs and another for ``any small
watershed program administered by the Secretary of Agriculture which is
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury . . . to be substantially
similar'' to the eight specific programs. The Joint Tax Committee
explained the reason for the adoption of this provision, in 1978, as
follows:

In general, these programs relate to improvements which
further conservation, protect or restore the environment,
improve forests, or provide a habitat for wildlife. These
payments ordinarily do not improve the income producing
capacity of the property. Also, since these payments
represent a portion of an expenditure made by the taxpayer,
the taxpayer generally does not have additional funds to pay
the tax when such payments are made. The potential adverse
tax consequences may operate to discourage certain taxpayers
from participating in these programs.
For these reasons, Congress believes that it is appropriate
to exclude these payments from income, and to provide for
their inclusion only at the time the underlying property is
disposed of.

However, this provision does not apply to all of the appropriate
programs. In 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the
Partners for Wildlife program, which provides cost-sharing assistance
to landowners for various wildlife conservation efforts. To date,
18,000 landowners have participated voluntarily in the program,
restoring more than 330,000 acres of wetlands alone. In fiscal year
1999, about $28 million will be available through the program, of which
about $9 million is expected to be paid directly to landowners as cost-
share payments.
Although cost-share payments made to private landowners under the
Partners for Wildlife program are similar to the payments that are
excluded under section 126, payments under the Partners for Wildlife
program are not eligible for the exclusion, because the Partners
program is not one of the specific programs listed in section 126 and
cannot qualify as a ``substantially similar'' program because it is not
administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As a result, landowners
who receive payments for protecting habitat under the Partners program
get a 1099 form, from the IRS, stating that the payments must be
treated as taxable income. If, for example, the Fish and Wildlife
Service plans to pay a riparian landowner $10,000 to take steps to
restore streamside habitat, federal taxes can reduce the value of the
payment by several thousand dollars. I have received reports that this
is causing some landowners to decline to participate in the program.
Mr. President, the Partners for Wildlife program serves the important
purpose of promoting federal-state-private partnerships to conserve
species and the habitat upon which they depend. Payments received under
the program are similar to those that are excluded under section 126:
they promote conservation, they ordinarily do not improve the income
producing capacity of the property, they represent a portion of an
expenditure made by the taxpayer, and the potential adverse tax
consequences may operate to discourage some taxpayers from
participating. For these reasons, it is appropriate to amend section
126 to treat payments received under the Partners for Wildlife program
the same as other conservation payments. The bill would do so.
There is broad support for this change among both environmentalists
and landowners: It is supported by the Environmental Defense Fund, the
American Farm Bureau Federation, the Center for Marine Conservation,
American Rivers, the National Woodland Owners Association, the
Defenders of Wildlife, the Izaak Walton League of America, and the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Enhanced Deduction for the Donation of Interests in Real Property that
Conserve Threatened or Endangered Species

Under current law, a taxpayer generally may not take a charitable
contribution deduction for the donation of a property interest that is
less than the taxpayer's entire interest in the property. There are
several exceptions. One is for donations of conservation easements,
which include easements to preserve open space and protect natural
habitat. Taxpayers may deduct the value of such contributions, but only
up to 30% of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income, with a five year
carry-forward.
The bill would enhance the deduction for contributions of
conservation easements that are made for the purpose of the
conservation of a species that has been listed as threatened or
endangered (or proposed for listing). The deduction is enhanced in
three ways: the AGI limitation is increased from 30% to 50%, the carry-
forward period is increased from five to 20 years, and, if the taxpayer
dies before then, the entire unused carry-forward amount can be
deducted on the decedent's last return.
Mr. President, when a landowner donates an interest in property for
the purpose of conserving an endangered species, the landowner is
providing a

[[Page 16535]]

public benefit above and beyond the benefit provided by an ordinary
conservation easement. For example, an easement might not only assure
that farmland remains farmland, but also that there are buffer strips
to control runoff in order to protect and endangered fish and that
harvesting schedules conform to the needs of migratory waterfowl. By
taking such steps voluntarily, landowners reduce the need to take other
steps to preserve the species, including the imposition of regulatory
restrictions.
By enhancing the deduction for landowners who take such steps, we
create a modest additional incentive for landowners not only to
conserve land but also to assure that the land is managed in a way that
helps conserve and recover endangered species.

Estate Tax Exclusion for Property Subject to a Conservation Agreement

Under current law, an executor can deduct the value of a conservation
easement (within the meaning of section 170(h)) from the value of an
estate. In addition, section 2031(c), an executor can exclude from the
estate up to 40% of the remaining value of the land subject to the
easement.
For example, if a decedent conveys property worth $1,000,000, subject
to a conservation easement that reduces the value of the property by
$300,000, and the property qualifies for the full 40% exclusion, the
taxable portion of the estate would be $280,000 (40 percent of the
$700,000 in remaining value after deducting the $300,000 value of the
easement).
The amount of the exclusion is limited to $500,000 and, under section
170(h), the conservation easement must be granted in perpetuity.
The bill creates a new estate tax incentive for donations of a
partial interest in property that is subject to an agreement, approved
by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, to carry out activities
that would make a major contribution to the conservation of a species
that is listed as threatened or endangered, is proposed for listing, or
is a candidate for listing. The executor may exclude from the estate
the entire value of the portion of the property subject to the
agreement, up to $10,000,000.
The conservation agreement need not be in perpetuity; after all, the
purpose of the agreement is to help recover the species, and once that
goal is achieved, land use restrictions may no longer is necessary.
However, if the agreement ends in less than 40 years (i.e., because the
property is sold, there is a material breach of the agreement, or the
agreement is terminated), the estate must pay a recapture amount, as
follows: 100% of the excluded amount if the agreement is terminated in
less than 10 years; 75% if it is terminated in less than 20 years; 50%
if it is terminated in less than 30 years; and 25% if it is terminated
in less than 40 years.
Mr. President, current law recognizes that estate tax incentives are
an appropriate way to encourage landowners to take steps to conserve
precious natural resources for future generations.
When a landowner or the executor of a landowner's estate enters into
an agreement to manage land in a way that makes a major contribution to
the conservation of an endangered or threatened species, they are, as I
said before, providing a public benefit above and beyond the benefit
provided by an ordinary conservation easement. By creating an
alternative estate tax incentive for landowners who take such steps, we
create a modest additional incentive for landowners not only to
conserve land but also to assure that the land is managed in a way that
helps conserve and recover endangered species.

Elimination of the Mileage Limitation For the Estate Tax Exclusion For
Land Subject to a Conservation Easement

Tax code section 2031(c) allows an executor to exclude from a gross
estate a portion of the value of land that is subject to a conservation
easement (within the meaning of section 170(h)), but only if the land
is within 25 miles of a metropolitan area, a wilderness area, or a
national park; or is within 10 miles of an Urban National Forest.
The bill eliminates 25 and 10 mile limitations, so that an executor
can exclude land subject to a conservation agreement regardless of
where the land is located.
Mr. President, section 2031(c) serves the important purpose of
encouraging landowners to conserve open space for future generations,
rather than forcing heirs to sell undeveloped land to pay estate taxes.
The 25 and 10 mile limitations were included in order to reduce the
revenue loss and target the incentive to the areas that were likely to
be under the greatest development pressure. However, the mileage
limitations are a very imperfect proxy. It excludes about one-third of
the continental United States; in many cases, the excluded lands are
just as pristine and sensitive as lands surrounding wilderness areas or
national parks--such as lands surrounding national wildlife refuges.
And it excludes many fast-growing areas that do not happen to be
metropolitan statistical areas, like areas outside Bozeman and
Kalispell, Montana--two of the fastest growing communities in Montana.
What's more, the mile limitations have a differential impact among
regions of the country. For example, they have the effect of making
virtually the entire Northeast and West Coast eligible for the 2031(c)
incentive, but exclude large parts of the Great Plains and the Rocky
Mountain West.
To eliminate this differential impact, and provide a modest incentive
for conservation all across the country, the mileage limitation should
be eliminated.

Conclusion

Mr. President, taken together, these complementary provisions provide
modest but important incentives for the conservation of habitat and the
protection of endangered species. And, the more we can use tax
incentives to encourage the conservation of threatened and endangered
species, the more likely we are to reduce the regulatory burdens
associated with those species.
I should note that there are other significant proposals along
similar lines, including tax proposals introduced by Senators Jeffords
and Chafee and funding proposals introduced by Senator Boxer. I look
forward to working with them, and with other interested colleagues, to
enacted a solid package of conservation tax incentives into law.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1392

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Species
Conservation Tax Act of 1999''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 2. TAX EXCLUSION FOR COST-SHARING PAYMENTS UNDER
PARTNERS FOR WILDLIFE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 126(a) (relating to certain cost-
sharing payments) is amended by redesignating paragraph (10)
as paragraph (11) and by inserting after paragraph (9) the
following:
``(10) The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C.
742a et seq.).''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments received after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR THE DONATION OF A CONSERVATION
EASEMENT.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 170(h)(4)
(defining conservation purpose) is amended by striking ``or''
at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at the end
of clause (iv) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the
end the following:
``(v) the conservation of a species designated by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq) as
endangered or threatened, proposed by such Secretary for
designation as endangered or threatened, or identified by
such Secretary as a candidate for such designation, provided
the property is not required, as of the date of contribution,
to be used for such purpose other than by reason of the terms
of contribution.''
(b) Enhanced Deductions.--Subsection (e) of section 170
(defining qualified conservation contribution) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

[[Page 16536]]

``(7) Special rules for contributions related to
conservation of species.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified conservation
contribution by an individual for the conservation of
endangered or threatened species, proposed species, or
candidate species under (h)(4)(v):
``(i) 50 percent limitation to apply.--Such a contribution
shall be treated for the purposes of this section as
described in subsection (b)(l)(A).
``(ii) 20-year carry forward.--Subsection (d)(1) shall be
applied by substituting `20 years' for `5 years' each place
it appears and with appropriate adjustments in the
application of subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
``(iii) Unused deduction carryover allowed on taxpayer's
last return.--If the taxpayer dies before the close of the
last taxable year for which a deduction could have been
allowed under subsection (d)(1), any portion of the deduction
for such contribution which has not been allowed shall be
allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) (without regard
to subsection (b)) for the taxable year in which such death
occurs or such portion may be used as a deduction against the
gross estate of the taxpayer.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. EXCLUSION FROM ESTATE TAX FOR REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION AGREEMENT.

(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 11 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to taxable
estate) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 2058. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ENDANGERED
SPECIES CONSERVATION AGREEMENT.

``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of the tax imposed by
section 2001, the value of the taxable estate shall be
determined by deducting from the value of the gross estate an
amount equal to lesser of--
``(1) the adjusted value of real property included in the
gross estate which is subject to an endangered species
conservation agreement, or
``(2) $10,000,000.
``(b) Property Subject to an Endangered Species
Conservation Agreement.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--Real property shall be treated as
subject to an endangered species conservation agreement if--
``(A) such property was owned by the decedent or a member
of the decedent's family at all times during the 3-year
period ending on the date of the decedent's death,
``(B) each person who has an interest in such property
(whether or not in possession) has entered into--
``(i) an endangered species conservation agreement with
respect to such property, and
``(ii) a written agreement with the Secretary consenting to
the application of subsection (d), and
``(C) the executor of the decedent's estate--
``(i) elects the application of this section, and
``(ii) files with the Secretary such endangered species
conservation agreement.
``(2) Adjusted value.--
``(A) In general.--The adjusted value of any real property
shall be its value for purposes of this chapter, reduced by--
``(i) any amount deductible under section 2055(f) with
respect to the property, and
``(ii) any acquisition indebtedness with respect to the
property.
``(B) Acquisition indebtedness.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `acquisition indebtedness' means, with
respect to any real property, the unpaid amount of--
``(i) the indebtedness incurred by the donor in acquiring
such property,
``(ii) the indebtedness incurred before the acquisition of
such property if such indebtedness would not have been
incurred but for such acquisition,
``(iii) the indebtedness incurred after the acquisition of
such property if such indebtedness would not have been
incurred but for such acquisition and the incurrence of such
indebtedness was reasonably foreseeable at the time of such
acquisition, and
``(iv) the extension, renewal, or refinancing of an
acquisition indebtedness.
``(c) Endangered Species Conservation Agreement.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `endangered species
conservation agreement' means a written agreement entered
into with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce--
``(A) which commits each person who signed such agreement
to carry out on the real property activities or practices not
otherwise required by law or to refrain from carrying out on
such property activities or practices that could otherwise be
lawfully carried out and includes--
``(i) objective and measurable species of concern
conservation goals,
``(ii) site-specific and other management measures
necessary to achieve those goals, and
``(iii) objective and measurable criteria to monitor
progress toward those goals,
``(B) which is certified by such Secretary as providing a
major contribution to the conservation of a species of
concern, and
``(C) which is for a term that such Secretary determines is
sufficient to achieve the purposes of the agreement, but not
less than 10 years beginning on the date of the decedent's
death.
``(2) Species of concern.--The term `species of concern'
means any species designated by the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Commerce under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq) as endangered or threatened,
proposed by such Secretary for designation as endangered or
threatened, or identified by such Secretary as a candidate
for such designation.
``(3) Annual certification to the secretary by the
secretary of the interior or the secretary of commerce of the
status of endangered species conservation agreements.--If the
executor elects the application of this section, the executor
shall promptly give written notice of such election to the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce. The
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce shall
thereafter annually certify to the Secretary that the
endangered species conservation agreement applicable to any
property for which such election has been made remains in
effect and is being satisfactorily complied with.
``(d) Recapture of Tax Benefit in Certain Cases.--
``(1) Disposition of interest or material breach.--
``(A) In general.--An additional tax in the amount
determined under subparagraph (B) shall be imposed on any
person on the earlier of--
``(i) the disposition by such person of any interest in
property subject to an endangered species conservation
agreement (other than a disposition described in subparagraph
(C)),
``(ii) a material breach by such person of the endangered
species conservation agreement, or
``(iii) the termination of the endangered species
conservation agreement.
``(B) Amount of additional tax.--
``(i) In general.--The amount of the additional tax imposed
by subparagraph (A) with respect to any interest shall be an
amount equal to the applicable percentage of the lesser of--

``(I) the adjusted tax difference attributable to such
interest (within the meaning of section 2032A(c)(2)(B)), or
``(II) the excess of the amount realized with respect to
the interest (or, in any case other than a sale or exchange
at arm's length, the fair market value of the interest) over
the value of the interest determined under subsection (a).

``(ii) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of clause (i),
the applicable percentage is determined in accordance with
the following table:

``If, with respect to the date of the agreement, the date of the event
The applicable percentage is--(A) occurs--
Before 10 years..............................................100 ....

After 9 years and before 20 years.............................75 ....

After 19 years and before 30 years............................50 ....

After 29 years and before 40 years............................25 ....

After 39.......................................................0.....

``(C) Exception if certain heirs assume obligations upon
the death of a person executing the agreement.--Subparagraph
(A)(i) shall not apply if--
``(i) upon the death of a person described in subsection
(b)(1)(B) during the term of such agreement, the property
subject to such agreement passes to a member of the person's
family, and
``(ii) the member agrees--

``(I) to assume the obligations imposed on such person
under the endangered species conservation agreement,
``(II) to assume personal liability for any tax imposed
under subparagraph (A) with respect to any future event
described in subparagraph (A), and
``(III) to notify the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce that
the member has assumed such obligations and liability.

If a member of the person's family enters into an agreement
described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III), such member
shall be treated as signatory to the endangered species
conservation agreement the person entered into.
``(2) Due date of additional tax.--The additional tax
imposed by paragraph (1) shall become due and payable on the
day that is 6 months after the date of the disposition
referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) or, in the case of an
event described in clause (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),
on April 15 of the calendar year following any year in which
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce
fails to provide the certification required under subsection
(c)(3).
``(e) Statute of Limitations.--If a taxpayer incurs a tax
liability pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(A), then--
``(1) the statutory period for the assessment of any
additional tax imposed by subsection (d)(1)(A) shall not
expire before the expiration of 3 years from the date the
Secretary is notified (in such manner as the Secretary may by
regulation prescribe) of the incurring of such tax liability,
and

[[Page 16537]]

``(2) such additional tax may be assessed before the
expiration of such 3-year period notwithstanding the
provisions of any other law or rule of law that would
otherwise prevent such assessment.
``(f) Election and Filing of Agreement.--The election under
this section shall be made on the return of the tax imposed
by section 2001. Such election, and the filing under
subsection (b) of an endangered species conservation
agreement, shall be made in such manner as the Secretary
shall by regulation provide.
``(g) Application of This Section to Interests in
Partnerships, Corporations, and Trusts.--This section shall
apply to an interest in a partnership, corporation, or trust
if at least 30 percent of the entity is owned (directly or
indirectly) by the decedent, as determined under the rules
described in section 2057(e)(3).
``(h) Member of Family.--For purposes of this section, the
term `member of the family' means any member of the family
(as defined in section 2032A(e)(2)) of the decedent.''
(b) Carryover Basis.--Section 1014(a)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to basis of property acquired
from a decedent) is amended by inserting ``or 2058'' after
``section 2031(c)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IV
of subchapter A of chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 2058. Certain real property subject to endangered species
conservation agreement.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. EXPANSION OF ESTATE TAX EXCLUSION FOR REAL PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO QUALIFIED CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

(a) Repeal of Certain Restrictions on Where Land Is
Located.--Clause (i) of section 2031(c)(8)(A) (defining land
subject to a qualified conservation easement) is amended to
read as follows:
``(i) which is located in the United States or any
possession of the United States,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 459

At the request of Mr. Breaux, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Abraham), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), and the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) were added as cosponsors of S. 459, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State ceiling
on private activity bonds.

S. 484

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft) was added as a cosponsor of S. 484, a bill to provide
for the granting of refugee status in the United States to nationals of
certain foreign countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or
American Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist
in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive.

S. 510

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 510, a bill to preserve the
sovereignty of the United States over public lands and acquired lands
owned by the United States, and to preserve State sovereignty and
private property rights in non-Federal lands surrounding those public
lands and acquired lands.

S. 622

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Breaux) was added as a cosponsor of S. 622, a bill to enhance
Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.

S. 632

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 632, a bill to provide
assistance for poison prevention and to stabilize the funding of
regional poison control centers.

S. 693

At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Thompson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 693, a bill to assist in
the enhancement of the security of Taiwan, and for other purposes.

S. 777

At the request of Mr. Fitzgerald, the names of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft), the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) were added as
cosponsors of S. 777, a bill to require the Department of Agriculture
to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the
public to file all required paperwork electronically with the
Department and to have access to public information on farm programs,
quarterly trade, economic, and production reports, and other similar
information.

S. 805

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Wellstone) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) were added
as cosponsors of S. 805, a bill to amend title V of the Social Security
Act to provide for the establishment and operation of asthma treatment
services for children, and for other purposes.

S. 979

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 979, a bill to amend the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide for
further self-governance by Indian tribes, and for other purposes.

S. 1029

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1029, a bill to amend
title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to
provide for digital education partnerships.

S. 1128

At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Bennett) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1128, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the Federal estate and gift
taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers, to provide for a
carryover basis at death, and to establish a partial capital gains
exclusion for inherited assets.

S. 1144

At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the names of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1144, a bill to provide increased flexibility in use
of highway funding, and for other purposes.

S. 1197

At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1197, a bill to
prohibit the importation of products made with dog or cat fur, to
prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and
distribution of products made with dog or cat fur in the United States,
and for other purposes.

S. 1214

At the request of Mr. Thompson, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1214, a bill to
ensure the liberties of the people by promoting federalism, to protect
the reserved powers of the States, to impose accountability for Federal
preemption of State and local laws, and for other purposes.

S. 1244

At the request of Mr. Thompson, the name of the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Bennett) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1244, a bill to establish
a 3-year pilot project for the General Accounting Office to report to
Congress on economically significant rules of Federal agencies, and for
other purposes.

S. 1293

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Coverdell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1293, a bill to
establish a Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education
Board.

S. 1361

At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Breaux) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1361, a bill to amend the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to provide for an expanded
Federal program of hazard mitigation, relief, and

[[Page 16538]]

insurance against the risk of catastrophic natural disasters, such as
hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, and for other
purposes.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 9

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 9, a concurrent resolution calling for a United States
effort to end restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the
enclaved people in the occupied area of Cyprus.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 34

At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Hollings) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 34, a concurrent resolution relating to the observence of
``In Memory'' Day.

Senate Resolution 92

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) were
added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 92, a resolution expressing
the sense of the Senate that funding for prostate cancer research
should be increased substantially.

Senate Resolution 95

At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Michigan (Mr.
Abraham), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from
New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution
95, a resolution designating August 16, 1999, as ``National Airborne
Day.''

Senate Resolution 118

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 118, a
resolution designating December 12, 1999, as ``National Children's
Memorial Day.''

Senate Resolution 128

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Coverdell) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 128, a
resolution designating March 2000, as ``Arts Education Month.''

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 44--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT
A COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP SHOULD BE ISSUED IN HONOR OF THE U.S.S.
``NEW JERSEY'' AND ALL THOSE WHO SERVED ABOARD HER

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli) submitted the
following resolution which was referred to the Committee on Government
Affairs:

S. Con. Res. 44

Whereas the Iowa Class Battleship, the U.S.S. New Jersey
(BB-62), is the most decorated warship in United States naval
history, with 16 battle stars and 20 citations, medals, and
ribbons during her 56 years of service;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey was launched on December 7,
1942, by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; sponsored by Mrs.
Charles Edison, wife of then-Governor Edison of New Jersey,
former Secretary of the Navy; and commissioned at
Philadelphia on May 23, 1943, Captain Carl F. Holden in
command;
Whereas her first action as a flagship for Admiral William
``Bull'' Halsey's Third Fleet was a bold 2-day surface and
air strike by her task force against the supposedly
impregnable Japanese fleet base on Truk in the Caroline
Islands, thereby interdicting Japanese naval retaliation in
response to the conquest of the Marshall Islands;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey provided crucial firepower
for the assault on Iwo Jima;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey gave the same crucial service
for the first major aircraft carrier raid on Tokyo;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey's guns opened the first shore
bombardment in Korea at Wonsan, and served with distinction
throughout the remainder of the Korean conflict;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey participated in bombardment
and fire support missions along the Vietnamese coast during
the Vietnam era;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey earned the Navy Unit
Commendation for Vietnam service, received 9 battle stars for
World War II, 4 for the Korean conflict, and 3 for the
Vietnam era;
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey supported the Marine
operation with the Multinational Peacekeeping Force in
Beirut, Lebanon;
Whereas, in 1991, the U.S.S. New Jersey became the first
United States battleship to enter and operate in the Persian
Gulf; and
Whereas the U.S.S. New Jersey, after being decommissioned
on February 8, 1991, and due in no small part to the efforts
of the U.S.S. New Jersey Battleship Foundation, will be
heading home in the fall of 1999 to become a floating
monument and an educational museum: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) a commemorative postage stamp should be issued by the
United States Postal Service in honor of the U.S.S. New
Jersey and all those who served aboard her; and
(2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend
to the Postmaster General that such a postage stamp be
issued.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an
important resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that a
commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of the U.S.S. New
Jersey, an Iowa class battleship, and all those who served aboard her.
From the time of its launch on December 7, 1942, the U.S.S. New
Jersey provided crucial support to numerous naval missions throughout
the world. It is the most decorated warship in U.S. naval history,
having earned battle stars, citations, medals, and ribbons from World
War II, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam era. Furthermore, the
U.S.S. New Jersey was the first U.S. battleship to enter and operate in
the Persian Gulf.
The New Jersey was decommissioned in 1991, and in the fiscal year
1999 Defense authorization bill, I authorized a provision to mandate
that the Navy donate the U.S.S. New Jersey to a nonprofit entity that
will relocate the ship in the state of New Jersey. Now, after the
overwhelming support and continuous struggle of various groups and
individuals in the state, as well as bipartisan efforts from New
Jersey's state and federal legislators, the battleship is scheduled to
return to New Jersey this fall. For this, I would like to extend my
thanks to the residents of New Jersey who have donated countless hours
in volunteer time, as well as to the Battleship New Jersey Foundation
whose efforts were a driving force in the success of this endeavor.
Now that the U.S.S. New Jersey is coming home, it is time to honor
this great ship with a commemorative stamp.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 156--AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON
INDIAN AFFAIRS

Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported the
following original resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Rules and Administration:

S. Res. 156

Resolved, That, in carrying out its powers, duties, and
functions under the Standing Rules of the Senate, in
accordance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of such
rules, including holding hearings, and making investigations
as authorized by paragraphs 1 and 8 of rule XXVI of Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Indian Affairs is
authorized from October 1, 1999, through February 28, 2001,
in its discretion (1) to make expenditures from the
contingent fund of the Senate, (2) to employ personnel, and
(3) with the prior consent of the Government department or
agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to use on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable
basis the services of personnel of any such department or
agency.
Sec. 2. (a) The expenses of the committee for the period
October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000, under this
resolution shall not exceed $1,260,534, of which amount (1)
no funds may be expended for the procurement of the services
of individual consultants, or organizations thereof (as
authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended), and (2) not to
exceed $1,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946).
(b) For the period October 1, 2000, through February 28,
2001, expenses of the committee under this resolution shall
not exceed $537,123, of which amount (1) no funds may be
expended for the procurement of the services of individual
consultants, or organizations thereof (as authorized by
section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,
as

[[Page 16539]]

amended), and (2) not to exceed $1,000 may be expended for
the training of the professional staff of such committee
(under procedures specified by section 202(j) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).
Sec. 3. The committee shall report its finding, together
with such recommendations for legislation as it deems
advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable date,
but not later than February 29, 2000, and February 28, 2001,
respectively.
Sec. 4. Expenses of the committee under this resolution
shall be paid from the contingent fund of the fund of the
Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the
committee, except that vouchers shall not be required (1) for
the disbursement of the salaries of employees paid at an
annual rate, or (2) for the payment of telecommunications
provided by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or (3) for the payment of
stationery supplies purchased through the Keeper of the
Stationery, United States Senate, or (4) for payments to the
Postmaster, United States Senate, or (5) for the payment of
metered charges on copying equipment provided by the Office
of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate,
or (6) for the payment of Senate Recording and Photographic
Services, or (7) for payment of franked and mass mail costs
by the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate.
Sec. 5. There are authorized such sums as may be necessary
for agency contributions related to the compensation of
employees of the committee from October 1, 1999, through
September 30, 2000, and October 1, 2000, through February 28,
2001, to be paid from the Appropriations account for
``Expenses of Inquiries and Investigations.''

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 157--RELATIVE TO THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JOHN F.
KENNEDY, JR., CAROLYN BESSETTE KENNEDY, AND LAUREN BESSETTE

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bryan,
Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams,
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr.
McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wyden)
submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 157

Whereas it is with profound sorrow and regret that the
Senate has learned that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., his
wife Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and her sister Lauren Bessette
have been missing since the early morning hours of Saturday,
July 17, 1999;
Whereas John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., is the son of the
late John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the
United States of America and Senator from Massachusetts, and
nephew of the late Senator Robert Francis Kennedy of New
York, and of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy of Massachusetts,
and a beloved member of the Kennedy family, which has given
countless years of service to this country; and
Whereas the heart of the Nation goes out to the Kennedy and
Bessette families as search efforts continue in the waters
off Martha's Vineyard: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate, when it adjourns on Monday, July
19, 1999, do so as a further mark of respect for the grieving
families, and directs the Secretary to transmit a copy of
this resolution to the Kennedy and Bessette families.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

______

MOYNIHAN AMENDMENT NO. 1255

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. MOYNIHAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill (H.R. 1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United
States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other
purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON CLASSIFICATION AND
DECLASSIFICATION

It is the sense of Congress that in a democracy the
systematic declassification of records of permanent historic
value is in the public interest and that the management of
classification and declassification by Executive Branch
agencies requires comprehensive reform.

____________________

NOTICES OF HEARINGS

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 21,
1999, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to
consider the nomination of William Rainer to become Chairman of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and to conduct an oversight review
of the farmland protection program.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public
that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests
and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
The hearing will take place Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 719, a bill
to provide the orderly disposal of certain Federal land in the State of
Nevada and for the acquisition of environmental sensitive land in the
State, and for other purposes, S. 930, a bill to provide for the sale
of certain public land in the Ivanpah Valley, NV, to the Clark County,
Nevada, Department of Aviation, S. 1030, a bill to provide that the
conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management of the surface estate to
certain land in the State of Wyoming in exchange for certain private
land will not result in the removal of the land from operation of the
mining laws, S. 1288, a bill to provide incentives for collaborative
forest restoration projects on National Forest System and other public
lands in New Mexico, and for other purposes, and S. 1374, a bill to
authorize the development and maintenance of a multiagency campus
project in the town of Jackson, WY.
Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

TAHOMA HIGH SCHOOL

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a class
of students from Tahoma High School in Maple Valley, Washington who are
the champions of the Region One--Western States award of the ``We the
People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. This
outstanding group earned the highest cumulative score in their
geographic region during the first two days of the ``Citizen and the
Constitution'' national finals, competing against 50 other classes from
across the country. Their remarkable understanding and appreciation of
the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government
assure me that this emerging generation will contribute much to the
future of civic life.
These Tahoma High School students serve as role models to their
peers, not

[[Page 16540]]

only by expressing their views and arguments in a poised and mature
manner, but also by expressing them as they relate to government. I
commend these students on beginning this important civic dialogue at an
early age, and sincerely hope that they make it a life-long commitment.
The honored students, led by Mark Oglesby, are: Adam Baldridge, Mary
Basinger, Josh Bodily, Sydney Brumbach, Katie Carder, Erica Chavez,
Elizabeth Dauenhauer, Steven Dekoker, Meaghan Denney, Nathan Dill,
Marisa Dorazio, Jesse Duncan, Jayson Hart, Jon Hellstom, Carolyn Hott,
Daniel Lindner, Casey Lineberger, Clark Lundberg, Karrie Pilgrim,
Michael Pirog, David Rosales, Jason Shinn, Jeremy Sloan, Justin Sly,
Donny Trieu, Orianna Tucker, Jessica Walker, Raymond Williams, and
Elizabeth Zaleski.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LT. DAVID STOUT, MINNESOTA STATE TROOPER OF THE YEAR

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to
Lt. David Stout of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol for being named
the Patrol's 1999 Trooper of the Year. This is the second such honor
for Lt. Stout, who was also given the award in 1977. He served in the
State Patrol since 1969 and retired last month after 30 years of
service.
Lt. Stout began his service in the Patrol in the East Metro Area of
the Twin Cities and most recently has worked in the Duluth area. Among
the highlights of his career, Lt. Stout was honored to lead Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev's motorcade during his visit to Minnesota
in 1990.
His family and friends know that David will enjoy his retirement with
his 32-foot coastal tugboat, which he recently refurbished and now
docks on Lake Superior. When winter makes Superior unnavigable, David
and his wife Geri will spend time with family in Green Valley, Arizona.
Among his friends and family who are proud of David's career are
David's nephew Tim, a member of my staff. On behalf of all Minnesotans,
I salute Lt. David Stout's service to the people of Minnesota.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO RAY ZINK

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Ray Zink, North Dakota Department
of Transportation Deputy Director for Engineering, retired June 30. In
his 40 years with NDDOT, Ray has had a long-standing dedication to
providing the best possible transportation system for the people of
North Dakota at the lowest possible cost.
Ray Zink joined NDDOT in 1959 as a draftsman, and after subsequent
promotions, he became chief engineer in 1982. Ray worked successfully
with four NDDOT directors, three governors, and both political parties.
Governors, legislators, and others in political positions have trusted
Ray throughout the years and respected his integrity and judgement.
Ray has held several key positions in AASHTO (the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), and because
of his expertise and the respect accorded him, he has been invited to
represent AASHTO and the FHA (Federal Highway Administration) at
highway symposiums in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and Johannesburg and
Durban, South Africa.
As North Dakota's chief highway engineer for 17 years, Ray Zink can
claim the following accomplishments:
Helping to build one of the finest highway systems in the Nation:
Because the state is so large and people live so far from each other,
North Dakota requires an extensive highway system to move people and
commodities. However, it lacks the population base to support the
system it needs. In spite of this, Ray Zink has led NDDOT to create an
excellent highway system, by listening to the public, relying on sound
engineering practices, and industriously using every penny of funding
in the most effective way.
Using Federal aid as quickly as possible: North Dakota has always
matched and used every dollar of federal aid available to it. Under
Ray's leadership the state has spent federal aid as quickly and
efficiently as possible, because every delay reduces the effectiveness
of the funding through inflation and further highway deterioration. In
rural America, our roads are critical to keeping us connected to our
farms, our jobs, our families, and our cities.
Instituting North Dakota's low-load program: To help funnel more
funds to where they were most badly needed, Ray initiated the low-load
program. Highways with very low truck traffic are designated ``low-load
highways.'' They receive basic maintenance and periodic seal coats but
are not candidates for other improvements. This lets NDDOT direct its
resources to heavily-traveled highways that need more attention, which
means that the entire highway system is in better shape and will
deteriorate more slowly.
As NDDOT maintenance engineer and chief engineer, Ray Zink has helped
create and maintain these vital links between towns and cities and
farms, and we are grateful for his careful guardianship.

____________________

NISH 25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION ACKNOWLEDGING SENATOR JACOB K. JAVITS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on July 21, 1999, NISH will host
a ceremony to acknowledge and celebrate the legacy of Senator Jacob K.
Javits, a distinguished member of the United States Senate for 24
years. This Congressional leader, long recognized for his work in
pension reform, labor and foreign policy, is being celebrated for his
enduring contributions to people with severe disabilities through the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program. Elected to the Senate in 1956, Senator
Javits was instrumental in expanding the work of the Wagner-O'Day
Program to include people with mental retardation, mental illness and
other severe disabilities through the 1971 Javits Amendments.
NISH is the non-profit agency that assists community rehabilitation
programs that employ people with disabilities through the Javits-
Wagner-O'Day Program. Celebrating its 25th Anniversary, NISH
acknowledges the critical role that Senator Javits played in the lives
of people with disabilities, through the expansion of the program.
Today, more than 30,000 people with disabilities are employed on
Javits-Wagner-O'Day projects across the country.
It is my pleasure, Mr. President to offer my congratulations and best
wishes to NISH as it celebrates its 25th Anniversary. Further, I extend
the invitation to all of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of
Representatives to join me in attending the celebration to honor the
legacy of Jacob Javits on July 21st from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in 902
Hart Senate Office Building.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE WEST VIRGINIA AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask that we take a moment
today to recognize the enlisted men and women of the West Virginia Air
National Guard. Earlier this year, Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr.,
the director of the Air National Guard, declared 1999, ``The Year of
the Enlisted Force'' in an effort to promote enlisted pride. In a March
18th proclamation, Governor Cecil H. Underwood, Governor of the great
State of West Virginia, made this designation effective.
The Air National Guard is made up of about 95,000 people, nearly 88
percent of whom comprise the enlisted corps. About 65,000 are
traditional part-time members and about 30,000 are either full-time
technicians or members of the Active Guard. They average about 12.7
years of satisfactory service and perform 170 different specialty jobs.
These enlisted men and women are America's friends, family, neighbors,
and co-workers. They are educators, bank tellers, repair technicians,
and builders. At the same time, they serve our nation as the enlisted
force of the Air National Guard and they bring their diverse skills to
the job. The enlisted men and women bring maturity and experience to
the force and provide

[[Page 16541]]

a much needed sense of stability and commitment.
There are two units of the Air National Guard in West Virginia. The
130th Airlift Wing in Charleston, West Virginia, and the 167th Airlift
Wing in Martinsburg, West Virginia. These two units supported missions
during the Korean conflict and in Vietnam. Both units were stationed in
the Persian Gulf throughout the Gulf War. Recently these brave men and
women have performed peacekeeping missions in support of the United
Nations and NATO in Eastern Europe. In fact, many of them are there as
we speak.
The men and women of the West Virginia Air National Guard have won
many awards. Some of the most prestigious include Air National Guard
Distinguished Flying Unit Awards, four Air Force Outstanding Unit
Awards, and four Spaatz trophies. It is important that we all take note
of the accomplishments of these outstanding enlisted men and women who
make up the backbone of the Air National Guard. They bring an
incredible amount of dedication to their work as they perform jobs
which are crucial to military operations. They deserve our deepest
gratitude as they continue to serve our country.
My sincere congratulations go to the enlisted men and women of the
130th Airlift Wing in Charleston, West Virginia, and the 167th Airlift
Wing in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I share in your pride and I proudly
recognize 1999, as ``The Year of the Enlisted Force.''

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S.J. RES. 27 AND S.J. RES. 28

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask
unanimous consent that immediately following the cloture vote at 10:30
a.m. on Tuesday, notwithstanding rule XXII, Senator Smith of New
Hampshire be recognized to make a debatable motion to discharge the
Finance Committee of the Senate Joint Resolution 28 regarding trade
status with Vietnam.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour equally divided,
as provided by the statute, on the motion, and following that time the
Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the motion to discharge,
all without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the reconvening of the Senate at 2:15, Senator Bob Smith be
immediately recognized to offer a second motion to discharge the
Finance Committee of S.J. Res. 27 regarding trade status with China and
that there then begin 1 hour of debate equally divided as provided by
the statute, and the vote occur on or in relation to the motion at the
conclusion or yielding back of time, notwithstanding rule XXII or the
outcome of the first motion to discharge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, therefore, for the information of all
Senators, there will be two rollcall votes prior to the weekly party
caucuses on Tuesday, July 20. The first vote will occur at 10:30 a.m.
and the next at approximately 12 noon. A third scheduled vote will
occur at approximately 3:15 regarding the trade status with China.

____________________

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, JR., CAROLYN BESSETTE KENNEDY,
AND LAUREN BESSETTE

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 157,
submitted earlier today by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 157) relative to the disappearance of
John F. Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren
Bessette.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the
resolution appear at this point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 157) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 157

Whereas it is with profound sorrow and regret that the
Senate has learned that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., his
wife Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and her sister Lauren Bessette
have been missing since the early morning hours of Saturday,
July 17, 1999;
Whereas John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., is the son of the
late John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the
United States of America and Senator from Massachusetts, a
nephew of the late Senator Robert Francis Kennedy of New
York, and of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy of Massachusetts,
and a beloved member of the Kennedy family, which has given
countless years of service to this country; and
Whereas the heart of the Nation goes out to the Kennedy and
Bessette families as search efforts continue in the waters
off Martha's Vineyard: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate, when it adjourns on Monday, July
19, 1999, do so as a further mark of respect for the grieving
families, and directs the Secretary to transmit a copy of
this resolution to the Kennedy and Bessette families.

____________________

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1999

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the
hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20.
I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday immediately following
the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning
hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume
debate on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand
in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly
policy conferences to meet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the
recess there be 40 minutes of morning business equally divided between
Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for the information of all Senators,
the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the
intelligence authorization bill at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. Pursuant to
rule XXII, that cloture vote will occur at 10:30 tomorrow morning.
Following the vote, Senator Smith of New Hampshire will be recognized
to make a motion to discharge from the Finance Committee S.J. Res. 28
regarding the trade status with Vietnam. Therefore, Senators can expect
an additional vote prior to the weekly party conference meetings. By
previous consent, Senator Smith will again be recognized at 2:15 to
offer a second motion to discharge from the Finance Committee S.J. Res.
27 regarding trade status with China. There will be 1 hour of debate on
the motion with a vote occurring at approximately 3:15 p.m. Senators
may also expect further action on the intelligence authorization bill
or any appropriations bills on the calendar during tomorrow's session
of the Senate.

____________________

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, if there is
no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous
consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provision of S.
Res. 157, following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16542]]

The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

____________________

JOHN F. KENNEDY, JR., CAROLYN BESSETTE KENNEDY, AND LAUREN BESSETTE

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska has offered, on
behalf of Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, a resolution dealing with
the issue of the apparent tragedy that has befallen John F. Kennedy,
Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren Bessette.
I want to make a comment about that because I know that, along with
most Americans, this weekend when we heard the news of the
disappearance of John F. Kennedy, Jr., along with his wife and sister-
in-law, most of us were quite shocked and deeply saddened by the news.
This was a young man whose life had such bright promise. He was born
the son of a young, new President of the United States. That
President's life was cut short by assassination just 3 years into his
term.
I and countless thousands of other young Americans were inspired by
John F. Kennedy, by his energy and by the passion and ideals of his
administration. The experience of being in high school and college and
watching the emergence of this new, energetic, young President on the
scene in this country was something that inspired many young Americans
towards public service. That includes my early interest in public
service.
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, I think most of us who were
called to public service, or at least were called to an interest in
public service back in that period, believed there was kind of an
unfinished nature to the legacy of his administration and his
Presidency. I think many thought over the years that this young man,
John F. Kennedy, Jr., was in some way destined to complete that legacy
of public service.
Now another tragedy has visited this family, that has already given
so much to this country, and has taken from us this wonderful, unique
young man. I want to join with all of my colleagues in extending our
sympathies to our colleague, Senator Kennedy, to the entire Kennedy
family, and to the Bessette family. This is a very difficult time for
all of them. I know all Members of the Senate probably already have
individually sent those messages to that family.
I have said on other occasions in the Senate, that there is a lot of
public debate that goes on that people see between Members of the
Senate and they tend to think there is a lack of personal relationships
that exists in the Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When something happens to the family of a Member of the Senate, others
here whose life's work brings us all together, care deeply.
When I lost a daughter a few years ago, I recall Senator Hatch
sending me a white Bible and coming to visit with me. Senator Byrd sent
me one of the most beautiful pieces of prose I have ever received, and
so many other Senators expressed their sympathies. That is the way it
is in the Senate. I know Senator Kennedy and his family are going
through a very difficult time, and our entire country reaches out to
them now to express our deepest and most profound regrets and
sympathies.

____________________

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I want to discuss an item of very
significant importance that has brought me to the floor of the Senate
several times and brings me here again today. That is the issue of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
I earlier mentioned President John F. Kennedy. President John F.
Kennedy was very interested in a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
I want to describe why that is the case and relate it to the comments
made by my colleague dealing with China in which he talked about
accountability and responsibility. I agree with those terms and in most
cases with the use of those terms on the floor of the Senate.
It was 54 years ago last Friday that the first nuclear explosion took
place on this Earth; the first nuclear bomb was detonated 54 years ago
last Friday. Virtually everything changed because of it.
Following the detonation of a nuclear device it was used to end the
Second World War. Eventually nuclear weapons led to a cold war with the
Soviet Union in which both sides began to stockpile thousands and
thousands of nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons of various types.
Presidents of the United States started talking about the need to stop
the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to keep them in as few hands as
possible among the countries of the world. Many countries aspired to
have nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons. However, it was obviously in the
interests of the safety of humankind to try to keep nuclear weapons out
of the hands of those who aspired to have them.
President Eisenhower, in May of 1961, spoke about a ban on testing
nuclear devices. If you can't test a nuclear device, you don't know
whether you have one that works. A test ban effectively means that
anyone who claims to have a nuclear weapon cannot claim to have a
nuclear weapon that works because they will never know.
That is the value of a ban on testing, a ban that was aspired to as
long ago as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said the following:

Not achieving a test ban would have to be classed as the
greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade,
of any time and of any party.

He left office deeply disappointed that even in those early days long
before the buildup of nuclear weapons existed so aggressively across
the world, he was profoundly disappointed at not getting the test ban.
President John F. Kennedy got a test ban in place in 1963 dealing
with atmospheric tests. The ban on atmospheric tests in 1963 was
partially successful. He desired a total ban. He said:

A test ban would place the nuclear powers in a position to
deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards man
faces. . . . It would increase our security, it would
decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is
sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit,
yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole
effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital
and responsible safeguards.

Now, since that time, we have seen more nations achieve the ability
to build nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. We have seen
our country and the Soviet Union stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons. It is quite remarkable, the United States and Russia,
together, currently have more than 30,000 nuclear weapons. China has
nuclear weapons. The number, to the extent we know, is classified. But,
it is a minuscule amount as compared to 30,000. We know from recent
events that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. Both have
exploded nuclear devices literally beneath each other's chin--and these
are two countries that don't like each other. Two countries with a
common border, with a great deal of animosity, both testing nuclear
devices in a provocative way. Other countries aspire to achieve or to
obtain nuclear weapons.
What are we doing about all of this? There is a treaty that has been
negotiated over a long period of time--in fact, ultimately over
decades--and signed by 152 countries. It is a comprehensive nuclear
test ban treaty. That comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is a treaty
which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons, it bans the explosive
testing of nuclear weapons all across this world.
We have had some experience with treaties: arms control and arms
reduction treaties, the START I treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty, SALT I, START II, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. A whole
series of treaties have been considered and negotiated and ratified by
the Senate.
This treaty, the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, was
negotiated and signed and sent to the Senate a long while ago--665 days
ago; 665 days ago a treaty that this country negotiated and signed was
sent to the Senate to be ratified.
What has happened with previous treaties? The limited nuclear test
ban treaty in 1963 was sent to the Senate and considered in 3 weeks;
the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty in 1972

[[Page 16543]]

took 3 months; the ABM Treaty took 10 weeks; the ABM Treaty protocols,
14 months; Conventional Forces in Europe, 4 months; START I, 11 months.
The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was sent here over 665 days
ago and it has yet to have had a first day of hearings in the Committee
on Foreign Relations in the Senate.
Why? Why would a treaty that is so important to this country languish
for nearly 2 years without even an hour, not a day of hearings?
We are, as a world, in a much better position than we were some years
ago in the middle of the cold war when the Soviet Union and the United
States were headlong in an arms race, building and deploying tens of
thousands of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union is gone. The cold war is
over. The arms race has largely diminished.
One thing remains constant: Many other countries around the world
want to obtain nuclear weapons.
Many countries around the world want to obtain delivery systems to
deliver nuclear weapons. They are testing medium-range and long-range
missiles. They are trying to find ways to produce or obtain the
materials necessary to build a nuclear device. This country, in the
middle of all of this, must provide leadership.
It is our responsibility to provide that leadership. We are the
remaining nuclear superpower. Russia has nuclear devices to be sure,
but Russia is not a world power of the type the United States is at
this point. We, as a country, must exert some leadership, and one step
in the right direction towards diminishing the opportunities for other
countries to achieve reliable nuclear weapons, is to quickly ratify
this treaty, the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
The decision of this country to drag our feet is almost unforgivable.
It sends a signal to others around the rest of the world--to China,
Russia, India, Pakistan and others--that this is not all that
important; it is not a priority to the United States. It ought to be.
Everybody in this Chamber ought to come to the floor to demand that
this be brought before the Senate. It has languished for almost 2 years
in the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. It ought to be
brought to the floor, and we ought to have a debate on it.
In October of this year, the countries who have ratified this treaty
will be meeting to discuss implementing the treaty. They will
apparently be meeting without the United States as an active
participant. It is wrong, in my judgment, for this country to decide
that it is not going to provide the leadership necessary on this
treaty. The rest of the world looks to us, waits for us, and the Senate
is dragging its feet. I understand the committees in the Senate have a
great deal of authority and power. I recognize that, but it seems to me
there is a compelling national interest that should require this
country to lead, and require this Senate to ratify the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty.
I want to, with one additional chart, point out what was said by
Secretary of State Albright:

. . .this is the longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in
arms control. And it is a price not yet fully won. For
American leadership, for our future, the time has come to
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--this year, this
session, now.

I heard my colleague from Alaska talk about Chinese espionage at the
National Labs. That is an unsettling and a very serious issue. It
raises all kinds of questions about the safeguarding of nuclear
secrets, about how much and what kind of secrets might have been
obtained by those who were spying on behalf of another country, and did
these secrets allow that country or those countries to build higher
yield or smaller nuclear devices.
I do not know the answer to those questions, but the words
``accountability and responsibility'' were used repeatedly in
discussing that issue. Accountability and responsibility--it seems to
me those two words are appropriate; in fact, those two words are
exactly what we ought to talk about with respect to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty.
Accountability and responsibility--if this country is responsible,
and if this country is going to be accountable for its leadership in
the world, the leadership away from the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, the leadership toward a safer world, one with fewer nuclear
weapons rather than more nuclear weapons, then this country will take
the lead now on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is not the case,
as some have argued, that the China espionage issue actually undercuts
ratification of this treaty. In fact, that issue strengthens the need
for this treaty. It strengthens the need for this treaty.
To suggest--and there was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal
suggesting there is a linkage--Chinese espionage is why we ought not
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is nonsense. In fact, these
allegations of espionage, in my judgment, underscore why this treaty
ought to be ratified and ought to be ratified now.
To the extent that China believes it may have acquired the
opportunity for better nuclear warheads, it will never know that unless
it is able to test them. And as a signatory to a comprehensive nuclear
test ban treaty, it cannot test without violating the treaty.
I will be participating in a press conference tomorrow with others in
the Senate during which we will announce a recent public opinion poll
that has been done on this issue which shows widespread public support
to ratify this comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I hope that
perhaps with some pressure and some thoughtfulness on the part of all
Members of the Senate, we will be given an opportunity to debate and
vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty soon.
Again, I understand how this system works, but it is not a system
that ought to work in the regular way for something as important as
this: limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. This country ought to
take the lead in preventing it, and it ought to do so now. It is just
plain wrong for the Senate to drag its feet on a treaty of this
importance. A treaty negotiated and signed by 152 countries, waiting to
be ratified for almost 2 years, and not even have 1 hour of hearings.
That is wrong and everybody in this Chamber should know it is wrong.
I do hope my colleagues will join me in calling for the Foreign
Relations Committee in the Senate to bring the comprehensive nuclear
test ban treaty before the Senate.

____________________

FAMILY FARMING

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have been talking about what I hope
the agenda of the Senate will be in the next weeks as we turn from the
Patients' Bill of Rights, which consumed all of last week and which was
a fairly hard-fought debate. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I hope,
will be a part of that.
As I indicated on Friday, I also feel very strongly that the majority
leader and others in this Senate must put at the head of the list of
items for consideration a piece of legislation that will deal with the
emergency needs of family farming.
The economy has collapsed in rural America, and we cannot wait. It
requires this Congress to act and act soon. We have a farm bill that is
largely bankrupt. It does not provide support during tough times. It
pulls the rug out from under family farmers even as market prices have
collapse. This Congress must do two things: first, pass an emergency
bill; and, second, rewrite the farm program in a way that says to
family farmers: You produce food the world needs, we care about that,
and we are going to help you across price valleys when they occur.
I will speak more about that later this week. Madam President, I
yield the floor.

____________________

TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2490) making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United

[[Page 16544]]

States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President,
and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the text of S. 1282,
as passed, is inserted and the House bill (H.R. 2490), as amended, is
read the third time and passed.
Under the previous order, the Senate insists upon its amendment and
the Chair appoints Mr. Campbell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Dorgan, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Byrd, conferees on the part of the
Senate.

____________________

MEASURE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order passage of S. 1282 is
vitiated and the bill is indefinitely postponed.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to S.
Res. 157, as a further mark of respect to the grieving Kennedy and
Bessette families, the Senate stands adjourned.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 4:58 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, July
20, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate July 19, 1999:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ANDREW C. FISH, OF VERMONT, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, VICE JOHN DAVID CARLIN, RESIGNED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

SUSAN NESS, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS FROM JULY
1, 1999. (REAPPOINTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DAVID N. GREENLEE, OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MICHAEL J. GAINES, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF THE
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF SIX YEARS.
(REAPPOINTMENT)
TIMOTHY EARL JONES, SR., OF GEORGIA, TO BE A COMMISSIONER
OF THE UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION FOR THE TERM OF SIX
YEARS, VICE GEORGE MACKENZIE RAST, RESIGNED.
MARIE F. RAGGHIANTI, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF
THE UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION FOR THE TERM OF SIX
YEARS, VICE EDWARD F. REILEY, TERM EXPIRED.
JOHN R. SIMPSON, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF THE
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF SIX YEARS.
(REAPPOINTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WILLIAM B. TAYLOR, JR., OF VIRGINIA, FOR THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR DURING TENURE OF SERVICE AS COORDINATOR OF U.S.
ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES.

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be vice admiral

REAR ADM. GREGORY G. JOHNSON

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATEDIN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND FOR REGULAR
APPOINTMENT (IDENTIFIED BY AN ASTERISK (*)) UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 531:

To be lieutenant colonel

GARY W. ACE
DAN L. ADAMS, JR.
DAREN L. ADAMS
EMORY Y. ADAMS
SOONG B. AHN
PATRICK J. AHRENS
RICHARD C. AKRIDGE
DONNA A. ALBERTO
RONALD P. ALBERTO
DAVID M. ALEGRE
JOHN S. ALEXANDER, JR.
WILLIAM T. ALLEN
WILFORD A. ALSTON
PETER A. ALTAVILLA
MARY A. ALTMAN
JULIO L. ALVAREZ, JR.
KEITH A. ANDERSON
THOMAS R. ANDERSON
PERI A. ANEST
JOHN E. ANGEVINE
DIONYSIOS ANNINOS
JOHN E. ANZALONE
EDWARD J. APGAR
MANUEL APONTE, JR.
MICHAEL J. ARINELLO
JOEL R. ARMSTRONG
JAMES W. ARP, JR.
DAVID A. ATCHER
KNOWLES Y. ATCHISON
WILLIAM T. ATKINSON
RICHARD B. AVERNA
MICHAEL D. AVERY
CARL G. AYERS
MARK H. AYERS
JACQUES A. AZEMAR
JEFFREY L. BACHMAN
ROBERT B. BAEHR
DANIEL L. BAGGIO
HUBERT E. BAGLEY, JR.
DAVID P. BAGNATI
FREDERICK A. BAILLERGEON
MARY A. BAKER
SHARON H. BAKER
DANIEL L. BALL
ROBERT S. BALLEW
JEFFREY L. BANNISTER
STEPHEN E. BARGER
GREGG A. BARISANO
GRIFFIN J. BARKIE
LAUREEN M. BARONE
CONFESOR BARRETO
JAMES E. BARRINEAU
CHARLES S. BASHAM, JR.
TERRY D. BASHAM
JAMES D. BASS
JOSEPH L. BASS
JAMES C. BATES
PHILIP F. BATTAGLIA
KEVIN M. BATULE
JOHN M. BAVIS
ROBERT M. BAXTER, JR.
STEPHEN H. BAYER
TAYLOR V. BEATTIE
STEPHEN M. BEATTY
DOUGLAS H. BEATY
PHILIP F. BEAVER
MARLON K. BECK
STEVEN A. BECKMAN
JAMES P. BECKMANN
CYNTHIA M. BEDELL
JAMES A. BEINKEMPER, JR.
LARRY D. BEISEL
ERIC R. BELCHER
JAMES A. BELL
JOSEPH M. BELL
MICHAEL S. BELL
BARBARA R. BELLAMY
HENRY W. BENNETT
RICHARD A. BERGLUND
KEITH R. BEURSKENS
DAVID L. BIACAN
JOHN E. BIANCHI
MICHAEL J. BIEGA
LUIGI E. BIEVER
RAYMOND L. BINGHAM
CRAIG H. BIRD
JOHN J. BIRD
JOHN R. BLACK
DAVID M. BLACKBURN
GEOFFREY N. BLAKE
DAN BLAND
WILLIAM S. BLAND
ANTHONY E. BLANDO
JERRY L. BLIXT
ERICH V. BOERNER
ATTILA J. BOGNAR
JAMES C. BOISSELLE
CHARLES W. BONNELL
ALLEN L. BORGARDTS
ROBERT J. BOTTERS, JR.
MICHAEL E. BOUIE
MICHAEL P. BOWMAN
JOHNNY L. BOYD
JUDITH F. BOYD
CORNELIUS C. BOYKINS
PETER E. BRADY
WILLIAM W. BRALEY, SR.
CURT R. BRANDT
CHRISTOPHER W. BRAUN
MICHEAL W. BRAY
DAVID A. BRAZIER
BRENT B. BREDEHOFT
PAUL W. BRICKER
ROBERT S. BRIDGFORD
ALVIN V. BROWN
ANNETTE BROWN
OTIS L. BROWN II
ROBERT C. BROWN
RUTH S. BROWN
TYRONE K. BROWN
THOMAS H. BRYANT
TODD A. BUCHS
JAMES E. BUCHWALD
GRACE L. BUELL
JAMES R. BULLINGER
JOHNNY R. BULLINGTON
ROBERT E. BURCHELL
KYLE T. BURKE
RODERICK BURKE, SR.
RICHARD A. BURKLUND
CLINTON L. BURRELL, JR.
WILLIAM C. BURRELL
BRYAN D. BURRIS
KENT D. BURSTEIN
MICHAEL R. BURT
JOHN E. BUSHYHEAD
BRIAN J. BUTCHER
DWIGHT D. BUTLER
JANET I. BUTLER
ODIE L. BUTLER III
DONALD W. BUXTON
DAVID R. BYRN, SR.
PAUL P. CALE
VICTORIA A. CALHOUN
JAMES A. CALLAHAN
MICHAEL O. CALLAHAN
RANDAL L. CAMPBELL
ROBERT L. CAMPBELL
FRANCIS J. CAPONIO
JOHN W. CAPPEL
CALVIN T. CARLSEN
RICHARD A. CARLSON
STEVEN P. CARNEY
JOHN K. CAROTHERS
TIMOTHY J. CARROLL
ROBERT F. CARTER, JR.
CURTIS A. CARVER, JR.
JAMES E. CASHWELL
HECTOR R. CASTILLO
DAVID P. CAVALERI
JOHN D. CECIL
CLATON D. CHANDLER
JAMES R. CHAPMAN
JERRY S. CHASTAIN
JON E. CHICKY
MICHAEL W. CHILDERS
GREGG CHISLETT
ROBERT E. CHOPPA
MICHAEL J. CHRISTIAN
GERARD J. CHRISTMAN
ARMON A. CIOPPA
DAVID J. CLARK
FRANKLIN D. CLARK, JR.
KEVIN D. CLARK
SAMMY CLARK, JR.
STEVEN C. CLARK
MICHAEL N. CLAWSON
ERIC G. CLAYBURN
TRACY A. CLEAVER
ROBERT W. CLOSSON
DAVID C. COBURN
HARRY L. COHEN
ANTONIO S. COLEMAN
THERESA D. COLES
STEVEN N. COLLINS
ROBERT S. COLTRAIN
ELLIS D. COLVIN
MARK A. CONLEY
DARRELL T. CONNELLY
TERRY E. CONNELLY
DAVID A. COOK
JUDSON A. COOK
KATHERINE M. COOK
RICHARD E. COON
BRUCE A. CORDELLI, SR.
GARY B. CORDES
MARIO CORONEL
CHRISTOPHER P. COSTA
WILLIAM M. COSTELLO
CRAIG S. COTTER
DAVID G. COTTER
CHRIS L. COTTRELL
DANIEL T. COTTRELL
THOMAS H. COWAN, JR.
CRAIG E. COWELL
JEFFREY A. CRABB
THOMAS M. CREA
MARK L. CRENSHAW
FLETCHER A. CREWS
HARVEY L. CROCKETT
CLIFFORD D. CROFFORD, JR.
BARRY N. CRUM
MICHAEL C. CUMBIE
DANIEL J. CUMMINGS
TERRENCE CUMMINGS
JOHN L. CUNNANE
LAUREL D. CUNNANE
WILLIAM J. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
MICHAEL S. CURRY

[[Page 16545]]

RANDALL C. CURRY
GREG W. CUSIMANO
MICHAEL F. CYR
PAUL M. CZARZASTY
JENNIFER R. DALESSANDRO
MARK A. DAMATO
GREGORY L. DANIELS
LINDA K. DANIELS
JOHN H. DANNON
LOLA J. DARDEN
ANTHONY F. DASKEVICH II
WILLIAM E. DAVID
GERALD S. DAVIE, JR.
JOSEPH E. DAVIES
ALFRAZIER DAVIS, JR.
CLEOLA M. DAVIS
GRANT M. DAVIS
JAMES W. DAVIS
JIMMY D. DAVIS
KIRK A. DAVIS
MARK A. DAVIS
VERNON T. DAVIS
TODD E. DAY
CHARLES E. DEAN
JOSEPH P. DEANTONA
KATHY J. DEBOLT
PHILIP D. DECAMP
THOMAS J. DEGNON
THOMAS A. DELL
PETER A. DELUCA
WADE F. DENNIS
YOLANDA C. DENNISLOWMAN
WAYNE L. DETWILER
KENNETH W. DEVAN
JERRY D. DICKERSON
JAMES W. DIRKSE
DAVID E. DODD
WILLIAM T. DOLAN
DAVID P. DOLPH
JOHN J. DONOGHUE
MICHAEL J. DONOVAN
EDWARD F. DORMAN III
DAVID W. DORNBLASER
CHARLES J. DORSEY
KEVIN J. DOUGHERTY
THOMAS C. DOVEY, JR.
DAVID R. DRAEGER
JAMES P. DRAGO, JR.
MARK E. DRAKE
CONRAD A. DREBY
JOHN F. DRIFTMIER
JOHN D. DROLET
PETER DUKE
JOHN E. DUMOULIN, JR.
JOE D. DUNAWAY
CARYL D. DURHAMRANDOLFF
JEFFREY L. EBERHARDT
THEODORE M. EDWARDS
ROBERT C. EFFINGER III
JERRY L. EGBERT
RANDALL S. EICHELBERGER
MICHAEL E. ERDLEY
JOHN D. ESCE
JOE E. ETHRIDGE, JR.
GIRARD K. EVANS
KARI L. EVERETT
TIMOTHY K. EVERHARD
SCOTT D. FABOZZI
BRUCE R. FAGERSTROM
DANIEL J. FAGUNDES
JESSIE O. FARRINGTON
ERIC W. FATZINGER
MELVIN P. FECHNER
DOUGLAS J. FEDDELER
KURT W. FEDORS
SCOTT K. FEHNEL
THOMAS H. FELTS
CHARLES H. FERGUSON, JR.
HOWARD R. FERGUSON
TERRY R. FERRELL
PATRICK L. FETTERMAN
CHARLES F. FIELDS
*FREDERICK W. FISHER
JOHN R. FISHER
RICHARD A. FISHER
JAMES P. FLETCHER
RAYMOND T. FLEWELLING
JONATHAN D. FLOWERS
TIMOTHY J. FLYNN
FRANKLIN D. FORD, JR.
MARK R. FORMAN
ERIC L. FOSTER
THOMAS J. FOSTER
VASILIOS N. FOTOPOULOS
DAVID C. FOWLES
ROY W. FOX
JOHN E. FRAME
ELDON E. FRANKS
GEORGE J. FRANZ III
JOSEPH J. FRAZIER
RUDOLPH FRAZIER
DAVID W. FREEMAN
MICHAEL R. FRENCH
JOSEPH E. FUCELLA
ANTHONY S. FULLER
LEONARD T. GADDIS, JR.
GERALD E. GALLOWAY III
JAMES J. GALVIN, JR.
DUANE A. GAMBLE
*KENNETH D. GANTT
GREGORY L. GARDNER
DAVID R. GAUMER, JR.
STEVEN W. GAY
SCOTT W. GEARHART
GEORGE GECZY III
CHRISTOPHER P. GEHLER
DEBORAH L. GEIGER
DANIEL M. GEORGI
TERESA W. GERTON
RODNEY W. GETTIG
DANIEL A. GILEWITCH
MARK W. GILLETTE
PATRICK F. GILLIS
ELIZABETH A. GILMARTIN
RICHARD S. GIRVEN
KENNETH L. GITTER
EARL S. GLASCOCK
MOULTRIE T. GLOVER, JR.
DAVID W. GOEHRING
*JOSH H. GOEWEY
PAUL GOLDBERG
VICTOR W. GONZALEZ
TINA G. GOPON
MAUREEN A. GORMAN
MICHAEL F. GRAHAM
RAY A. GRAHAM, JR.
KEVIN E. GRATTAROLA
DWAYNE S. GREEN
TOBIN L. GREEN
BRADLEY D. GREENE
MICHAEL T. GREGORY
ROGER K. GRIFFIN
DAVID M. GRIFFITH
JAMES E. GRIFFITH
MARGIE E. GRIFFITH
WAYNE W. GRIGSBY, JR.
JOHN A. GRIMSLEY
GREGG E. GROSS
PAUL L. GROSSKRUGER
STEVEN R. GROVE
ROBERT C. GRUNEWALD
BRUCE C. GUBSER
JACK L. GUMBERT II
WARREN P. GUNDERMAN
THOMAS P. GUTHRIE
EDUARDO GUTIERREZ
GLENN E. GUYANT
MAURICE L. GUYANT
CHRISTOPHER K. HAAS
DOUGLAS P. HABEL, JR.
DONALD L. HACKLE
RALPH W. HADDOCK
GREGORY L. HAGER
WILLIAM R. HALL
BRIAN P. HAMILTON
JOSEPH M. HAMPTON
SHUCRI A. HANDAL
TODD A. HANN
JACOB B. HANSEN
JOHN T. HANSEN
ERIC E. HANSON
DENNIS P. HARBER
JOHN D. HARDING, JR.
CHARLES K. HARDY
*ROBERT H. HARMS
DEREK D. HARRIS
EDWIN H. HARRIS III
ERIC D. HARRIS
JAMIE A. HARRIS
RALPH W. HARRIS
JOHN C. HARRISON
STEVEN D. HARVEY
RICHARD F. HASKINS
DEWITT HATHCOCK, JR.
KEVIN M. HAYDEN
MARK D. HAYHURST
BRYAN K. HAYNES
KENNETH J. HEANEY
TRAVIS A. HEARD
BONNIE B. HEBERT
ROBERT F. HEIN
PERRY HELTON
WAYNE G. HENRY
WILLIAM C. HENRY
STEPHEN J. HERCZEG
THOMAS M. HERMAN
TERENCE J. HERMANS
GARY L. HETRICK
RICHARD A. HEWITT
WILLIAM B. HICKMAN
SCOTT Y. HIGGINS
JOHN B. HILDEBRAND
BART J. HILL
DAVID P. HILL
DWAYNE O. HILL
LAURA L. HILL
TIMOTHY P. HILL
BRUCE W. HILMES
IRA J. HINES II
JAY T. HIRATA
RHONDA L. HOGLUND
JEFFREY S. HOLACHEK
CHRISTOPHER M. HOLDEN
JEFFERY R. HOLDEN
RICHARD L. HOLDEN, JR.
ROSS E. HOLLEY
BLAKE E. HOLLIS
JOHN S. HOLWICK
CHARLES E. HONORE, JR.
CURT L. HOOVER
THOMAS G. HOPKINS
WILLIAM C. HOPPE
THOMAS A. HORLANDER
JOHN H. HORT
JODY J. HOWELL
JOHN M. HUEY
WILLIAM D. HUGGINS, JR.
WILLIAM F. HUGGINS
CHRISTOPHER P. HUGHES
LACEY C. HUGHES
GEORGE B. HULL
HENRY L. HUNTLEY
DANA R. HURST
RONALD W. HUTHER
ANNETTE INGIGNOLI
JOHN H. INGRAHAM, JR.
JEFFREY D. INGRAM
BJARNE M. IVERSON
CRAIG R. JACHENS
JERRY D. JACKSON, JR.
MICHAEL P. JACKSON
NORMAN K. JACOCKS
MICHAEL S. JAJE
PHILIP D. JAKIELSKI
JOHN E. JAMES, JR.
ROBERT L. JAMES
THOMAS S. JAMES, JR.
GEORGE M. JENKINS
JOHN P. JENKS
THEODORE L. JENNINGS
RALEIGH S. JIMENEZ
BRIAN K. JOHANSSON
VICTOR A. JOHN
FREDERICK J. JOHNS, JR.
CHRISTOPHER L. JOHNSON
CLARENCE E. JOHNSON
JAMES M. JOHNSON
REMI S. JOHNSON
RIVERS J. JOHNSON, JR.
ROBERT P. JOHNSON, JR.
THOMAS W. JOHNSON, JR.
CARRIE M. JOHNSONCLARK
CHERYL R. JONES
DALE A. JONES
GLENN H. JONES
MARK T. JONES
MICHAEL H. JONES
REBECCA W. JONES
ROBERT R. JONES
WILLIAM R. JONES
BYRON G. JORNS
THOMAS R. JUCKS
JAMES M. JUDY
CHARLES A. JUMPER
GEORGE J. JUNTIFF
GREGORY L. KAMMERER
DAVID E. KAPALKO
SANDRA L. KEEFER
ANTHONY E. KELLEY
YVETTE J. KELLEY
PATRICK J. KELLY
RICHARD W. KEMP
JOSEPH E. KENNEDY
DANIEL A. KESSLER
TIMOTHY P. KIELY
LAWRENCE J. KINDE
JEFFREY M. KING
RICHARD B. KING, JR.
BENJAMIN A. KIRKLAND
MARVIN M. KIRKLAND, JR.
ANDRE C. KIRNES
CHRISTOPHER J. KLEYMEYER
ANTHONY P. KLUZ
FRANK J. KOHOUT
JOHN M. KOIVISTO, JR.
MARK F. KORMOS
CHRISTOPHER KOULOUVARIS
TROY P. KRAUSE
ROY A. KRUEGER
HANS E. KRUSE, JR.
WILLIAM D. KUCHINSKI
DEBORAH A. KUDELKA
DOUGLAS D. KUEHL
STREP R. KUEHL
SCOTT D. KUKES
TROY W. KUNZ
MICHAEL J. KWAK
CARLOS LABRADO
PAUL J. LACAMERA
JAMES E. LACKEY
WILLIAM L. LAMB
ERIC L. LAMBERSON
CHARLES S. LAMBERT
JOHN J. LAMBUSTA
WILLIAM H. LAND III
JAMES E. LANGAN
GARY E. LANGSTON, JR.
CURTIS A. LAPHAM
MARK E. LARRABEE
CHRISTOPHER J. LARSEN
CREIGHTON A. LARSON
NORMAN R. LARSON
DONALD J. LASH, JR.
JEFFREY D. LAU
CHARLES R. LEAMING
JOY A. LEAPHEART
WILLIAM J. LEARY III
GEORGE D. LECAKES
JACK E. LECHNER, JR.
RICHARD A. LECHOWICH
GLORIA A. LEE
JOSEPH A. LEE, JR.
PAUL L. LEGERE
RONNIE L. LEGGETT
GRETA P. LEHMAN
MICHAEL L. LEHTO, JR.

[[Page 16546]]

STEPHEN B. LEISENRING
DAVID J. LEMELIN, JR.
MICHAEL K. LEMM
JOHN S. LENART, JR.
MICHAEL P. LERARIO
BRIAN D. LESIEUR
MARK F. LESSIG
RICKY D. LESTER
SCOTT W. LEVIN
JOHN G. LEVINE
BRUCE D. LEWIS
CECIL T. LEWIS III
CHIPPER M. LEWIS
SCOTT T. LIND
STEPHEN D. LINDAHL
MARK R. LINDON
DENNIS R. LINTON
DANIEL LIPKA
JEFFREY M. LIPSCOMB
DONALD G. LISENBEE, JR.
VERNON L. LISTER
CHRISTOPHER E. LOCKHART
DAVID E. LOCKHART
JOSEPH B. LOFGREN
MAELLA B. LOHMAN
THOMAS C. LOPER II
ROBERT P. LOTT, JR.
GERALD W. LUCAS
ROBERT B. LUCAS
JERYL C. LUDOWESE
WILLIAM E. LUKENS
KENNETH S. LUNDGREN
KEVIN D. LUTZ
ROBIN D. LYNCH
STEPHEN R. LYONS
STEVEN D. MABEUS
ANTHONY J. MAC DONALD
DAVID R. MACEDONIA
PATRICK H. MACKIN
ADEN C. MAGEE
GERALD W. MAHAFFEE
JOSEPH E. MAHER, JR.
DANIEL P. MAHONEY III
JEFFREY E. MALAPIT
JAY S. MALLERY
SAVERIO M. MANAGO
RICHARD A. MANGANELLO
STEVEN G. MARIANO
JAMES C. MARKLEY
ROBERT W. MARRS
TERRENCE MARSH
JOHN M. MARTIE
CHRISTOPHER W. MARTIN
PETER J. MARTIN
THEODORE D. MARTIN
VAN N. MARTIN
PAMELA L. MARTIS
HAROLD P. MARTY
JAMES M. MARYE
REGINALD P. MASON
FRANCESCO P. MASTRACCHIO
FRANK V. MASTROVITO
RICHARD E. MATTHEWS
JAMES P. MATTIES, JR.
HERSCHEL N. MAY, JR.
JACK A. MAY
JOEL D. MAYFIELD
TIMOTHY C. MAYS, SR
EDGAR L. MC ANDERSON
RICHARD W. MC ARDLE, JR.
RODNEY X. MC CANTS
GLENN S. MC CARTY
DAVID J. MC CAULEY
DAVID R. MC CLEAN
NORMAN E. MC COLLUM, JR.
G. S. MC CONNELL
GENE W. MC CONVILLE
MICHAEL MC CORMICK
JOHN G. MC CRACKEN
HOWARD M. MC DANIEL
MICHAEL A. MC DANIEL
THOMAS J. MC DANIEL
ROGER L. MC DONALD III
KEVIN M. MC DONNELL
DAVID M. MC ELROY
TERENCE J. MC ELROY
WILLIE J. MC FADDEN II
ROBERT B. MC FARLAND
STEVEN T. MC GONAGLE
JOHN J. MC GUINESS
TAMER R. MC GUIRE
SHANNON L. MC GURK
MIKE K. MC HARGUE
WILLIAM J. MC KEAN
JEANETTE M. MC MAHON
ROSA M. MC NEELY
DOUGLAS W. MC NEESE
WILLIAM H. MC QUAIL
LEONARD S. MC WHERTER
CLARENCE A. MEADE
THOMAS G. MEARA
STEVEN G. MEDDAUGH
ROBERT W. MEEKS
TODD A. MEGILL
KEVIN L. MEIER
HANS N. MEINHARDT
JEFFREY A. MELLO
*SCOT W. MERKLE
JERRY C. MEYER
MICHAEL T. MIKLOS
DENNIS C. MILAM
WILLIAM G. MILANI
JAMES F. MILLER III
KURT W. MILLER
MICHAEL M. MILLS
*MARIA L. MINCHEW
CEDRIC C. MINOR
MICHAEL T. MINYARD
CHARLES L. MITCHELL, JR.
CHRISTOPHER A. MITCHELL
STEVEN T. MITCHELL
RANDAL L. MOCK
DANIEL G. MODICA
FRANK R. MOLINARI
ARNOLD P. MONTGOMERY
MICHAEL T. MOON
PAUL A. MOONEYHAM
CHARLES F. MOORE
KEVIN P. MORAGHAN
DAVID D. MORAN
JOHN J. MORING
JOHN S. MORRIS
MARK R. MORROW
DON R. MOSES
ROBBIE L. MOSLEY
JEFFREY L. MOWERY
JERRY L. MRAZ
LAWRENCE G. MROZINSKI
PETER W. MUELLER
JAMES P. MULKEY
MICHAEL R. MULLEN
DARRYL G. MURCH
MICHAEL W. MURFEE
THOMAS J. MURPHY
STEPHEN E. MURRAY
PAUL R. MYRICK
ROBERT R. NAETHING
BRENT R. NASE
DAVID A. NASH
RUBEN NAVARRO
*CLAYTON H. NEAL
DAVID J. NELSON
JOHN D. NELSON
RAYMOND C. NELSON
BRYAN T. NEWKIRK
ERIC T. NIELSEN
YVETTE D. NONTE
VALENTIN NOVIKOV
CURTIS H. NUTBROWN
ROBERT K. NYE
MARK L. O BRIEN, SR.
JOHN R. O CONNOR
MICHAEL E. O CONNOR
SHEILA F. O CONNOR
PATRICK D. O FARRELL
*MICHAEL A. OGUS
PATRICK H. O HARA III
DAVID S. OKADA
MARK A. OLINGER
STEVEN OLUIC
PEDRO A. ORONA
CALVIN J. OWENS
JAMES A. PABON
YEONG T. PAK
EDMUND J. PALEKAS
DAVID A. PALMER
MICHAEL PAPADOPOULOS
JAMES M. PARKER
TIMOTHY D. PARKS
WAYNE A. PARKS
EDWARD P. PARRISH
KENNEY PARSLEY
JAMES F. PASQUARETTE
RICHARD M. PASTORE, JR.
MICHAEL R. PATTERSON
TERRY J. PAYNE
WILLIAM O. PAYNE
GARY D. PEASE
FREDERICK D. PELLISSIER
FRANK G. PENHA
DENNIS A. PERKINS
GUSTAVE F. PERNA
DAVID W. PHARES
JOHN E. PHELAN
LAWRENCE P. PHELPS
HARRY V. PHILLIPS
JOHN W. PHILLIPS
MICHAEL D. PHILLIPS
PAUL T. PHILLIPS
BOBBY R. PINKSTON
ARNOLD C. PIPER
*RICHARD G. PISCAL
GARY E. PITTMAN, JR.
JAMES G. PLACKE, JR.
MICHAEL E. PLAYER
COMER PLUMMER III
ROBERT J. PLUMMER
DENNIS A. POLASKI
JANE S. POLCRACK
STEPHEN J. POLIZZI
KEVIN S. PORTER
SCOTT A. PORTER
JOHN L. POTHIN
JOHN M. POTTINGER
TIMOTHY D. POWERS
NATHANIEL PREZZY
LON L. PRIBBLE
BARRYE L. PRICE
JAMES D. PRICE
RONALD W. PROPST
NORMAN A. PUGHNEWBY
VINCENT M. PUGLIESE
RONALD J. PULIGNANI, JR.
CHRISTOPHER J. PUTKO
MICHELE M. PUTKO
ROBERT M. PYNE
CHRISTOPHER E. QUEEN
PATTY J. QUEENHARPER
RONALD G. RACZAK
RORY R. RADOVICH
CHRISTOPHER M. RASMUSSEN
VALERIE W. RATLIFF
CURT A. RAUHUT
KELVIN S. RAVEN
ROBERT G. RAYE
DIANA A. RAYNOR
DAVID S. REDDING
JAMES M. REED
MICHAEL W. REED
ROBERT B. REEVES, JR.
JOHN M. REGAN
PATRICIA E. REID
JACK A. REIFF
THOMAS P. REILLY
ROBERT C. REISTER
GREGORY D. REMUS
JONATHAN A. REVOLINSKY
ROBERT F. RHODES
WILLIAM T. RICE
JOSEPH D. RICHARD
KEVIN E. RICHARDS
CARL W. RICHARDSON
BETSEY A. RIESTER
ANDREW G. RILEY
JACK C. RILEY
JAMES G. RILEY
JOHN S. RISCASSI
JAMES E. RISELEY
STEVEN W. RISLEY
CHRISTOPHER L. ROBERTSON
SUSAN R. ROBERTSON
GREGORY ROBINSON, SR.
KENNETH L. ROBINSON
MARK W. ROBINSON
JOSE ROBLESMALDONADO
DAVID RODRIGUEZ
MANUEL A. RODRIGUEZ
RAND A. RODRIGUEZ
DAVID B. ROEDER
KYLE J. ROGERS
ROSS V. ROMEO
DANIEL R. ROPER
EHRICH D. ROSE
RONALD J. ROSE, JR.
WILLIAM L. ROSTON
JAY F. ROUSE
SUZANNE L. RUDAT
EDGAR K. RUGENSTEIN
ARTHUR S. RUPINEN
MATTHEW H. RUSSELL
SCOTT D. RUTHERFORD
SCOTT E. RUTTER
STEPHEN SABARESE
ANTHONY SABB
DAVID G. SAGE
MARK A. SAMSON
CHRISTY M. SAMUELS
JODY S. SANDERS
MICHAEL G. SANTENS
ROBERT SAPP III
DOUGLAS W. SARVER
EDWARD K. SAUER, JR.
DAVID A. SAWYER
JOHNNY O. SAWYER
PETER R. SCHEFFER, JR.
JOHN M. SCHLEIFER
KARL M. SCHMIDT
GERALD J. SCHMITZ
JAMES D. SCHROTE
ROBERT R. SCHULZ
KENT N. SCHVANEVELDT
HORACIO E. SCHWALM
STUART J. SCHWARK
MARTIN P. SCHWEITZER
MICHAEL A. SCULLY
MICHELLE D. SEAWARD
LAURENCE J. SEFREN
JANETT M. SEKUMADE
KENT R. SELBY
JUNE K. SELLERS
ROBERT D. SEWALL
HEIDI H. SEWARD
FRED N. SHAW, JR.
JOHN M. SHAW
MARK L. SHELTON
MICHAEL D. SHEPHERD
FRANCIS V. SHERMAN, JR.
RICKY W. SHERMAN
FRANCIS E. SHIELDS, JR.
MICHAEL T. SHIFFLETT
RICHARD T. SHIPE
JEFFREY A. SHONK
NEWMAN D. SHUFFLEBARGER
JAMES S. SHUTT
JOHN E. SIGGELOW
FRANK J. SILTMAN
CRAIG L. SIMONEAU
RICKY R. SIMS
ROBERT A. SINKLER
MICHAEL S. SKARDON
EUGENE W. SKINNER, JR.
TODD E. SKOOG
JOHN P. SKUDLAREK
DENNIS E. SLAGTER
KURT P. SLOCUM
JOSEPH C. SLOOP

[[Page 16547]]

BRUCE G. SMITH
DAVID R. SMITH
DENNIS W. SMITH
FORREST E. SMITH
HUGH T. SMITH
JEFFREY A. SMITH
LEON I. SMITH IV
LESLIE C. SMITH
RODNEY SMITH
STEVEN J. SMITH
TANTALOUS A. SMITH
TIMOTHY J. SMITH
TROY L. SMITH
VICKI A. SMITH
DAVID B. SNIDER
LAURI J. SNIDER
WILLOW A. SOLCHENBERGER
MARK E. SOLSETH
SCOTT A. SORENSEN
STEVEN M. SOUCEK
CURTIS K. SOUTHERN
MARK K. SOUZA
RONALD L. SPEAR
NICHOLAS P. SPELIOPOULOS
MARK S. SPINDLER
BILLY F. SPRAYBERRY II
KARL M. STADLER
ROBIN J. STAUFFER
JOHN S. STCYR
RANDALL T. STEPHAN
BRIAN K. STEVENS
WAYNE STEVENS
JUSTICE S. STEWART
STEPHEN G. STEWART
JERRY R. STIDHAM
ALBERT C. STJEAN
EUGENE F. STOCKEL
WAYNE A. STONE
KERRY S. STRAIGHT
JOHNNY C. STRAIN
LAWRENCE E. STROBEL
ALAN M. STULL
STANFORD W. SUITS
PATRICK J. SUTHERLAND
LINDA SUTTLEHAN
JERRY M. SWANNER
DOMINIC D. SWAYNE
JOHN L. SWEENY
JAN T. SWICORD
FREDERICK W. SWOPE
DARIN TALKINGTON
MARISA A. TANNER
DEAN A. TAYLOR
DOUGLAS C. TAYLOR
EARL J. TEETER
DAVID M. THIEDE
BRIAN L. THOMA
RICHARD THOMAS
STANLEY THOMAS III
BURDETT K. THOMPSON
EDWARD A. THOMPSON
JERRY L. THOMPSON
*SCOTT B. THOMPSON
LEO J. THRUSH
DAVID A. TIPPETT
DEBRA L. TOLSON
CURTIS L. TORRENCE
ANIELLO L. TORTORA
KENNETH E. TOVO
BOBBY A. TOWERY, JR.
TIMOTHY E. TRAINOR
JEFFREY A. TRANG
JOHN J. TRANKOVICH, JR.
CRAIG A. TRICE
DANNY TROUTMAN
MARK D. TROUTMAN
CHRISTOPHER A. TROUVE
STEPHEN P. TRYON
DREW A. TURINSKI
JEFFREY A. TURNER
RICHARD A. TURNER
THOMAS E. TURNER, JR.
STEPHEN M. TWITTY
JEFFERY L. UNDERHILL
*MARTIN I. URQUHART
ROBERT VALDIVIA
RICHARD S. VANDERLINDEN
TEODORO VELAZQUEZ
CRAIG VEST
JOSEPH J. VIGNALI
JOHN A. VINETT
WILLIAM N. VOCKERY
RICHARD E. VOLZ, JR.
FRANK P. WAGDALT
NICHOLAS J. WAGER
ANGELO A. WALKER
KERWIN C. WALKER
JOEL D. WALL
MICHELLE L. WALLA
MARK R. WALLACE
ROBERT M. WALTEMEYER
TIMOTHY J. WALTERS
STEVEN A. WARE
PAUL K. WARMAN
CAROLYN J. WASHINGTON
MARK L. WATERS
DWIGHT D. WATKINS
HERBERT D. WATSON
GREGORY A. WATT
TIMOTHY A. WEATHERSBEE
VINCE C. WEAVER, JR.
JAMES Q. WEBBER III
CURTIS D. WEILER
JEFFREY S. WEISSMAN
ROBERT P. WELCH
RALPH D. WELLS
MARK A. WESTBROOK
THEODORE S. WESTHUSING
ROBERT C. WHALEY
DOUGLAS H. WHEELOCK
TERESA L. WHITEHEAD
LEE J. WHITESIDE
MARY K. WHITWORTH
ROBERT A. WHY
ERIC A. WIEDEMANN
CLAUDIA T. WIGGLESWORTH
DOUGLAS A. WILD
LAWRENCE WILKERSON
JOHN R. WILKINSON
BRUCE E. WILLIAMS
HARRY B. WILLIAMS
JONATHAN M. WILLIAMS
WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR.
MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON
MARILYN D. WILLS
ARCHIE WILMER III
ALAN L. WILSON
JEFFREY K. WILSON
JOHN M. WILSON
KEVIN J. WILSON
MARTIN J. WILSON
CHRISTOPHER L. WINNE
WILLIAM T. WISEMAN
STANLEY H. WOLOSZ II 0164
JOHN W. WOODARD
KEVIN S. WOODS
MICHELLE L. WOODS
STEVEN G. WOODS
JOHN S. WRIGHT
LINWOOD C. WRIGHT
THOMAS P. WRIGHT
BRUCE WYNN
STEPHEN G. YACKLEY
PHILIP M. YACOVONI
ANDREW C. YEE
CHARLES S. YOUNG
DENNIS O. YOUNG
YUVAL J. ZACKS
ROBERT G. ZEBROWSKI
SCOTT D. ZEGLER
WILLIAM E. ZELLER
THOMAS G. ZIEK, JR.
X0734
X4619
X1570
X3061
X0468
X2800

[[Page 16548]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

July 19, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Monday, July 19, 1999

The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Stearns).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC,

July 19, 1999.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Cliff Stearns to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

MORNING HOUR DEBATES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 19, 1999, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to 30 minutes, and each Member, except the majority
leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited to 5
minutes.

____________________

THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very,
very diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south
suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, industrial communities like
Joliette, LaSalle, a lot of cornfields and farm towns. When one
represents such a diverse district, city, suburbs and country, one
listens for those comments and concerns, issues and problems and
questions that link the city and the suburbs and the country.
I have often heard, over the course of the last 4\1/2\ years that I
have had the privilege of being in this House, a very common message,
and that is the common message of working together and solving the
challenges that we face; that they want us here in the Congress to work
together, solve the challenges that we face, and I am pretty proud in
the last 4 years how we have met that challenge that the folks back
home have given me: balancing the budget for the first time in 28
years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16
years, and, of course, reforming our failed welfare system for the
first time in over a generation. Those are all big accomplishments, big
accomplishments that came from a committed effort in this Congress over
the last 4 years to change how Washington works to make Washington more
responsive to the folks back home.
As a result now, that success, particularly in balancing the budget
and cutting taxes, we have an economy that is doing better than we
anticipated. Nine years, since 1991, we have been enjoying economic
growth. Tying that in with a balanced budget, we now have projected $3
trillion surplus of extra money over the next 10 years. That is a lot
of money when we think about it, because our Federal budget is only
$1.7 billion.
Well, as we work on the Republican agenda this year of good schools
and low taxes and a secure retirement, we have the challenge before us
of what to do with the extra money, what to do with the surplus; and of
course, historically in Washington they always want to spend it on new
government.
But if we look at the markup of that money, most of it is Social
Security. I am really proud that the Republican budget does something
that the folks back home have told me that we should do for a long
time, and that is the Republican budget stops the raid on Social
Security that has gone on for 30 years. Republicans put a stop to it
this year. In fact, in doing so, we set aside two-thirds of the surplus
of extra tax revenue for retirement security, meaning we use those
funds to shrink Social Security and Medicare so that they are there for
3 generations from now, and that is the centerpiece and the purpose of
the Social Security and Medicare lock box.
But under our budget by doing that, we take the so-called surplus and
we set aside two-thirds of the surplus for Medicare and Social
Security, one-third for tax cuts, because we believe that if we look at
the tax burden today on families, and I often hear whether I am at the
union hall or the VFW or the local chamber or the coffee shop on Main
Street or the grain elevator out in the country, folks are frustrated
by the tax burden being so high.
In fact, since 1985, the tax burden on individuals has gone up. In
fact, it has doubled since 1985, and a portion of our economy, the
gross domestic product that now goes to the Federal Government in taxes
is the highest level ever in peacetime history. Mr. Speaker, 21 percent
of our economy is now consumed by the Federal Government in the burden
of taxes.
Not only do people back home tell me that they feel taxes are too
high, but they are frustrated with how complex and complicated and also
how unfair our tax code is. They bring up real concerns about issues
such as the marriage tax penalty.
And I have Shad and Michelle Hallihan here, a young couple, two
schoolteachers in Joliette, Illinois, who just got married. In fact,
they are expecting a baby any day now. Well, because they are married
and both work, their combined incomes when they file jointly as a
married couple pushes them into a higher tax bracket. That is called
the marriage tax penalty.
For couples such as Shad and Michelle Hallihan, the marriage tax
penalty, on average, is about $1,400 a year in higher taxes just
because they are married. Had Shad and Michelle chose not to get
married, they would have saved about $1,400 a year in taxes. That is
wrong. Just one of the complications in our tax code.
This is why I am so pleased as a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means that we succeeded this past week in passing legislation which
lowers the tax burden for families, addresses the need to simplify the
tax code and the unfairness in the tax code, and also addresses the
need through simplification and fairness, and particularly in treatment
of small business, to help keep our economy growing, keeping this 9-
year period of economic growth continuing into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, 42 million married working people will enjoy the
marriage tax relief that is provided in the Committee on Ways and
Means-produced tax cut, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. We help
married couples. We also address the need to help family farmers and
family businesses, many of whom are put out of business when the
founder passes on because of the so-called death tax which can consume
up to 55 percent of the family farm or family business. That is just
wrong. We eliminate the death tax in the Financial Freedom Act of 1999.
I am often asked by folks back home, is there not a way we can make
it easier and more affordable to go to college and send our kids to
school; if I am an adult who wants to go back to school to do that as
well, we provide education relief. We address the marriage

tax relief, we eliminate the death tax, we help small business and
family farmers, and we help families better afford education.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for bipartisan support for this legislation, which
I hope will be voted on later this week.

____________________

[[Page 16549]]

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FOR AMERICA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal
Government to be a full partner in helping our communities be more
livable. I discussed improving liveability of the physical environment
on this floor dealing with transportation infrastructure, managing our
water resources in a more rational fashion, and reducing gun violence.
These are all elements the Federal Government can profoundly influence
in our communities and provide the quality of life that our citizens
desire and deserve.
A critical part of that well-planned infrastructure for a livable
community is access to the global economy through Internet connections.
That is why I have strongly supported the E-rate, which helps schools
and libraries connect to the Internet with subsidized costs.
The Internet is to America's tomorrow what the highways and railroad
systems have been in the past. It has had the potential to change our
communities and landscapes in ways that are truly profound.
There is an Internet drama unfolding now which has profound
implications for how the Federal Government can help communities
realize their vision of a livable future. I am referring to high-speed
broad-band Internet access via the cable systems which are part of the
households of many Americans. This issue is being played out as the
consolidation of America's cable delivery system is almost complete,
featuring ownership by telecommunication giants like AT&T which
recently purchased the TCI cable system, America's largest.
Ironically, 7 years after the passage of legislation to deregulate
cable, titled the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992, the consolidation in the industry is resulting in fewer
choices for cable consumers. In fact, by this time next year, only New
York and Los Angeles will have more than one cable operator. Why is
this important?
The majority of Americans are still in the horse and buggy era of
Internet connections, by connecting on the Internet through their phone
lines. Cable has the potential of moving millions of American
households into the equivalent of a high-speed rail Internet
connection. As we make this quantum leap from the horse and buggy
technology to truly the information super highway, we must ensure that
this new service provides the same type of competition that has
inspired better service options at lower costs for long-distance and
for Internet service over the phone lines.
What happens if these cable systems are owned by just a few
companies? Soon, AT&T will provide cable service for almost two-thirds
of American households. We get a little glimpse of this in my hometown
of Portland, Oregon, where AT&T is the only cable provider in our
entire metropolitan area. As a condition of the approval of the merger
with TCI, the citizen advisors in my community made the recommendation
to our elected officials that there be competition for high-speed
Internet connections over the cable platform.
AT&T has chosen to argue strenuously that it should have a monopoly.
The company insisted that everybody have to pay for AT&T's Internet
service, regardless of whether or not people want to use it. Forcing
people to use its service or pay twice for Internet connection is an
integral part of AT&T's business plan.
In fact, it is such an important part that when the elected officials
chose to support the recommendation of our citizens, AT&T warned, in
not very subtle language, that the city better have a big legal budget,
and in fact, sued, trying to win in the Federal court what AT&T could
not justify to Portland's citizens and to its elected officials.
But AT&T lost in a powerfully worded decision by a highly respected
and moderate to conservative local jurist. Yet AT&T is continuing its
appeal and in the meantime is threatening not to invest in our
community that had the temerity to suggest that we ought to have
competition.
While the company's influence is being felt in Washington, D.C., it
is time for the administration and Congress to protect connectivity,
competition, and choice. This is a national issue, not just Portland.
Cities all over the country are dealing with this, in L.A., San
Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis to Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and
Detroit. Just last week, Broward County in Florida passed a resolution
just like Portland's.
I will be introducing legislation this week to help local communities
in their quest to determine their own technological future through
competition, connectivity, and choice. Congress, the FCC, the private
sector and local governments, everybody has a role to play. We all must
fight to protect the competitive forces that so many of us say are
important. The stakes are high not just for this vital
telecommunication link, but also to prove that we are serious about
making competition work for more livable communities.

____________________

SWAPPING OF DONOR LISTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week a lot of us became aware of the
fact that public television stations around the Nation were exchanging
their donor lists with the Democrat National Committee. I would remind
everyone, of course, that public television is supported by American
taxpayers' dollars; that is, the tax dollars of Democrats, Republicans,
Independents, even people who do not vote.
And the public broadcasting service is a private, not-for-profit
corporation. It is owned by 350 noncommercial TV stations. Its mission,
Mr. Speaker, is to provide over-the-air broadcasting that serves the
public interested. PBS is partially funded by the Federal Government
through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the CPB.
This year, in fact, we were considering providing CPB with as much as
$475 million a year. In turn, CPB provides public broadcasting stations
with 14 percent of its funding. In fact, last year that amounted to
more than $37 million. In addition, PBS received $4 million more than
other Federal agencies.
Public TV stations are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group, and as such, they
are tax exempt. Being tax exempt, they are prohibited from supporting
any political party or engaging in any lobbying or other partisan
activity.
I serve on the Committee on Commerce's Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection last week, during
consideration of the reauthorization of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, a story came to light about a Boston public TV station
which had shared 32,000 names with the Democrat National Committee. It
reported that Sam Black, a 4-year-old received a fund-raising letter
from the DNC.

{time} 1245

It appears that Sam's mother included his name with her own when she
sent a donation to the Boston station WGBH. The first time this fund-
raising exchange was reported, the station originally maintained that
it was an isolated incident, a mistake by an ill-informed employee. Of
course, the facts, Mr. Speaker, showed differently.
WGBH first approached the Democratic Party in 1993. In that first
year, the station received 5,000 names of

[[Page 16550]]

Democratic campaign donors. The next year WGBH, in a sense, paid for
new names by swapping the names of their contributors.
The station also received a financial payment for providing 10,200
names. My colleagues and I on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection wanted to know more; specifically, if
this practice was widespread or if there was just one station involved.
We found, of course, that their stations in San Francisco, Los Angeles,
New York, and even here in the Washington, D.C. area that had been
cooperating with the DNC in fund-raising activities for as long as 20
years.
I am not concerned that the Republicans were excluded from this fund-
raising effort. I am concerned that tax-exempt organizations are
engaging in partisan politics. Since the beginning, there has been a
close relationship between the Public Broadcasting Service and what
many of us perceive as the liberal agenda. In the mid-1990s, the Media
Research Center studied 73 PBS programs for political bias. It found
there was a liberal slant on these shows. Now, more recently, Mr.
Speaker, PBS decided not to air the President's videotaped testimony
before the grand jury or to offer live coverage of the impeachment
debate in the House Judiciary. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it ran Barney and
the Teletubbies. However, it did find it appropriate and in the public
interest to provide full coverage for the Watergate and Iran-Contra
hearings.
Now we have discovered that there is more than just an ideological
connection between PBS and the Democratic Party. This financial
cooperation is clearly in violation of our tax laws and could be of
interest to the FEC and to the IRS.
During consideration of the reauthorization for CPB, I prepared an
amendment calling on the comptroller of the United States to conduct a
study, a simple study, on this swapping of donor lists and to report
what stations, which political parties, and the circumstances of this
cooperation. However, the hearing on reauthorization has been
postponed, but Congress needs to act now.
The next step is for the GAO to launch an investigation into this
matter. I also want to see the CPB take steps themselves to find out
the extent of these joint fund-raising activities and to assure
Congress and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection that this has ended and will not occur again.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the American people now endure the
highest level of taxation in this Nation's history. These hard-working
people should not be sending their tax dollars to help support public
TV stations which are working with the DNC to enrich their respective
organizations. Public TV stations should be serving the public interest
and, of course, not any partisan political interest.

____________________

SUNDRY MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Sundry messages in writing from the President of the United States
were communicated to the House by Mr. Sherman Williams, one of his
secretaries.

____________________

MOVING FORWARD IS BEST FOR ALL

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by the
change in the rhetoric from my Republican colleagues with regard to the
work of the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives. For
years, I have heard them talk about what they were going to accomplish
beginning with the Contract with America that they trumpeted.
Now in the last couple of weeks, there is a new tone. Instead of
telling us what they are going to do, they are explaining why they have
been unable to do it. The Republicans are into a new phase in the
Republican revolution, whining. They are complaining that while they
wanted to do all of these things, they have been unable. What we now
have, rather than an announcement of a program is an explanation for
its failure.
I was particularly struck to note that they were blaming the minority
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), in large part. I
reread the Contract with America. One does not get to read only for
pleasure in our work. Sometimes we must read as a duty, so I reread the
Contract with America, and I did not find in there that the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) was listed as a subcontractor.
I did not read in there that the Contract with America said here are
these bold things we will do if the Democrats let us. But now what do
we hear? The Democrats would not let me do it. It is a kind of a
reverse Flip Wilson. It is no longer the devil made them do it. It is
that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) would not let them do
it.
Well, I should say in fairness, Mr. Speaker, that they have even been
giving me a little bit of the credit. We are not a profession known for
great modesty, but I am a little reluctant to accept quite as much
credit for their failure as they give me. Clearly, it would be in my
interest in many quarters to accept that credit without dissent but I
do have to be honest and say they give me a little more credit than I
deserve.
I want to say right now that when the Appropriations bills have come
up, I have not worn my costume of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) and held the bills up. That was not I. It was not the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). That was a member of their own party.
It is not I who has decided, for instance, that term limits, and
remember term limits? Some members do. The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Metcalf) does because he is an honest man who is abiding by his
promise, but term limits was part of the Contract with America. Well,
that contract apparently has been declared null and void because in
this year we have the Republican Party in control of the House, and no
one has brought up the term limits issue. It seems to have evanesced
into the wind.
Now, as I said, they are arguing that it is the fault of the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and myself. They are clearly
wrong. They have been the majority. They are in their third Congress of
a majority. They have the votes. They are, in fact, unable to do things
for which I am glad, but they have misargued the cause. Their platform
has not become law, not because of myself and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), much as I would love to take the credit, but
because it is unpassable, and it is unpassable because it is
unacceptable to the American people.
Their problem is that they won an election in 1994 based on
dissatisfaction with the Democrats, acknowledgedly, and then proceeded
to a program which included at one point shutting down the government,
excessive tax cutting that even a few on their own side do not like,
trying to roll back environmental regulations, term limits which they
are not prepared themselves to abide by.
It is not we who have stopped them. It is the American people. And
indeed what has been notable is the extent to which the Republican
Party has fallen out of love with the American people. They came
announcing themselves as the tribunes of the voters and increasingly
what we have from my Republican colleagues is a sense that the voters
are not to be trusted. We heard that, of course, most clearly during
the impeachment hearings, but we hear it in other things. They are
afraid that if they do not engineer a fiscally irresponsible tax cut
far more than the economy calls for, the people will ask Members of
Congress to vote for things.
We cannot trust those people. They want a prescription drug program
for the elderly. They just lack the moral fiber to go without drugs.
They are

[[Page 16551]]

going to insist that if Congress has some money there we say to 73-
year-old people who are faced with a $3,000 and $4,000 drug bill on a
$25,000 income that we ought to help them. They will insist on more
transportation facilities. They will insist on cleaning up some
environmental sites. So that is the problem, Mr. Speaker.
The Republican Party, it is true, is not getting anywhere with its
agenda. By the way, on those rare occasions where they have gotten
somewhere, we have paid too high a price. If I were tempted to try and
listen to their pleas and help them out, I would remember the 1997
Balanced Budget Act where they cut Medicare to pay for capital gains
tax cuts and all over this country in hospitals and home health care
agencies in Massachusetts where we have lost prescription drugs, people
are paying the price for this.
I have been struck by the ``dear colleagues'' I get from time to time
from some of my Republican colleagues who having voted for the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 have now decided that it did a terrible thing. It
cut Medicare. Apparently, they were somewhere else at the time.
Apparently, when the Balanced Budget Act was being formulated and voted
and cutting Medicare to pay for a capital gains tax cut, they were
absent. They now have returned to find that the capital gains tax cut
undid some important parts of Medicare.
Now, it is true, Mr. Speaker, if they want to make another deal
involving a tax cut and taking funds away from Medicare I will try to
block it. The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) will try to block it and I am glad, but essentially the
fault, dear Republicans, lies not with the minority. It lies with
themselves and with the unacceptable nature of their program to the
American people.

____________________

MILITARY CONCERNED ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on a recent Monday night I
watched the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. Lieutenant Colonel McCallum,
director of the Office of Safeguards and Security for the Department of
Energy, joined Bill O'Reilly to discuss Chinese espionage at our
Nation's weapons laboratories. Colonel McCallum revealed very important
information about the Energy Department's mismanagement of our
sensitive national security information.
In fact, after listening to Colonel McCallum's firsthand accounts, I
felt compelled to share his story. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of
representing four of our Nation's military bases, Camp Lejeune Marine
Corps Base, Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, Seymour Johnson Air
Force Base, and the Elizabeth City Coast Guard station, as well as
77,000 of our Nation's brave veterans.
I was home in eastern North Carolina over the July 4 recess, and a
number of my constituents asked me what Congress was doing to rectify
one of the country's worst breaches of national security in our
history? Unfortunately, I had very little to report.
That is why I am here today, Mr. Speaker. The security of the United
States is an issue with a critical impact on the citizens of this
country, yet it has been swept under the rug by this current
administration, and it is not surprising. President Clinton appointed
Hazel O'Leary Secretary of Energy, a position she held from 1993 to
1997. The Department of Energy is in place to support our Nation's
environmental quality, economic policy, energy security and national
security, but when President Clinton appointed Hazel O'Leary head of
the Department, she had no experience with nuclear energy or weapons
technologies. Now she has been accused of directly compromising our
sensitive national security information.
Mr. Speaker, Colonel McCallum served under Secretary O'Leary in the 9
years he has served as security director. During the interview, Mr.
O'Reilly asked Colonel McCallum if the allegations against Ms. O'Leary
were correct. He replied, and I quote, the Secretary shut down our
counterintelligence program, stopped our ability to follow leads and
largely opened doors to the Chinese and other adversaries who would
want our secrets and our nuclear materials.
Mr. Speaker, this is a direct quote from the security director for
the Department of Energy. Colonel McCallum confirmed that Mrs. O'Leary
was more concerned with helping the Russians and Chinese with their
economics, which is what President Clinton wanted her to do, than she
was with the security of the United States of America.
Mr. O'Reilly then asked the colonel his response after witnessing
these grave breaches of national security. Colonel McCallum replied, we
raised the issue to the Secretary's office on a routine basis to try to
get to the Secretary to allow us to protect our highest secrets, to
protect our nuclear material and nuclear weapons in the appropriate way
and, frankly, we were unable to get in the front door or get her staff
to focus on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, that is a direct quote. This is an outrage. The director
of security repeatedly contacted the Secretary's office asking her to
do something to protect our sensitive nuclear technology, and she
ignored him.
Colonel McCallum is not just a disgruntled employee. He served two
tours in Vietnam and has a distinguished military career. So why would
he risk losing his job with the Department of Energy, his livelihood,
by speaking out against his employer? Because, Mr. Speaker, he is
telling the truth.
After a 28-year career, Colonel McCallum has been placed on
administrative leave and his job has been threatened, simply because he
has tried to come forward with the facts.
Mr. Speaker, Colonel McCallum comes from a military family and has a
long history of service himself. Yet he is willing to sacrifice his own
job by coming forward with concerns based on his faithful dedication to
this country. He is a true patriot. He can confirm that under the
leadership of President Clinton's appointees, the Department of Energy
has ignored the concerns of its security staff and allowed for a
Communist nation to steal our nuclear secrets.
Mr. Speaker, Colonel McCallum is right. America must help the
administration wake up to the reality that we need to make real and
effective changes now to tighten security at our Nation's weapons
laboratory. The security of our Nation and the security of every
citizen in America may depend on that.

____________________

{time} 1300

CURRENT ISSUES AFFECTING GUAM

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing Guam,
which is the most distant U.S. area that is still represented in this
body and is on the other side of the International Dateline. This means
that Guam will be the first location in America that will witness the
effects of the so-called Y2K bug.
Guam is 15 hours ahead of the East Cost on the Continental United
States. Thus on January 1, 2000 Guam time, the entire Nation will know
far in advance of the beginning of their New Year's celebrations here
on the East Coast what the devastating effects of Y2K will be.
The administration, via the Office of Insular Affairs at the
Department of Interior, has just announced that the territories will
receive $22 million in new Federal funding to help repair the local
governmental computer systems and make them Y2K compliant.
However, Mr. Speaker, I have learned from very reliable sources that
the breakdown of this necessary emergency funding will represent the
greatest inequity in Federal territorial relations that Guam has
experienced since 1898

[[Page 16552]]

when Guam became a U.S. possession. The administration, with no
explanation, nor just cause, has deemed that out of a possible $22
million in assistance divided for four territories, Guam will receive a
mere $60,000, and Guam will be the first one to experience the Y2K
problem.
This amount is unconscionable, and this level of funding is
proportionately ridiculous in terms of Guam's real Y2K problems which
are estimated to be around $26 million to repair.
Somewhere along the road between the Office of Insular Affairs and
the Government of Guam, there seems to have been a breakdown in
cooperation. The USDA made an assessment of the Government of Guam's
Y2K readiness earlier this year, along with other territories.
Supposedly, their efforts were met with some resistance by local
officials and agency heads. I do not know if any of this is accurate;
but at this stage, casting blame will not solve the problem.
The fact remains that, if the rumors of uncooperativeness are true,
and I am not sure that they are, the $60,000 apportionment out of $22
million is tantamount to a punitive action.
It is my understanding and certainly my hope that OMB and OIA will be
meeting very soon to discuss redressing this gross inequity or to
supplement the total pool of funds. I will make every effort to impress
upon the administration that they need to make realistic and equitable
allocations for Guam and the other territories.
To that end, I will be contacting the House Committee on
Appropriations' chairman and ranking member to express my deep concern
over the proposed Y2K funding allocation. I hope and I trust that the
realignment of this funding proposal can be met.
The other item I would like to address is the INS reimbursement for
the Government of Guam. Earlier this year, and in fact going back to
last year, there has been a steady stream of illegal immigrants making
a nearly 2,000 mile journey over the open ocean from the People's
Republic of China to Guam.
As a result of this, there has been over 500 illegal Chinese
immigrants that have been captured in Guam and have been detained in
Guam. Governor Carl Gutierrez intervened to prevent that action, the
INS from releasing these people into the general community.
Now, the government of Guam has been housing these illegal immigrants
since January at a local corrections facility. This is a Federal
responsibility. The Clinton administration thankfully has committed to
reimbursing the Government of Guam for all costs incurred in relation
to detaining and capturing the Chinese illegal immigrants.
Last June, the Governor of Guam estimated that the cost to date had
tallied some $4.4 million.
I understand that the administration will be offering an amendment to
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary bill which
will make good on this commitment.
I am grateful for that opportunity, and I urge all the Members of
this body as well as Members of the other body to support that and to
continue to work towards the equitable distribution of funding for our
insular areas.

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY IS SLIPPING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress, I taught history
for 30 years in my home State of Washington. But it should not take a
historian, a lawyer, or even a politician to realize that Congress has
ceded a measure of fundamental constitutional authority to the
executive.
In fact, it is the hundreds of phone calls and letters from Americans
in my district and around the country that brings me to the floor
today. These citizens are concerned, and I am concerned, that Congress
has subjected the people to laws it never made because we have allowed
our legislative responsibilities to be usurped by the executive
department.
In the past, Presidents worked with Congress to pass legislation.
Indeed, that is what the Founders intended. Nevertheless, Congress,
over the years, has allowed Presidents, both Democratic and Republican,
to issue executive orders and proclamations that push far beyond the
prescribed executive authority. Presidents have used these
administrative actions to enact their agenda without the consent of
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, we have tolerated this type of executive orders and
proclamations for too long. I am deeply concerned about what I perceive
to be a culture of deference in the Congress, deference to the
executive. Congressional authority is slipping.
In fact, this President has issued more than 297 executive orders
since taking office. Some of these infringe on the powers and duties
reserved exclusively for Congress as dictated by the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, one was so egregious that it had to be rescinded last year.
That was executive order 13803 on federalism, which imposed new
guidelines and granted the President unlimited policy making authority.
Furthermore, it expanded the burden of big government on American
citizens.
Last August, due to its blatant regard for congressional authority
and disregard for the 9th and 10th Amendments, the White House finally
succumbed to intense pressure and suspended or withdrew the federalism
executive order.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, Executive Order 13061, is
another example of our current President's attempted usurpation of the
legislative powers of Congress. The Rivers Initiative was born when the
President decided, without studies or public hearings, that he could
take governing authority away from States and local governments.
The Constitution requires Congress to first approve all revenue
spending. However, Clinton's executive order would require States to
give up certain rivers to Federal control. It is a threat to citizens'
private property rights. Even more disturbing, the Rivers Initiative
also would have given the President the power to reprogram government
funds and spend taxpayers' money for projects without a vote of
Congress.
The President's use of executive orders and proclamations is
reckless. Some fear the President may try to use these presidential
directives in the future to further his international agenda in U.N.
treaties or to increase his authority under the so-called emergency
powers to spend more taxpayer dollars.
Executive orders and proclamations are a legitimate source of law
only when they draw upon the constitutional powers of the President or
when Congress expressly delegates such authority.
I urge every Member to join with me, and the 72 of our colleagues,
and cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 30. My resolution institutes
a check within the Congress. It is a signal that executive
infringements on legislative power will prompt Congress to protect its
constitutional prerogatives.
Those of us in Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution
and to protect the balance it established. To fulfill our oath of
office, I urge each Member to support this resolution. We must protect
our constituents from the abuses of unchecked executive power.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until 2 p.m.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until 2 p.m.

____________________

{time} 1400

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pease) at 2 p.m.

____________________

PRAYER

The Reverend Father Mark Moretti, Assistant Pastor, St. Rita's
Catholic

[[Page 16553]]

Church, Alexandria, Virginia, and Chaplain for Diplomatic Security, the
State Department, offered the following prayer:
Heavenly Father, in times of tragedy, words fail to express our sense
of loss or grief. Our human weakness lays claim to Your strength. We
rest in You. We depend on Your care. Console us with the truth that in
all the events of human life, the happy and the sad, Your presence and
Your love will never depart. Help us to remember that with all of the
blessings of this life that You have given us, we hope for a greater
life with You, where there will be no sorrow, no tears, and no pain,
but only the fullness of peace and joy. We ask this in Your holy name.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. GIBBONS led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

EXTREMIST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SHOULD NOT RUN CONGRESS

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, no doubt many of us find it very disturbing
that at the same time that Congress is spending billions of taxpayer
dollars for thousands of vague Government programs, a number of our
more liberal colleagues would vote to destroy the jobs of hard-working
minors and families across the United States. It is truly a perplexing
and even sad time for my constituents in this Congress.
Paradoxically, many of my colleagues give millions of dollars away to
someone who can study the mating habits of fruit flies and yet at the
same time vote for an amendment that would effectively take the food
off the tables of thousands of hard-working families in Nevada and
elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to tell these families is, why would
Congress do this? What will I tell them? Tell them that they and half
of their community lost their jobs so that a small handful of hikers
did not have to see a mine on their bird watching hike?
I would like to remind my colleagues that a majority of mining States
have a cleaner environmental bill of health than most nonmining States
in this country.
Also, the millions of dollars in tax dollars paid by mines across the
country rule out the ``free ride'' argument that some of my colleagues
would suggest.
Mr. Speaker, sound science and common sense should rule this
Congress, not the extremist environmental groups who prey on public
emotion.

____________________

RUSSIA WANTS ANOTHER $5 BILLION FROM IMF

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, even though Russia still owes $17 billion
to the International Monetary Fund, Russia wants another $5 billion
loan. And experts support it. They say, Russia needs the $5 billion
loan to repay part of the $17 billion still in default.
Unbelievable. If that is not enough to detoxify your ruble, reports
say, ``Beware, Congress, Russian politicians have been stealing the IMF
money for years.''
Beam me up, Mr. Speaker. These experts are not only smoking dope,
they are drinking vodka chasers if they expect me to vote for one more
dime for a Russian loan. Borrow this.

____________________

REPORT ON EMIGRATION LAWS AND POLICIES OF ALBANIA--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 106-98)

The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the
Committee on International Relations and ordered to be printed:

____________________

REPORT ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO LIBYA--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 106-99)

[[Page 16554]]

amended Regulations will also provide for the licensing of all
transactions necessary and incident to licensed sales transactions,
such as insurance and shipping arrangements. Financing for the licensed
sales transactions will be permitted in the manner described in the
amended Regulations.
3. During the reporting period, OFAC reviewed numerous applications
for licenses to authorize transactions under the Regulations.
Consistent with OFAC's ongoing scrutiny of banking transactions, the
largest category of license approvals (20) involved types of financial
transactions that are consistent with U.S. policy. Most of these
licenses authorized personal remittances not involving Libya between
persons who are not blocked parties to flow through Libyan banks
located outside Libya. Three licenses were issued authorizing certain
travel-related transactions. One license was issued to a U.S. firm to
allow it to protect its intellectual property rights in Libya; another
authorized receipt of payment for legal services; and a third
authorized payments for telecommunications services. A total of 26
licenses were issued during the reporting period.
4. During the current 6-month period, OFAC continued to emphasize to
the international banking community in the United States the importance
of identifying and blocking payments made by or on behalf of Libya. The
office worked closely with the banks to assure the effectiveness of
interdiction software systems used to identify such payments. During
the reporting period, 87 transactions potentially involving Libya,
totaling nearly $3.4 million, were interdicted.
5. Since my last report, OFAC has collected 7 civil monetary
penalties totaling $38,000 from 2 U.S. financial institutions, 3
companies, and 2 individuals for violations of the U.S. sanctions
against Libya. The violations involved export transactions relating to
Libya and dealings in Government of Libya property or property in which
the Government of Libya had an interest.
On April 23, 1999, a foreign national permanent resident in the
United States was sentenced by the Federal District court for the
Middle District of Florida to 2 years in prison and 2 years supervised
release for criminal conspiracy to violate ecomonic sanctions against
Libya, Iran, and Iraq. He had previously been convicted of violation of
the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, the Iranian Transactions Regulations,
the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, and the Export Administration
Regulations for exportation of industrial equipment to the oil, gas,
petrochemical, water, and power industries of Libya, Iran, and Iraq.
Various enforcement actions carried over from previous reporting
periods have continued to be aggressively pursued. Numerous
investigations are ongoing and new reports of violations are being
scrutinized.
6. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month
period from January 7 through July 6, 1999, that are directly
attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by the
declaration of the Libyan national emergency are estimated at
approximately $4.4 million. Personnel costs were largely centered in
the Department of the Treasury (particularly in the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, the Office of the General Counsel, and the U.S. Customs
Service), the Department of State, and the Department of Commerce.
7. In April 1999, Libya surrendered the 2 suspects in the Lockerbie
bombing for trial before a Scottish court seated in the Netherlands. In
accordance with UNSCR 748, upon the suspects' transfer, UN sanctions
were immediately suspended. We will insist that Libya fulfill the
remaining UNSCR requirements for lifting UN sanctions and are working
with UN Secretary Annan and UN Secretary Council members to ensure that
Libya does so promptly. U.S. unilateral sanctions remain in force, and
I will continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to apply these
sanctions fully and effectively, as long as they remain appropriate. I
will continue to report periodically to the Congress on significant
developments as required by law.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, July 19, 1999.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
announces that he will postpone further proceedings today on each
motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and
nays are ordered, or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of
rule XX.
Such rollcall votes, if postponed, will be taken after debate has
concluded on all motions to suspend the rules but not before 6 p.m.

____________________

LEWIS AND CLARK EXPEDITION BICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1033) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins
in commemoration of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 1033

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Lewis and Clark Expedition
Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) the expedition commanded by Meriwether Lewis and
William Clark, which came to be called ``The Corps of
Discovery'', was one of the most remarkable and productive
scientific and military exploring expeditions in all American
history;
(2) President Thomas Jefferson gave Lewis and Clark the
mission to ``explore the Missouri River & such principal
stream of it, as, by its course and communication with the
waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon,
Colorado, or any other river may offer the most direct and
practical water communication across this continent for the
purposes of commerce'';
(3) the Expedition, in response to President Jefferson's
directive, greatly advanced our geographical knowledge of the
continent and prepared the way for the extension of the
American fur trade with American Indian tribes throughout the
land;
(4) President Jefferson directed the explorers to take note
of and carefully record the natural resources of the newly
acquired territory known as Louisiana, as well as diligently
report on the native inhabitants of the land;
(5) the Expedition departed St. Louis, Missouri on May 14,
1804;
(6) the Expedition held its first meeting with American
Indians at Council Bluff near present-day Fort Calhoun,
Nebraska, in August 1804, spent its first winter at Fort
Mandan, North Dakota, crossed the Rocky Mountains by the
mouth of the Columbia River in mid-November of that year, and
wintered at Fort Clatsop, near the present-day city of
Astoria, Oregon;
(7) the Expedition returned to St. Louis, Missouri, on
September 23, 1806, after a 28-month journey covering 8,000
miles during which it traversed 11 future States: Illinois,
Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon;
(8) accounts from the journals of Lewis and Clark and the
detailed maps that were prepared by the Expedition enhance
knowledge of the western continent and routes for commerce;
(9) the Expedition significantly enhanced amicable
relationships between the United States and the autonomous
American Indian nations, and the friendship and respect
fostered between American Indian tribes and the Expedition
represents the best of diplomacy and relationships between
divergent nations and cultures; and
(10) the Lewis and Clark Expedition has been called the
most perfect expedition of its kind in the history of the
world and paved the way for the United States to become a
great world power.

SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

(a) Denomination.--In commemoration of the bicentennial of
the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of
which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5136 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.

[[Page 16555]]

SEC. 4. SOURCES OF BULLION.

The Secretary may obtain silver for minting coins under
this Act from any available source, including stockpiles
established under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act.

SEC. 5. DESIGN OF COINS.

(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the expedition of Lewis and Clark.
(2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year ``2004'' and the years
``1804-1806''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(3) Obverse of coin.--The obverse of each coin minted under
this Act shall bear the likeness of Meriwether Lewis and
William Clark.
(4) General design.--In designing this coin, the Secretary
shall also consider incorporating appropriate elements from
the Jefferson Peace and Friendship Medal which Lewis and
Clark presented to the Chiefs of the various Indian tribes
they encountered and shall consider recognizing Native
American culture.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be selected by the Secretary after consultation
with the Commission of Fine Arts and shall be reviewed by the
Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee.

SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States
Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the
coins minted under this Act.
(c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins
minted under this Act only during the period beginning on
January 1, 2004, and ending on December 31, 2004.

SEC. 7. SALE OF COINS.

(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect
to such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of
such coins.
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
(d) Surcharges.--All sales of coins minted under this Act
shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.

SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

(a) In General.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, the proceeds from the surcharges received
by the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this Act
shall be promptly paid by the Secretary as follows:
(1) National lewis and clark bicentennial council.--\2/3\
to the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council, for
activities associated with commemorating the bicentennial of
the Expedition.
(2) National park service.--\1/3\ to the National Park
Service for activities associated with commemorating the
bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
(b) Audits.--Each organization that receives any payment
from the Secretary under this section shall be subject to the
audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United
States Code.

SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

(a) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary shall
take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that minting
and issuing coins under this Act will not result in any net
cost to the United States Government.
(b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under
this Act unless the Secretary has received--
(1) full payment for the coin;
(2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the
United States for full payment; or
(3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the
Secretary from a depository institution whose deposits are
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the
National Credit Union Administration Board.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to urge the passage of H.R.
1033, legislation introduced by this Member which authorizes the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to mint 500,000 one-dollar coins to
commemorate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The
coins will be of legal tender. In addition, this measure will raise
money to defer costs of bicentennial celebrations.
Original cosponsors of this legislation include the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy),
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the gentleman from Montana
(Mr. Hill), who is the co-chairman of the Lewis and Clark Caucus. Last
Congress, a very similar bill was introduced by this Member; and we, in
fact, had 299 House cosponsors.
This Member would especially like to thank the gentleman from Iowa
(Chairman Leach) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) the
subcommittee chairman for expediting the consideration of this
legislation once House-Senate tactics on revenue measures on this
Congressional measure were settled. I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. LaFalce) for his role, as well.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note a Lewis and Clark commemorative
coin bill, which this Member also introduced, conforming with all rules
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, passed the House in
the 105th Congress by a vote of 398 to 2, but was not individually
passed by the Senate before the 105th Congress adjourned.
President Thomas Jefferson, eager to explore newly-acquired land from
the Louisiana Purchase, chose Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to
begin the expedition, which came to be called ``The Corps of
Discovery.''
President Jefferson gave the following directive to Lewis and Clark
to ``explore the Missouri River and such principal streams of it, as,
by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean,
whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado, or any other river may offer
the most direct and practicable water communication across this
continent for the purposes of commerce.''
Lewis and Clark departed St. Louis on May 14, 1804, and returned to
St. Louis 28 months later on September 23, 1806. The journey covered
8,000 miles of the land which now constitutes the States of Illinois,
Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.
This expedition was one of the most remarkable and productive
military and scientific exploring expeditions in all of American
history. This expedition advanced our geographical knowledge of the
continent and its beautiful natural resources.
In addition, the expedition greatly enhanced amicable relationships
and nurtured a mutual friendship and respect between the United States
and the autonomous American Indian nations. Furthermore, Sacajawea, the
young Native American woman who was a guide and interpreter for the
expedition, deserves our acknowledgment and admiration.
In addition, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator
Byron Dorgan, has simultaneously introduced a companion bill on this
subject in the other body, S. 1187.
Under H.R. 1033, these coins will include the likeness of Meriwether
Lewis and William Clark and the U.S. Mint considers incorporating
appropriate elements from the Jefferson Peace and Friendship Medal
which Lewis and Clark presented to the chiefs of the various Indian
tribes they encountered and shall consider recognizing Native American
culture.
In its 1997 report, the congressionally authorized Citizens Coin
Advisory Committee recommended commemorating the Lewis and Clark
Expedition with the coin. This Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin
authorized by this legislation will be scheduled to be minted and into
circulation in the year 2004.
The legislation provides that the net proceeds from the surcharges
included in the price of the coin shall be distributed to the National
Lewis and Clark

[[Page 16556]]

Bicentennial Council, two-thirds of it, and the National Park Service,
the remaining third, to be used by the Park Service for activities
associated with commemorating the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition. Thus, this contribution from the proceeds of coin sales to
the Park Service will save taxpayers on currently planned Lewis and
Clark events.
The legislation also includes language requiring the Department of
the Treasury to take action necessary to ensure that the minting and
issuing of the coins result in no net costs to the United States.
Moreover, the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council, which
advocates this commemorative coin, is an outgrowth of the Lewis and
Clark Trails Foundation, Incorporated, which was created in 1969 to
continue the work of the 1964 congressionally established Lewis and
Clark Trails Commission.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member believes that the courage and
resilience and discoveries of Lewis and Clark assisted by Native
Americans along the route of their great expedition, ``The Corps of
Discovery,'' left an indelible and lasting contribution to the
settlement and perhaps to the ultimate boundaries of the United States.
Lewis and Clark, in 1804, began an expedition from St. Louis into the
unknown wilderness of the West.

{time} 1415

They returned in 1806 with a wealth of knowledge and experience which
has been invaluable in the development of the United States and the
American Nation. We still stand in awe of their intrepid journey to
explore the American West.
Therefore, this Member would strongly encourage his colleagues to
vote for H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1033, and I give special
commendation to the principal author of the bill, the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and to the two Democratic lead sponsors on the
bill, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). I commend them for their fine work
advancing it to the House floor.
The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a coin
commemorating the Lewis and Clark expedition. The expedition, led by
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, was one of the most remarkable and
productive scientific and military expeditions in all American history.
At the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark led
an expedition force of some 40 soldiers and civilians up the Missouri
river, across the Rocky Mountains, along the Columbia River to the
Pacific Ocean. The expedition covered a vast stretch of America's
territory, over 8,000 miles, and 11 future States, including what is
now Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon.
The pioneering spirits of Lewis and Clark culminated in the
development of new maps for uncharted territories and a collection and
study of previously unknown species of plants and animals. With their
new glimpse of uncharted territories, Lewis and Clark inspired
subsequent generations of Americans to push the American frontier to
the Pacific ocean.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation celebrates this historic geographical
and scientific exploration of the United States. The minting and
issuance of the Lewis and Clark commemorative coin will be done at no
cost to the American taxpayer and proceeds from its sale will accrue to
the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service.
Both of these organizations are currently preparing for the
bicentennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Mr.
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1033.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the chief Democratic sponsor of this
bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
this time, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I would like to express my strong support for
H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative
Coin Act. I hope this time we get it through, that there are not hang-
ups.
I was pleased with what the House did in the last session. It is of
particular interest to me as the only graduate of Lewis and Clark
College in Portland, Oregon, the namesake of the great explorers; in
fact, both my degrees are from the institution. I grew up in the
Pacific Northwest, steeped in the lore and tradition that surrounded
the Lewis and Clark expedition.
It is very important to us in the Pacific Northwest. One hundred
years ago in our community, the centennial of the Lewis and Clark
expedition was celebrated in a world's fair that had a profound impact
on our community, on the Pacific Northwest and the West Coast in
general.
This resolution, which passed the House last year and has been ably
described by the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from New
York, has the potential of providing resources for a national
celebration of this undertaking. I will not bore Members or our guests
with further recitation of that exploration, but suffice it to say that
over 200 years ago when President Jefferson coaxed the Congress to
appropriate $2,500 for this exploration, it was money well spent; and I
think that the resources that will be invested in this celebration will
likewise be well spent.
There is a great deal that we need to do to reconnect with our
friends in the Native American communities in the 11 States throughout
the passage of the expedition, for us to acknowledge the contributions
they made and understand what it means in today's world to be connected
to people of other ethnic backgrounds, particularly Native Americans,
but also I think this is an international respect as well.
It is a chance for our Nation to reflect on the power of exploration
and scientific advancement, to reach out to others in the Native
American community who were a part of that exploration, who on more
than one occasion rescued the explorers. It is an opportunity for us as
a Nation to reflect on our ancestors who had the ability to dream on a
vast scale.
Today, we need this observance and all that it requires to help us
face our destiny in a new century. I am pleased to be associated with
the legislation and hope that the House will act expeditiously.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to simply conclude by thanking the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer). During the last Congress he was extremely helpful in us
getting the 290 cosponsors to meet the subcommittee requirement, and I
appreciate his effort and his long interest in Lewis and Clark.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1033.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1033, the
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act, and I want to
personally thank Congressman Bereuter, the sponsor of the legislation,
for his work on this issue.
Nearly two hundred years after the Corps of Discovery, Americans of
all ages have begun a national pilgrimage to follow the steps of
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The journey today stands as one of
the most remarkable and productive scientific and military exploring
expeditions in all of American History. H.R. 1033 recognizes this
extraordinary journey and the discipline, sacrifice and strength shown
by Lewis and Clark by authorizing the Treasury to mint one-dollar and
half-dollar coins to commemorate the bicentennial of the expedition.
The bill will not only serve to highlight this historic expedition
and the roles of Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and the many Native
Americans who aided in the journey, but it will also provide a source
of financial support for

[[Page 16557]]

commemorative activities. After the cost of minting is covered, the
proceeds from the sale of the coin will be distributed to the National
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service
which will allow both entities to continue their work in planning and
organizing bicentennial events.
As we continue preparing for the bicentennial of this historic
expedition, it is important that Congress play an active role in
supporting and promoting its commemoration. I urge my colleagues to
recognize the importance of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the
nation and the efforts of the bicentennial council and the National
Park Service to highlight its bicentennial by passing this legislation.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1033.
The question was taken.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

LEIF ERICSON MILLENNIUM COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 31) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in
conjunction with the minting of coins by the Republic of Iceland in
commemoration of the millennium of the discovery of the New World by
Leif Ericson.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 31

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Leif Ericson Millennium
Commemorative Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

(a) $1 Silver Coins.--In conjunction with the simultaneous
minting and issuance of commemorative coins by the Republic
of Iceland in commemoration of the millennium of the
discovery of the New World by Leif Ericson, the Secretary of
the Treasury (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall mint and issue not more than 500,000 1
dollar coins, which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5136 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.

SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

The Secretary may obtain silver for minting coins under
this Act from any available source, including stockpiles
established under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act.

SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the millennium of the discovery of
the New World by Leif Ericson.
(2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year ``2000''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the
Leifur Eirikson Foundation and the Commission of Fine Arts;
and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.

SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States
Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the
coins minted under this Act.
(c) Commencement of Issuance.--The Secretary may issue
coins minted under this Act beginning January 1, 2000.
(d) Termination of Minting Authority.--No coins may be
minted under this Act after December 31, 2000.

SEC. 6. SURCHARGES.

(a) In General.--All sales of coins minted under this Act
shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
(b) Distribution.--All surcharges received by the Secretary
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be
promptly paid by the Secretary to the Leifur Eirikson
Foundation for the purpose of funding student exchanges
between students of the United States and students of
Iceland.
(c) Audits.--The Leifur Eirikson Foundation shall be
subject to the audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of
title 31, United States Code, with regard to the amounts
received by the Foundation under subsection (b).

SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
provision of law governing procurement or public contracts
shall be applicable to the procurement of goods and services
necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Equal Employment Opportunity.--Subsection (a) shall not
relieve any person entering into a contract under the
authority of this Act from complying with any law relating to
equal employment opportunity.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 31, a bill that will implement
a unique program to issue a millennium commemorative dollar coin. The
year 2000 will mark the 1,000th anniversary of the voyage of discovery
by Leif Ericson, an Icelander, who was the son of Eric the Red, a
Norseman, in 1000 A.D. Ericson set off from Iceland to explore lands to
the west, beyond Greenland. Recent archaeological research has
confirmed evidence of contemporaneous European settlement on
Newfoundland as a result of this voyage and its successors.
A unique feature of this bill is that it would permit the
simultaneous issuance of a commemorative U.S. silver dollar and a
silver Kronor Icelandic coin, both produced by the United States Mint
and both celebrating the voyage of Leif Ericson. Both of these coins
would be produced in limited mintages with 250,000 silver dollars
authorized. This will be a significant numismatic event, a 1,000-year
anniversary, two countries jointly issuing coins commemorating the same
event, a limited boxed edition of both coins being issued by the Mint
and the surcharge proceeds going to promote scholarship and student
exchanges between the two countries.
Interestingly, the Icelandic coin will depict Leif Ericson as he
appears on a statue that stands today in Reykjavik. This statue of the
great explorer was created by the sculptor Stirling Calder, father of
another great artist of this century, Alexander Calder, and was
presented by the United States Congress to the parliament of Iceland,
known as the Althing, on its 1,000th anniversary in 1930. It is very
appropriate that our relatively young country take this opportunity to
commemorate a 1,000-year link to Europe and one of the earliest of the
many ethnic strains that make up our society today. During the year
2000 the Smithsonian will be mounting a traveling exhibition devoted to
the millennium of the Viking contacts with the new world. It will trace
how the Nordic sagas recorded during these voyages entered European
consciousness and the myth describing a fertile land far to the west.
Recent archaeological finds hint that 11th century Viking explorers
might have visited coastal and interior areas considerably to the south
of the Newfoundland site. Additional research and scholarship funded by
this coin program is designed to contribute to a better understanding
of this hardy folk and their relationship to modern peoples of this
hemisphere.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus), the subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. LaFalce) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the
ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee, for their
extraordinary cooperation.
As Members may recall, this bill passed this Chamber in the last
Congress. I urge its adoption today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 16558]]

Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 31. I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Vento), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for the tremendous work
they have done on this bill. I would point out that the gentleman from
Minnesota very much wanted to be the floor manager from the Democratic
respective on this bill, but he had been apprised it would be taken up
tomorrow, had made a number of previous important appointments that he
simply could not break, and asked me to substitute in his stead.
This bill commemorates the millennium of Leif Ericson's arrival in
the New World, a watershed event in the history of our continent. The
bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with
the simultaneous minting and issuance by the Republic of Iceland of its
own coin, to mint up to, I believe, one-half million dollars of one-
dollar commemorative coins.
If I may ask the gentleman from Iowa, is it correct that it is one-
half million, as opposed to 250,000?
Mr. LEACH. If the gentleman will yield, that is what the legislation
suggests, that is correct.
Mr. LaFALCE. The coins will be made up of 90 percent silver and 10
percent copper, and will commemorate the importance of Leif Ericson's
arrival in the New World nearly 1,000 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the proceeds from the sale of this coin will go to the
Leifur Eirikson Foundation, which will use the funds to finance student
exchanges between the United States and the Republic of Iceland. I
would urge all my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Leif Ericson, the Norse
navigator and explorer, and to voice my support for the Leif Ericson
Millennium Commemorative Coin Act.
Leif Ericson played a vital role in the European discovery of our
continent. It is a role that, over the years, has not been widely
recognized. Within the past 30 years, new historical evidence has
surfaced to show that Leif Ericson landed in North America around 1000
A.D., almost 500 years prior to Christopher Columbus' arrival in the
New World.
Leif Ericson was born around 970 A.D. in Greenland, son of the famous
warrior, explorer, and discoverer of Greenland, ``Eric the Red.'' There
are two traditional accounts of Leif Ericson's discovery of America.
However, the one that is best upheld by the evidence states that a
contemporary of Leif's, Bjarni Herjolfsson, chanced upon America after
drifting off course. Herjolfsson did not land in the New World, but
upon his return to Greenland, he described his course to Leif.
Following Herjolfsson's course, Leif later landed in North America. He
named the new land ``Vinland,'' after the plentiful supply of grapes he
found there. He built a small settlement and spent the winter in
Vinland before he returned to Greenland.
At the end of his career, Leif Ericson settled on his father's estate
in Brattahlid, Greenland, where he lived until he died. It is rumored
that he is buried in an unmarked grave in the Brattahlid cemetery.
The Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coin Act will create silver
dollars for the 1000-year anniversary of Ericson's landing in North
America, in conjunction with a series of coins to be minted in the
Republic of Iceland. All proceeds will support student exchanges
between the U.S. and Iceland. This is an appropriate way to pay tribute
to the pioneering spirit of Leif Ericson, and these coins will stand as
symbols of his courage and perseverance--virtues we all must embrace in
order to accomplish our goals.
Finally, this legislation will honor all Americans of Scandinavian
descent. For generations, they have proven themselves brave and loyal
Americans, carrying on the tradition of courage and exploration started
by their Norse ancestors, including Leif Ericson.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 31.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES VICTORY IN THE
COLD WAR AND FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 121) expressing the sense of the
Congress regarding the victory of the United States in the cold war and
the fall of the Berlin Wall, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 121

Whereas the cold war was an enduring struggle between
communism and democracy throughout the second half of the
20th century;
Whereas an estimated 24,000,000 members of the United
States Armed Forces served during the cold war;
Whereas 400,000,000 people were freed from the bondage of
communism during the cold war in the countries then known as
the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, and
Lithuania;
Whereas the victory of the United States in the cold war
will signify freedom and security for decades to come;
Whereas the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the most
significant events of the 20th century, symbolized the
triumph of democracy over communism; and
Whereas November 9, 1999, will mark the 10th anniversary of
this historic event: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the
Nation should celebrate the victory of the United States in
the cold war and the 10th anniversary of the fall of the
Berlin Wall by--
(1) promoting education about the cold war and its
historical significance;
(2) supporting efforts to establish a memorial museum to
victims of communism that reflects the suffering of millions
of victims worldwide and the role of the United States in
promoting freedom and democracy that led to the end of the
cold war;
(3) celebrating peace, freedom, and the principles of
democratic government;
(4) honoring and reflecting upon the role of the United
States in the international struggle for individual human
rights and the evolution of the free enterprise system; and
(5) recognizing the veterans who served during the cold
war.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this
measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, H. Con. Res. 121,
recognizes the essential role played by our Nation and the men and
women in our armed forces who served in Europe during the Cold War. I
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for his effort to see
that our victory in this protracted struggle with the forces of
communism is duly recognized. I commend the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) who is joining me today on this resolution.
Ten years ago, the Berlin Wall, one of the enduring symbols of the
brutality and repression of the Communist system, was finally brought
down. It was the remarkable culmination of the 40-year struggle between
the forces of freedom and liberty and those of tyranny and oppression.
During this struggle, our citizens and those of Europe had a nuclear
sword of Damocles hanging over them, and it is one of the truly
noteworthy events in human history that it ended not with a bloody
upheaval but a jubilant celebration by those on both sides of the Wall
who never let their faith in democratic government and the intrinsic
good of liberty desert them.

{time} 1430

Our victory was not completely bloodless, however, and a number of
members of our Armed Forces, our public officials and ordinary citizens
made

[[Page 16559]]

the greatest sacrifice in order to bring about victory. So too did many
of the people of Eastern Europe, some of whom were killed simply trying
to escape from beyond the Iron Curtain and others who died resisting
the tyrannical forces that ruled over them. This resolution is an
appropriate tribute to all those who sacrificed so much.
Accordingly, I urge the House to unanimously approve H. Con. Res.
121.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At the outset, let me commend my good friend, the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman), for bringing this resolution to the floor
and for his decades of dedicated service on behalf of the democracy and
freedom in Europe and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, it is important, as we pay tribute to our own political
leadership on a bipartisan basis during the Cold War and to the 24
million men and women who served the United States in uniform during
the Cold War, that we recognize that the victory was not ours alone; it
was ours, and it was the victory of equally committed freedom-loving
democratic people throughout the NATO alliance. From Norway to Spain,
men and women committed to freedom and democracy and to opposing
totalitarian regimes joined with us in succeeding in this tremendous
historic victory that was symbolized by the collapse of the Berlin
Wall.
The distinguished Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) and I happened to be in Berlin, Mr. Speaker, as the Berlin
Wall was being dismantled. We were there along with scores of others
from many countries chipping away at the wall and bringing home with us
tiny segments of that symbol of tyranny. The Berlin Wall, as my
colleagues will note, is the only wall ever erected in history not to
keep the enemy out, but to keep the people inside this wall so they
could not escape, and yet scores of individuals in a variety of ways,
many of them giving their lives in the process, broke out, tried to
break away from an era of tyranny.
I think we also need to pay enormous tribute to the people who lived
within the Soviet Union and within the Soviet satellites who gave their
lives to fight those regimes, the tens of thousands of refuseniks and
dissidents and slaves of the giant gulag archipelago whose sacrifices
far exceeded the sacrifices of all of us who lived in the free world.
I think it is important to realize, Mr. Speaker, that while the
collapse of the Berlin Wall symbolized the end of the Cold War, it
surely did not symbolize our struggle against tyranny, and, as we
applaud our victory and the victory of our allies and the victory of
the dissidents in the Soviet Empire over totalitarianism and tyranny,
it is important for us to pay tribute to the judgment and determination
of those who led the fight against the tyranny more recently in Bosnia
Herzegovina and Kosovo.
The struggling Kosovo is a direct continuation of the Cold War. The
name of the dictator has changed from Stalin to Milosevic, but the
underlying issues have remained the same, and those who feel that we
have seen the end of history have a thing coming. History has not
ended. The voices of tyranny, the attempt to suppress and persecute
people because of their political beliefs, ethnic backgrounds,
religious views continues. And while we are all rejoicing in the
collapse of the Berlin Wall, we are all rejoicing in our victory in the
Cold War over the Soviet Union, the struggle goes on.
As our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, reminded
us on a recent occasion, problems neglected abroad will eventually
reach our shores. This should be a reminder to all the neo-
isolationists that the collapse of the Berlin Wall is not the end of
our effort, but just a significant milestone in our struggle against
totalitarian tyranny.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.
Con. Res. 121 which commemorates victory in the Cold War and the 10th
anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Most of us in the Congress
today do not remember much of a time beyond what we refer to as the
Cold War. Fortunately, for most of our children today, most of them
will not remember a time which we refer to as the Cold War.
The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was the defining
international and military challenge which we faced for a half a
century. It took many forms from an arms race, to a space race, from a
debate about ideology to even a debate about the superiority of
kitchens, but through it all, the U.S. remained firm and committed to
winning the struggle against a totalitarian vision of government and
society. This ominous vision is acknowledged by countries which
suffered under totalitarian socialism to be bankrupt and without
foundation.
The Cold War necessitated a world wide network of bases and the
capacity to project American power overseas quickly and with effective
force any where in the world. In the course of the Cold War, we had hot
wars in Korea and Vietnam. My home island of Guam was instrumental in
the prosecution of both wars and played an important part of the
network of bases from which we could counteract the challenges
presented by the Soviet Union and their allies. In fact, for many
years, the people of Guam saw Soviet fishermen and their boats near the
coast of Guam, fishing in decidedly unproductive grounds for fish, but
productive for electronic eavesdropping and the monitoring of American
military assets as they moved through Guam and the island's
considerable military infrastructure. In order to prosecute both World
War II and the Cold War, the military on Guam took enormous amounts of
property in the 1940s and inappropriately stored and buried large
amounts of military hardware, chemicals and weaponry some of which has
just been discovered late last week.
I continue to work with the local military commands, the Pentagon,
the administration and where necessary, the Congress to expedite the
return of the lands no longer needed by the military and to make sure
that the lands are adequately cleaned for agricultural or residential
pursuits.
There is an unsung story about how we won the Cold War and how we
need to bring closure to an embarrassing chapter of our own history. At
the height of the arms race with the Soviet Union, our government
decided to conduct nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. Over the
course of several years, some 66 nuclear devices were detonated in
these islands which have made prominent names such places as Bikini,
Eniwetok, Rongelap and Utirik. As the U.S. became more powerful, the
Marshallese became enfeebled by radiation and its consequences which
are with us today. There have been many good faith efforts on our
government's part to provide appropriate redress and medical treatment
for these very innocent victims of the Cold War and the Arms Race.
However, we must continue to monitor and update our efforts to make
sure that the latest information and research is applied to the
historical data and present day conditions of the Marshallese. This is
a continuing obligation of the United States which we should not forget
as we commemorate the winning of the Cold War and the fall of the
Berlin Wall in Europe.
The Cold War began in Europe and it is entirely appropriate that the
fall of the Berlin Wall become the defining event which signaled its
end. However, let us not forget that the Cold War was a world wide
phenomenon and let us not forget the contributions of small Pacific
islands to that struggle. Let us not forget that the Cold War had
innocent victims. Let us not forget that the legacy of the Cold War is
not just in the triumph of the ideals of democracy, but in the triumph
of justice. The Cold War was a very just war, an effort that we all
supported; but we must remember that not everything done in the pursuit
of just aims can be entirely justified.
Congratulations to all of the men and women of our armed forces who
served with distinction and a special sense of self-sacrifice,
congratulations to all of our past Presidents who provided the
leadership which ultimately resulted in the fall of the Berlin Wall and
let us also remember all of the communities, both in the Pacific and in
the North American continent which contributed their human and land
resources for military facilities and nuclear testing.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my
friend, Chairman Ben Gilman, for marking up House Concurrent Resolution
121. This resolution states that it is the sense of Congress that
Americans should celebrate our victory in the cold war in conjunction
with the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which will be
November 9th of this year.

[[Page 16560]]

As the 20th century slips away from us, November 9th, 1989 will
always be one of its most historic and defining moments. On that night,
the world watched as Berliners celebrated an end to the tyranny that
had separated them from their friends and families. As the people took
the Berlin Wall down brick-by-brick with their own bare hands, they
were also bringing the future of communism to its knees. It was a
turning-point in world civilization and a night to remember. Most
importantly, it was a night we can't afford to let America forget.
Twenty-eight years before that night, the Soviets built a wall
through a divided Germany, intent on keeping East Germans from fleeing
to the West. Berliners awoke on the morning of August 13, 1961, to find
their city divided. People began to risk their lives to flee from the
tyranny. One of the saddest stories was that of eighteen-year-old Peter
Fechter, a bricklayer apprentice in East Berlin. On August 17, 1962, he
and a friend attempted to escape to the West over the wall near the
infamous military post called ``Checkpoint Charlie.'' Peter's friend
made it over the wall, but Peter was shot and fell into `no man's land'
between barbed wire and concrete. He cried for help for 50 minutes
before he bled to death. From the western side of the Wall, American
soldiers could only throw first-aid kits at him. Over the twenty-eight
years that the Wall stood, dozens of freedom-seeking East Germans would
share Peter's fate. These people, who sacrificed their lives in an
attempt to reach freedom, are proof that American dedication to fight
the forces of communism was an important contribution to humanity.
The Berlin Wall was a tragic microcosm of the Cold War, and the Cold
War was perhaps the most defining event in American history. America
was willing and committed to fight for and protect individual human
rights and democratic principles. The Cold War was an international
struggle for the very principles our nation was founded on, the essence
of our existence. America's Cold War victory wasn't just a victory for
the U.S., it was a victory for mankind. It was a victory for Peter
Fechter, who would never live to see it. Our cold war victory echoed
through the microcosm of Berlin when the two East German border guards
who shot Peter Fechter were convicted of manslaughter in March of 1997.
There are so many stories like those of Peter Fechter. Stories of
people who died trying to flee, stories of people who successfully
escaped, stories of soldiers fighting communist forces on the front
lines, and stories of those who fought for freedom from behind the
lines. These stories can be pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle to
create a defining moment in history. The Cold War has consumed our
history for the second half of the 20th Century. Who can forget the
fear we felt during the Cuban Missile Crisis? The pride we felt when
the American flag was planted on the moon during the space race? The
anger we felt when the Soviets shot down Korean Air flight 007? America
sent thousands and thousands of men to Korea and Vietnam, committed
trillions of dollars in resources, and stood by its vow to fight the
repression of communism.
I believe that it's important for our nation to celebrate our
monumental achievement in winning this war, and to recognize the 24
million servicemen who dedicated their lives to the cause. Because the
Cold War did not involve an official surrender with the signing of a
document on a single day, our nation has never had the immediate
opportunity to give the Cold War its due recognition. This year, on the
tenth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is time to
commemorate our victory. I ask my colleagues to support House
Concurrent Resolution 121.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
121, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

CONGRATULATING PERU AND ECUADOR FOR ENDING BORDER DISPUTE

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 25) congratulating the Government of Peru and the
Government of Ecuador for signing a peace agreement ending a border
dispute which has resulted in several military clashes over the past 50
years.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 25

Whereas the Governments of Peru and Ecuador have been
engaged in a serious border dispute dating as far back as
Spanish colonial times;
Whereas the Rio Protocol signed in 1942 between Peru and
Ecuador, and guaranteed by 4 nations including the United
States, failed to settle the dispute;
Whereas Peru and Ecuador have gone to war 3 times over the
border areas with the most recent clashes taking place in
1995 resulting in dozens of deaths on both sides; and
Whereas the Governments of Peru and Ecuador recently
completed long and difficult negotiations and reached a final
settlement of the dispute on October 26, 1998: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) congratulates the Governments of Peru and Ecuador for
ending the border dispute between their two countries which
has been a source of armed conflict for over 50 years;
(2) commends the Presidents of both nations for personally
becoming involved in the negotiations and for reaching this
historic agreement;
(3) recognizes the commitment of the Presidents of the
guarantor nations of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, along with
the United States, in seeking a viable solution to the border
dispute;
(4) urges both the Governments of Peru and Ecuador to honor
the border settlement and to cooperate with each other in
bringing peace, stability, and economic development to the
troubled area; and
(5) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to
support both governments in the implementation of the border
agreement.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

general Leave

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H. Res. 25.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend our distinguished Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Gallegly), and his ranking minority member, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for introducing this resolution. It is
appropriate that the Congress should acknowledge and commend Peru and
Ecuador for achieving a permanent settlement of the border dispute that
has cost lives on both sides of the conflict for a number of decades,
has lost too many people and has upset Andean regional harmony.
Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and Ecuadoran President Jamil
Mahuad deserve credit for their personal leadership and courage in
guiding their nations to establishing this peace agreement.
The negotiation of the peace accord was made possible by the
concerted diplomatic efforts of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United
States acting as guarantors under the 1942 Rio Accord. The United
States is very fortunate to have Ambassador Luigi Einaudi leading our
efforts in support of this negotiation as our special envoy. His
unparalleled skill and experience doubtlessly contributed mightily to
this diplomatic success.
The permanent resolution of the conflict between the nations of Peru
and Ecuador also established an important precedent for regional
cooperation. In response to the 1995 hostilities, the guarantor
countries fielded the military observer mission, Ecuador/Peru known as
MOMEP. The U.S. initially contributed helicopters and some 60 in
personnel. In 1997, Brazil purchased four Blackhawk helicopters and
took over MOMEP's air support operations.
MOMEP's mission ended on June 30. This is certainly an appropriate
moment to extend our sincere thanks to

[[Page 16561]]

the men and women from our military who have served the cause of peace
so well in this remote part of South America, and a special word of
thanks to the Government of Brazil for its leadership and substantial
contribution to MOMEP is also in order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on
the Western Hemisphere, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) who
is an original cosponsor of this resolution, let me just say that we
are pleased to see the House considering it today. The nearly 60-year-
old border dispute with Ecuador and Peru was the most dangerous
unresolved border dispute in this entire hemisphere. Fighting in the
border area, which erupted seriously in 1995, threatened to destabilize
a region which already faces so many other challenges. This resolution
commends the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, countries
which as guarantor parties helped to bring a 1995 cease-fire and
facilitate negotiations for a permanent peace.
First and foremost, it commends the Presidents and governments of
Peru and Ecuador for negotiating a peace agreement that was signed last
October, and since signing the peace agreement Ecuador and Peru have
moved to implement the comprehensive agreement and to improve relations
between its respective countries.
A few weeks ago Presidents Fujimori and Mahuad met at the border to
seal the agreement. They do still need our help. International support
is needed for some elements of the peace settlement, especially an
agreement on border integration and development. Manifestations of
international support along the lines of what we are doing here today
for the peace process will help to ensure its full implementation.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if at the same time that we are
congratulating Peru along with Ecuador for peace on their border I did
not also mention some grave concerns that I and many colleagues in
Congress have at this time regarding Peru. I am concerned about an
erosion in Peru's democracy. Freedom of expression, judicial
independence from the executive, and other aspects of the country's
democracy have been threatened recently.
I know we will have other opportunities in the near future to address
these concerns, I know that they are concerns shared by our
distinguished chairman of the committee. I would only urge Peru that
while we today in the Congress congratulate and that while itself as
the government congratulates itself and the Peruvian people for
reaching peace with Ecuador, it also look inward and make sure that
Peruvian peace and democracy are not threatened at home.
Mr. GALLEGLY. I rise, as author of House Resolution 25 and as
Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, in support of H. Res.
25 which congratulates the governments of Ecuador and Peru for ending
their long and violent border dispute.
For as far back as Spanish colonial times, Ecuador and Peru have
disagreed over the border separating their two countries. Ecuador had
always hoped to maintain a border which would give them access to
waterways to the Amazon River and a commercial link to the Atlantic. In
1942 a Rio Protocol, which favored the Peruvian claim, was signed
between the two nations and guaranteed by four nations including the
United States. Despite the international guarantee, the dispute was
never resolved.
Over the course of the past 50 years, both countries have engaged in
violent military clashes with the most recent one taking place in 1995
resulting in dozens of deaths on both sides. In 1998, with both
countries experiencing an economic downturn and both sides desiring to
ease the military tensions, President Fujimori of Peru and newly
elected President Mahuad of Ecuador decided to take matters into their
own hands to resolve the crisis. After months of personal diplomacy by
the two leaders, a final resolution was presented by the Guarantor
nations and both Presidents signed the border agreement.
H. Res. 25 recognizes the achievement of this peaceful resolution of
the dispute and congratulates the personal diplomacy of both Presidents
as being instrumental in resolving this issue. It also commends the
work of the United States, Brazil, Argentina and Chile in helping to
develop the final agreement.
I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the International
Relations Committee, Ben Gilman, for helping to bring this measure to
the Floor for consideration and I urge the House to pass this
resolution.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 25.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

IRAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION ACT OF 1999

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1477) to withhold voluntary proportional assistance for
programs and projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency
relating to the development and completion of the Bushehr nuclear power
plant in Iran, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 1477

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Iran Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Iran remains the world's leading sponsor of
international terrorism and is on the Department of State's
list of countries that provide support for acts of
international terrorism.
(2) Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of
Israel and Iran supports organizations, such as Hizballah,
Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, which are responsible
for terrorist attacks against Israel.
(3) Iranian officials have stated their intent to complete
at least three nuclear power plants by 2015 and are currently
working to complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant located
on the Persian Gulf coast.
(4) The United States has publicly opposed the completion
of reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant because the
transfer of civilian nuclear technology and training could
help to advance Iran's nuclear weapons program.
(5) In an April 1997 hearing before the Subcommittee on
Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, the former Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, stated that
through the operation of the nuclear power reactor at the
Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran will develop substantial
expertise relevant to the development of nuclear weapons.
(6) Construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant was
halted following the 1979 revolution in Iran because the
former West Germany refused to assist in the completion of
the plant due to concerns that completion of the plant could
provide Iran with expertise and technology which could
advance Iran's nuclear weapons program.
(7) In January 1995 Iran signed a $780,000,000 contract
with the Russian Federation for Atomic Energy (MINATOM) to
complete a VVER-1000 pressurized-light water reactor at the
Bushehr nuclear power plant and in November 1998, Iran and
Russia signed a protocol to expedite the construction of the
nuclear reactor, setting a new timeframe of 52 months for its
completion.
(8) In November 1998, Iran asked Russia to prepare a
feasibility study to build three more nuclear reactors at the
Bushehr site.
(9) Iran is building up its offensive military capacity in
other areas as evidenced by its recent testing of engines for
ballistic missiles capable of carrying 2,200 pound warheads
more than 800 miles, within range of strategic targets in
Israel.
(10) Iran ranks tenth among the 105 nations receiving
assistance from the technical cooperation program of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
(11) Between 1995 and 1999, the International Atomic Energy
Agency has provided and is expected to provide a total of
$1,550,000 through its Technical Assistance and Cooperation
Fund for the Iranian nuclear power program, including
reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
(12) In 1999 the International Atomic Energy Agency
initiated a program to assist Iran in the area of uranium
exploration. At

[[Page 16562]]

the same time it is believed that Iran is seeking to acquire
the requisite technology to enrich uranium to weapons-grade
levels.
(13) The United States provides annual contributions to the
International Atomic Energy Agency which total more than 25
percent of the annual assessed budget of the Agency and the
United States also provides annual voluntary contributions to
the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund of the Agency
which total approximately 32 percent ($18,250,000 in 1999) of
the annual budget of the program.
(14) The United States should not voluntarily provide
funding for the completion of nuclear power reactors which
could provide Iran with substantial expertise to advance its
nuclear weapons program and potentially pose a threat to the
United States or its allies.
(15) Iran has no need for nuclear energy because of its
immense oil and natural gas reserves which are equivalent to
9.3 percent of the world's reserves and Iran has
73,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas, an amount second
only to the natural gas reserves of Russia.

SEC. 3. WITHHOLDING OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY FOR PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS IN IRAN.

Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the limitations of
subsection (a) shall apply to programs and projects of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Iran, unless the
Secretary of State makes a determination in writing to the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate that such programs and projects are consistent with
United States nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals, will
not provide Iran with training or expertise relevant to the
development of nuclear weapons, and are not being used as a
cover for the acquisition of sensitive nuclear technology. A
determination made by the Secretary of State under the
preceding sentence shall be effective for the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the determination.''.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY
AGENCY; UNITED STATES OPPOSITION TO PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS OF THE AGENCY IN IRAN.

(a) Annual Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall undertake a
comprehensive annual review of all programs and projects of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in the countries
described in section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) and shall determine if such programs
and projects are consistent with United States nuclear
nonproliferation and safety goals.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter for 5
years, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Congress
a report containing the results of the review under paragraph
(1).
(b) Opposition to Certain Programs and Projects of
International Atomic Energy Agency.--The Secretary of State
shall direct the United States representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency to oppose programs of the
Agency that are determined by the Secretary under the review
conducted under subsection (a)(1) to be inconsistent with
nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals of the United
States.

SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter
for 5 years, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
United States representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, shall prepare and submit to the Congress a
report that--
(1) describes the total amount of annual assistance to Iran
from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a list of
Iranian officials in leadership positions at the Agency, the
expected timeframe for the completion of the nuclear power
reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, and a summary of
the nuclear materials and technology transferred to Iran from
the Agency in the preceding year which could assist in the
development of Iran's nuclear weapons program; and
(2) contains a description of all programs and projects of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in each country
described in section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) and any inconsistencies between the
technical cooperation and assistance programs and projects of
the Agency and United States nuclear nonproliferation and
safety goals in these countries.
(b) Additional Requirement.--The report required to be
submitted under subsection (a) shall be submitted in an
unclassified form, to the extent appropriate, but may include
a classified annex.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
Government should pursue internal reforms at the
International Atomic Energy Agency that will ensure that all
programs and projects funded under the Technical Cooperation
and Assistance Fund of the Agency are compatible with United
States nuclear nonproliferation policy and international
nuclear nonproliferation norms.

General Leave

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 1477.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) for his perseverance on this important legislation. This
bill is similar to legislation in the last Congress which was favorably
reported by the committee and then passed by the House on August 3,
1998, by a vote of 405 to 134. This legislation amends current law to
ensure that our Nation does not provide funding for the completion of
any nuclear power reactors in Iran.

{time} 1445

We all know that the Iranians have dedicated significant resources to
completing at least three nuclear power plants by the year 2015 and are
now working with Russian assistance to complete the Bushehr nuclear
power plant. The United States has opposed the completion of the
reactor at the Bushehr facility because the transfer of civilian
nuclear technology and training could help to advance Iran's nuclear
weapons program.
Between 1995 and 1999, it is anticipated that the International
Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, will have provided over $1.5 million for
the Iranian nuclear power program through its Technical Assistance and
Cooperation Fund. Our Nation provides annual voluntary contributions to
this fund totaling $60 million in 1996.
This bill does not halt our voluntary contribution to the IAEA, but
its does require that none of our monies may be used to fund IAEA
programs and projects in Iran, unless the Secretary of State certifies
that such projects are consistent with the U.S. nuclear
nonproliferation and safety goals, and will not provide Iran with
training or expertise relevant to the development of weapons.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the right policy. Our Nation should not
voluntarily provide funding which would help Iran complete nuclear
power reactors that could assist them in developing their nuclear
weapons program which could pose a threat to our Nation and to our
allies.
This bill establishes two important reporting requirements: one will
provide the Congress with a comprehensive report on IAEA assistance to
Iran. The second requirement directs the Secretary of State to review
IAEA programs and ensure that they are consistent with U.S. nuclear
nonproliferation and safety goals. Based on that review, the Secretary
of State shall direct the U.S. representative to the IAEA to oppose
establishing any programs that are not consistent with our Nation's
policy.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on International Relations for both his support and
encouragement in the committee, as well as today on the floor. This
bill, which I have authored, seeks to protect the United States
taxpayers from assisting countries like Iran which sponsor
international terrorism, denounce the United States, and seek to
develop weapons of mass

[[Page 16563]]

destruction which may be used against us or our allies, from obtaining
money indirectly from the United States through the International
Atomic Energy Agency support for Iran's efforts to build a nuclear
power plant on the Persian Gulf coast.
Let me first say that I recognize the importance of the International
Atomic Energy Agency and its role in ensuring the safety of nuclear
sites around the world. And so did the over 405 Members of the House
who last year voted for this bill as well. But this bill will not
affect the International Atomic Energy Administration's safeguards
program, and the bill does not seek to withhold any funds to IAEA's
safeguard program in Iran or elsewhere. The only funds affected by this
bill are our voluntary, not assessed, contributions to the IAEA's
Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund for Iran.
Second, I have amended the bill from last year so that withholding is
not mandatory. Withholding is contingent upon the Secretary of State's
certification to this committee, the Committee on International
Relations, of three things, which are, 1, that the International Atomic
Energy Administration's activities in Iran are consistent with U.S.
nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals; 2, that the International
Atomic Energy Administration's activities will not provide Iran with
training or expertise relevant to the development of nuclear weapons;
and, 3, that the International Atomic Energy Administration's
activities are not being used as a cover for the acquisition of
sensitive nuclear technology.
If the Secretary can make that certification, then no funds will be
withheld. If the Secretary cannot make that certification, then we are
making the right decision by withholding funds.
Now, this bill is not a significant change in policy. In fact, prior
to 1994, U.S. law required the withholding of proportional IAEA
voluntary funds to all countries on our list of terrorist States; and
despite the change in the law, the administration continued to withhold
those funds for 2 more years until 1996.
What this bill does is require that the administration reinstate
proportional withholding of IAEA voluntary funds, those funds we pay
above and beyond our membership fees for the Safeguard Program for
Iran, if the Secretary cannot make the requisite certification. It also
requires the Secretary of State to undertake a comprehensive review of
all IAEA programs and projects in other states which sponsor
international terrorism to determine if the IAEA is sponsoring any
other projects which conflict with the United States' nuclear
nonproliferation and safety goals. Clearly, our monies should not be
going to any country, especially voluntary monies, if they oppose our
own nuclear nonproliferation goals.
As it is, since the IAEA's inception, more than $52 million for the
Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund has gone to countries on the
United States' list of states which sponsor terrorism. The United
States is the largest supporter of the IAEA. We provide them with more
than 25 percent of its annual budget. In the Technical Assistance and
Cooperation Fund, we contribute about 32 percent, or over $18 million
annually in voluntary funds.
It is from that fund that the IAEA is providing over $1.5 million to
date for the development of the new Bushehr nuclear power plant.
Moreover, the IAEA has launched a new program this year to help Iran in
the area of uranium exploration. Clearly, when we suspect that Iran has
the requisite technology to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, it
is not a wise idea to help them in their efforts to locate more of it.
The Clinton administration has publicly stated its opposition to
Iran's development of nuclear reactors and its concern about the
development of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In testimony before the
United States Senate, Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob Einhorn explained,
and I quote, ``In our views, this is a large reactor project. It will
involve hundreds of Russians being in Iran, hundreds of Iranians or
more being in Moscow being trained, and this large-scale kind of
project can provide a kind of commercial cover for a number of
activities that we would not like to see, perhaps much more sensitive
activities than pursuing this power reactor project.
It also will inevitably provide additional training and expertise in
the nuclear field for Iranian technicians. ``In our view,'' this is now
the Deputy Assistant Secretary speaking, ``in our view, given Iran's
intention to acquire nuclear weapons, we do not want to see them move
up the nuclear learning curve at all, and we believe this project would
contribute to them moving up that curve,'' and that is the end of the
quote.
Last fall, during a press briefing at the State Department, its
spokesman, James Rubin said of the Bushehr: ``We are convinced that
Iran is using the Bushehr reactor project as a cover for acquiring
sensitive Russian nuclear technology.''
Given Iran's historic support for terrorism, coupled with the fact
that Iran boasts immense, immense oil and natural gas reserves and the
seismic activity near Bushehr, we must question Tehran's motives for
conducting expensive nuclear reactors. Moreover, the development of the
nuclear reactors has been an economic nightmare for Iranians. Clearly,
Iran does not need additional energy sources, considering it has some
of the world's largest oil and natural gas reserves, nor is nuclear
energy an economic choice for Iran.
So, in essence, what is it for? Clearly, the concerns expressed by
the administration, clearly, those concerns are about nuclear weaponry.
And if we add to that the fact that Iran's missile capacity has been
developed, we now will not only have a uranium exploration and uranium
enrichment, we now have all of the facets not only to create nuclear
weapons, but to deliver them.
Mr. Speaker, we need to ask one basic question. Does it make sense
for the United States and U.S. taxpayers to provide any kind of support
for the construction of a nuclear reactor which we clearly and
justifiably oppose.
This bill seeks to protect the United States taxpayers from assisting
countries like Iran, which sponsors international terrorism. It seeks
to make sure that our dollars are not going to develop weapons of mass
destruction that can be used against us and our allies.
It is ludicrous for the United States to support a plan, even
indirectly, which could pose a threat to its national security and to
stability in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1477.
The question was taken.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2415, the American Embassy
Security Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.

____________________

AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilman). Pursuant to House Resolution
247 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2415.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Indiana

[[Page 16564]]

(Mr. Pease) to assume the Chair temporarily.

{time} 1457

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel
overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for
fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease (Chairman pro
tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation has never been more vulnerable to its
enemies than today. Unfortunately, it took a catastrophic double
bombing in East Africa to teach us that lesson. Twelve Americans, 10
Tanzanians, and over 200 Kenyans died when Osama bin Ladin's terrorists
blew up our American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam nearly 1
year ago.
This tragedy revealed that our overseas diplomats and other
officials, Americans who risk their lives for our Nation, are in grave
danger. I am happy to report, however, that we are doing something
about this danger. We are moving quickly to protect our people. Last
year, the Congress passed and the President signed an emergency
appropriation of $1.4 billion for security enhancements worldwide.
Let me start my remarks with a rundown of just what has happened in
the past 12 months: Kenya, August 7; 1998; Tanzania, August 7, 1998;
Moscow, our Moscow embassy, March 1999; Skopje, Macedonia, March 1999;
Beijing, China, May 8, 1999; Chengdu in China, May 8, 1999.
Let me reach back a little further to June 25, 1996, Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia where a truck bomb exploded next to the fence of the Khobar
Towers military housing, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring
over 502 other people.

{time} 1500

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act, continues
a work initiated last fall on security for our embassies.
We authorized the full $1.4 billion that had been recommended by
Admiral William Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, who chaired the Accountability Review Boards that examined
American diplomatic security records.
The men and women who represent us abroad know that their work is not
risk free, but if we are going to ask them to put themselves in harm's
way we need to do everything possible to protect them from terrorism.
After last August's bombings, the Accountability Review Boards were
established with Admiral Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff under President Reagan, serving as chairman of those boards.
The Crowe boards recommended a long-term solution to the problem,
including enhanced security measures, increased security personnel, and
a capital building program based on requirements to meet the new range
of global terrorist threats.
This bill fully funds the recommendations of Crowe's accountability
review boards. The administration's request regrettably did not. H.R.
2415's full-fledged security program has won the endorsements not only
of Admiral Crowe but also former Secretaries of State James Baker and
Larry Eagleburger. FBI Director Louis Freeh has expressed his support
for provisions in this bill that will help the FBI respond to any
global crisis. Overall, this bill specifically authorizes $2.4 billion
in spending for fiscal year 2000; authorizes funding for refugees and
for Radio Free Asia; for minority recruitment and for the Human Rights
Bureau. Many other accounts in this bill are authorized for such sums
as may be necessary, delaying the final decision on funding levels to
the Committee on Appropriations.
These include the regular operations for the State Department, which
now includes the U.S. Information Agency and its public diplomacy
programs, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and
International Broadcasting. These operations support broadcasting to
our enemies in Iraq, in North Korea, and other rogue nations, as well
as standard visa and support services for our constituents when they
are overseas. The bill also supports programs to combat visa/passport
fraud and to operate antiterrorism programs. The antiterrorism programs
include a rewards program to give law enforcement a means to go after
suspected terrorists.
Note the poster that has been broadly distributed, posting a $5
million reward for information leading to the arrest or conviction of
the person responsible for the bombing of the two embassies. It
contains important foreign policy provisions. For example, it requires
a report to the Congress from the administration on the extent of
international narcotics trafficking through Cuba.
It also contains a provision approved by the Committee on the
Judiciary to allow our FBI, in an emergency, to lease an aircraft. Too
many precious hours were wasted last August while the FBI was held up
trying to get to the crime scenes in east Africa.
I want to be clear to our colleagues that this bill does not
authorize U.N. arrears money and does not contain U.N. reform measures.
By agreement with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on our
committee, this bill will not authorize U.N. arrears and will not
contain a Mexico City pro-life family planning amendment. I want to
underscore that this is not a foreign assistance bill. This bill is
about security and operations and the management of our State
Department and U.S. missions overseas.
This is a strong bipartisan measure that continues congressional
support for a strong American response to terrorist threats.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote to protect American lives and
to vote for a strong American presence abroad and to support this
measure, H.R. 2415.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have before us in H.R. 2415, the American Embassy
Security Act of 1999, a bill that has been the result of extensive
bipartisan effort, especially by my colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), by the ranking member of the Committee on
International Relations, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson), and by my chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman). They recommend that we pass this bill; and although it has
some reservations, so does the administration.
The Embassy Security Act has a number of outstanding provisions. The
most important element is the one for which the bill is named.
Mr. Chairman, Americans all over the globe were shocked as our
embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya were rocked by
bomb blasts. This was able to happen, in part, because most of our
diplomatic posts are housed in buildings over 40 years old, and 85
percent of our embassy buildings do not meet appropriate security
standards. This bill authorizes $1.5 billion for embassy construction
and security upgrades, an amount recommended to us by the independent
commission headed by Admiral Crowe that looked into security at our
diplomatic posts after the Dar and Nairobi bombings.
By taking this strong stand for security, we will avoid having on our
hands the blood of diplomats and their families who will be killed in
future attacks if we did nothing. We also protect the functions of the
many agencies involved in such activities as law enforcement, business
promotion, and military operations that are housed in our embassies.
While this is a big step, let us remember that this is only the first
step.

[[Page 16565]]

We will need a long-term commitment to make this happen, and we need to
be prepared to do this.
Unfortunately, in order to move this bill to the floor, we were
required to replace most of the other authorization levels with such
sums as necessary to accomplish these ends, with us leaving this matter
to conference where I and many of my colleagues intend to fight for the
funding levels originally approved by the committee.
We have had to leave the issue of U.N. arrears to another day as
well. The authorization levels still in the bill provide for strong
programs in important areas. Apart from embassy security, the amounts
authorized for refugee programs will keep a strong humanitarian element
in our foreign policy, and other amounts in the bill will enable the
Department of State to strengthen its minority recruitment, help those
in need from Kosovo to Sierra Leone, fortify its efforts on human
rights, and reduce delays in immigrant visa processing.
Another important section of this bill would ensure appropriate
management of Vietnamese refugee programs. The American Legion, the
International Rescue Committee and many religiously-related refugee
organizations support these provisions. The people affected by these
provisions worked with us and fought with us during the war. Although
the administration has some concerns about this section, our bill
ensures that these brave supporters of the United States are not left
in the lurch because it has become politically expedient to do so.
I have been a sponsor of this bill from the beginning. While it is
not a perfect bill, it is a strong effort to address many important
issues, and I urge that we adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of
our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by urging all of our colleagues to
support H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act, and I just want
to say how pleased I am to have introduced this legislation, along with
my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms.
McKinney), the ranking member of our subcommittee.
The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) and I held four
subcommittee hearings. We heard from all those interested in the
components of this bill, including a very, very important hearing that
we had on March 12, at which time we heard from Admiral Crowe who
headed up an accountability review board. He made a passionate and very
strong statement as to why in fiscal year 2000 we need to provide $1.4
billion to try to beef up our security at our embassies, especially in
light of the devastating attacks in Africa on two of our embassies, and
the ongoing threat to all our embassies.
In our hearing, Admiral Crowe said, and I will just quote very
briefly, that throughout the proceedings the boards were most disturbed
regarding two interconnected issues.
The first was the inadequacy of the resources to provide security
against terrorist attacks and the second was the relatively low
priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. Government by
the Department of State, other agencies in general, and on the part of
many employees both in Washington and in the field.
Admiral Crowe also pointed out that he found very troubling--again,
this is quoting Admiral Crowe--the failure of the U.S. Government to
take the necessary steps to prevent such tragedies in the interim,
since the time when Bobby Inman made his recommendations back in the
1980's. There was so little done by all--the Congress, the White
House--and now it is time to redress that.
We also heard from David Carpenter, the Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security, for the Department of State. He pointed out--and I
think this bears underscoring and putting an exclamation point after
it--the terrorist threat is global, lethal, multidimensional, and
growing. Our analysts estimate that during the past 12 months, there
were over 2,400 threats or incidents against U.S. interests overseas.
Their estimate for the same period a year ago is approximately 1,150
such threats or incidents. This is an increase of over 100 percent in
the past year.
The threat is generated by indigenous terrorists and transnational
anti-American groups and by state sponsors of terrorism.
We also heard, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. Daniel Geisler, who is the
President of the American Foreign Service Association, speaking on
behalf of those who would be most affected: The Foreign Service
officers overseas, their families, all of those who are on the front
line at our missions and consuls abroad, who, while they do not want to
shrink, as he pointed out, they never want to develop a bunker
mentality, but he did point out, and I would like to quote him, he said
to us that he had grave concerns that this failure will be corrected;
that is to say the failure of funding to beef up our embassy security.
He went on to say our doubts are heightened by the administration's
grossly inadequate request for funds to build safer embassies.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request does not have a single penny, he
went on, for construction funds, even though the State Department had
proposed that OMB request $1.4 billion for worldwide security.
We would agree with the State Department on this bill. My colleague
and I worked, during the work of this markup, both subcommittee, full
committee. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) lent a mighty
hand in regard to embassy security, and the bottom line is we have the
$1.4 billion. Hopefully, it will pass; and hopefully, the appropriators
will provide an identical amount for embassy security.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that several other
provisions in this legislation promote our American values by promoting
freedom and democracy around the world, and it does address a number of
urgent humanitarian needs.
Section 106 of the bill will ensure that a fair share of U.S.
contributions to international organizations be directed to the
organizations that do the most good in the most effective way. This
section does not increase the amount we will contribute to
international organizations but does set aside $5 million of this
amount for the world food program; $5 million for the U.N. Voluntary
Fund for Victims of Torture; $5 million for the International Program
on the Elimination of Child Labor.
This section also sets aside $240,000 to the OAS for a Special
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Western Hemisphere, of
which at least $6,000 is to be spent investigating violations of
freedom of expression by the Government of Cuba.
Section 106 also carries forward an important provision of current
law that addresses the human rights and humanitarian needs of the
people of Burma. This provision requires the U.S. to withhold from its
contributions to the UNDP an amount equal that will be spent in Burma
unless the President certifies that all UNDP activities in Burma meets
four conditions.
First, these activities must be focused on the needs of the poor.
Second, they must be undertaken only through private and voluntary
organizations independent of the Burmese dictatorship.
Third, the President must certify that they do not benefit the
dictatorship.
Finally, they must be carried out only after consultation with the
democratic leadership of Burma, the people who won, I might remind my
colleagues, the 1988 election and then were forced into exile or worse
by the military regime.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2415 contains a permanent authorization for Radio
Free Asia, which would otherwise have to close its doors on September
30 of this year. It also provides an authorization that will allow
increased broadcasting beyond the current 2 hours per day to Vietnam
and to North Korea.

[[Page 16566]]

This is particularly important in the case of Vietnam, where the
Hanoi regime currently jams Radio Free Asia broadcasts. The jamming
costs the dictatorship about the same amount per hour as it does our
broadcasts, and maybe even more.
Let me also point out the need that some of this will get through,
and our hope is that the message of freedom and democracy will pierce
that veil.

{time} 1515

Mr. Chairman, the bill also ensures the survival of one of our great
freedom broadcasting services, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, by
formally repealing a 1994 ``sense of Congress'' provision that Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty should receive no U.S. Government support
after Fiscal Year 1999.
The 1994 provision is inconsistent with the administration's budget
request and with the bipartisan Congressional consensus that freedom
broadcasting continues to deserve U.S. support as the newly independent
states of the former Soviet Union and its former satellites struggle to
develop their own thoroughly free and thoroughly professional broadcast
services.
The bill also increases from $75 million to $80 million the annual
funding cap for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in order to permit
necessary expenditures for Radio Free Iraq, Radio Liberty broadcasts to
Iran, and necessary security upgrades in response to credible threats
of retaliation to those broadcasts.
Mr. Chairman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is still irreplaceable,
and this bill ensures its continued good work into the 21st Century.
Mr. Chairman, section 202 of the bill requires the President to
report on the extent of international narcotics traffic through or to
Cuba, as well as the extent of the involvement by the Cuban Government,
its agencies and entities, and the United States' actions to
investigate or prosecute such acts.
We have seen a few newspaper stories lately that suggest that the
Castro regime would actually like to help us stop drug trafficking. I
am informed, however, that our government is aware of substantial
evidence that the regime itself has been involved in such trafficking.
This report will help set the record straight one way or the other.
Section 205(a) continues a requirement enacted last year for periodic
reports on outstanding claims by United States firms against the
Government of Saudi Arabia. This amendment is necessary to help U.S.
firms which have completed extensive work for the Saudi Government but
have had no success in getting their due compensation. For example,
Gibbs and Hill, Inc., of New Jersey has outstanding claims for $55
million for work on a desalinization plant completed in 1984.
Section 205(c) continues a report requiring the Secretary of State to
report on the extent to which the Government of Vietnam is cooperating
with the U.S. on the fullest possible accounting of POWs and MIAs, has
made progress on the release of political and religious prisoners, is
cooperating on requests by the U.S. to obtain full and free access to
persons for interviews under the Orderly Departure and Resettlement
Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees programs, has taken efforts and
actions to end corrupt practices in connection with exit visas, and is
making efforts to interview and resettle former reeducation camp
victims and other persons.
But, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, not all of the problems with the
Vietnamese refugee program are caused by the Vietnamese Government. I
am ashamed to say that some of our former allies and their families
have been left behind, or even forcibly returned to Vietnam, because of
compassion fatigue or outright cynicism on the part of the people who
work for the U.S. Government.
Section 274 of the bill is an attempt to get the attention of the
State Department to this problem and to ensure that, if we are going to
spend more money on diplomatic presence in Vietnam, we spend it, or at
least part of it, on keeping our commitments to the people who stood by
us and who have suffered because they share our values.
This section prohibits the use of funds authorized by the act to
support an increased number of personnel assigned to U.S. posts in
Vietnam unless the President first certifies to Congress that the
Vietnamese in-country refugee processing program meets certain
conditions and standards.
The conditions that will require modification of the State Department
plans to phase out U.S. refugee programs in Vietnam in order not to
abandon allied war veterans and other Vietnamese who have been
persecuted on account of their wartime associations with the United
States.
This provision has been endorsed by the American Legion, the U.S.
Catholic Conference, Refugees International, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society, and numerous other human rights organizations.
Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about a lot of people here, a few
thousand compared to millions of refugees who have been resettled in
the United States over the years; but it is important to complete this
program in the same generous spirit with which it was begun.
Mr. Chairman, section 207 establishes a human rights fellowship
program within the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor. The fellows would be selected on the basis of their
human rights expertise and recruited for specific projects or
assistance needed by the bureau. I think it is a useful way to bring
some of the much-needed fresh air into the State Department. Our
foreign policy needs the perspective, not only of diplomats, but also
of people who have devoted their whole lives to the pursuit of human
rights.
Section 321 of the bill establishes a Foreign Service Star, an award
for civilian employees of the United States assigned to an official
mission overseas who are killed or wounded in government service.
Section 408 requires the Secretary of State to take all appropriate
steps to ensure that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are not
participants in any program of educational or cultural exchange or
training through the National Academy Program at Quantico, Virginia,
unless and until the President certifies a complete, independent, and
transparent investigation of the murders of Rosemary Nelson--whom my
colleagues will remember appeared before our committee and said she
feared the RUC--and Patrick Finucane have been initiated by the
government of the UK.
There are 41 amendments, some of which will be en bloc. This is a
good bill which deserves the support of my colleagues.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a Part B amendment sponsored by
the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray) and myself that
would encourage a common sense, innovative, public-private solution to
the problem of international sewage along the border between the United
States and Mexico, a problem that has been plaguing us for over 5
decades.
I thank the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in order. I
thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for
his support of this approach, which will be very good for our area and
California.
Just to describe the situation we face, briefly, let me quote one of
the officials of the environmental Surfrider Foundation. He said, ``I'm
surfing in sewage.'' He put it a little less delicately, and it is not
a very genteel situation in my district when sewage washes up on the
beach, flows down our rivers and canyons, and fouls the water where our
children should be able to swim worry free.
A solution to not surfing in sewage? Build enough sewage treatment to
handle the problem. That is what our amendment puts the Congress on
record supporting. It says we want to pursue a plan that can easily
treat 50 million gallons of sewage per day, not the 25 million gallons
that is provided

[[Page 16567]]

for in the present plan being pursued by EPA at this moment.
The plan makes even more sense when we know that the Mexican sewage
will be reclaimed and reused by industrial and agricultural users in
Mexico to help cover the cost. So all the hazardous and unhealthy
sewage that now flows into our ocean without proper treatment will be
cleaned; and much of it will be reused before it ever gets to the
ocean. We owe that to our surfers and certainly to our children.
This solution that Congress will go on record if it supports this is
good for our environment, good to our taxpayers. It is a true win-win
situation. I urge support of the Bilbray-Filner amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman of our
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible support for
H.R. 2415, the Embassy Security Act of 1999. It was slightly less than
1 year ago, on August 7, 1998, when terrorists successfully attacked
U.S. embassies in Narobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Over 220
people were killed, including 12 Americans and 40 local hires.
While all in this body would like to believe this could never happen
again, tragically, unless we can act to prevent it, such acts of
terrorism are more likely a prelude of things to come. There are too
many evil or badly misguided people looking to make their mark, and
American assets are just too vulnerable.
Indeed, recall the attempted rocket attack in Moscow just this April
against our embassy that failed only because the perpetrators did not
know how to operate the launcher. A rocket launch against our embassy
in Athens also failed for technical reasons.
There were explosions in Uzbekistan in February that, while
apparently not directed at the United States, blew out windows in a
U.S. embassy annex.
In fact, as this body debates H.R. 2415, a number of U.S. embassies
in Africa have recently been closed because of credible threats of
terrorist attack of quite a high degree of sophistication.
Admiral William Crowe was tasked with chairing the Accountability
Review Boards for the two embassy bombings. Admiral Crowe, while
praising the efforts of the embassy personnel in Kenya and Tanzania,
made it clear that U.S. facilities overseas were largely unequipped for
the threats that have emerged.
The Crowe report urged a total of $1.4 billion per year over the next
10 years to address the security for the U.S. personnel living abroad.
Such recommendations are not new. Fourteen years ago, there was the
Inman report, which pointed out the glaring inadequacies of our embassy
security at the time and our need for serious upgrades. But only 15
percent of our embassies and consulates meet Inman standards.
This Member congratulates the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) for working to address Crowe Commission recommendations.
Working with this Member, the Committee on International Relations
agreed to authorize the full $1.4 billion recommended by the Crowe
Commission for embassy security funding for fiscal year 2000.
Obviously, this is a lot of money. But this Member would tell my
colleagues on this committee and this body that we have a
responsibility to address the safety and security of State Department
employees. If we do not address this issue, we will share in the
responsibility and the blame when the next disaster occurs.
Mr. Chairman, the men and women who serve in the United States
overseas are not looking for absolute guarantees that they will be
safe. But they have a right to expect that all reasonable precautions
will be taken to ensure their security. In good conscience, this body
can do no less. For this and no other important reasons, this Member
urges support for H.R. 2415, the Embassy Security Act of 1999.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of section 274 of the State
Department authorization bill. I believe, as do many of my
constituents, that this section of the bill is critical in ensuring
that the State Department properly implements Vietnamese refugee
programs.
Section 274 successfully addresses the outstanding concerns of the
Vietnamese American community and responds very well to my plea that
humanitarian changes and programs for Vietnamese refugees be made.
For example, the appointment of a refugee counselor to run the in-
country refugee program is critical to ensuring that someone who
understands the plight of refugees administers the program.
Section 274 provides that a refugee counselor with a proven record of
sensitivity supervise all U.S. refugee programs in Vietnam.
Additionally, this individual would report directly to the ambassador
or the general counsel in the U.S. consulate in Saigon.
Additionally, I am very strongly supportive of section 274 because it
reverses restrictive rules such as the continuous co-residency
provision.
The provision would allow for the reconsideration of children of re-
education camp detainees who were left behind because of an INS
directive on co-residence. These families have been torn apart. In some
cases, one parent is in the U.S., the other in Vietnam with the
children. Imagine, if my colleagues can, children who have not seen
their parents in decades, or brothers and sisters who barely remember
each other.
I have received letters from constituents who have indicated that the
continuous co-residence provision has barred many of their loved ones
from joining them in the U.S. This simply is not right.
I believe that section 274 is the right thing to do. It allows us to
keep our commitment to Vietnamese Americans by ensuring that the
administration has the tools to improve adjudication of all outstanding
cases.
Lastly, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their hard work and leadership on this legislation and urge my
colleagues to support passage of the legislation.

{time} 1530

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), for yielding me
this time and for her great leadership on this bill and so many
important issues before this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill and in support
of the work of the chairman and the ranking member for their prudent
and farsighted response to the threat of terrorism to our embassies
across the world. I applaud their efforts and support this bill.
I likewise support the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) in their funding of UNFPA.
Regrettably, last year the funding was deleted from the budget, $25
million, although our country had been a leader for well over 30 years
in world population concerns both through the UNFPA and in the world.
This vote for the funding of UNFPA is a vote for maternal health and
this is a vote for children's health. UNFPA serves women, children, and
families in about 160 countries around the world where health care
structures are fragile and, therefore, unable to address the specific
health needs of mothers and children. It is a multilateral approach to
a problem that is shared in our world, that of many, many hundreds of
thousands of deaths of women every year. Over 500,000 women every year
die in childbirth. And, in fact, half of the funding for UNFPA goes to
maternal and child health needs.
This is also a vote for the environment. This October, the world's
population will reach 6 billion and is expected to reach 9 billion only
50 years from now. Let me put this in perspective. It took hundreds of
millions of

[[Page 16568]]

years to reach the first billion in 1804 in our country, and it doubled
to 2 billion in 1927, when my parents were young. It reached 3 billion
in 1960, when I was a teenager, and doubled again in just 30 years.
Without addressing family planning needs across the world, human
population growth will overwhelm even the most dedicated successful
work of any environmental organization.
I think that one of the best examples of what UNFPA is doing is this
birthing kit, the safe delivery kit. It costs only $1.15 but it can
save the lives of women. In the refugee crisis in Kosovo, UNFPA was the
only one there helping women with their maternal needs, with their
childbirth needs. It has sanitary uses; it contains a plastic sheet, a
bar of soap, a surgical blade, a gauze, and razor. It is a tremendously
important investment that can save the lives of mothers, save the lives
of children, and save our natural resources.
Since there is a great deal of disinformation out there about what
UNFPA does, I want to tell my colleagues what it does not do. Clearly,
it is not an abortion vote and, it says so on page 2, line 6: The UNFPA
does not fund abortions.
Secondly, no money goes to China. In the Gilman-Campbell-Maloney
amendment not one cent goes to China, and it clearly states, and I
quote page 2, line 6 in the bill, ``The UNFPA does not fund
abortions.''
But what it does do is save lives, and editorials across this country
agree and say that a vote for UNFPA is a vote for maternal health, for
child health, and a safer world.
The Houston Chronicle says, and I quote:

The sad irony is that the population program would actually
do far more in the way of family planning and the prevention
of unwanted pregnancies and abortions that its critics are
willing to admit.
If the motivation for opposition to this measure is truly
to halt abortion, then those who would kill it are actually
doing the legislative equivalent of throwing gasoline onto a
fire.

And today, from my hometown paper, the New York Times:

Let me tell my colleagues what this vote is about.
In October, there are going to be six billion people on the planet,
And as the the Courier-Journal from Louisville, Kentucky says:

The good news is that population growth has, in fact,
slowed in many places, thanks in part to the UN's efforts.
But one big obstacle to more progress has been money. . . .
the House of Representatives will be able to do something
about that, by restoring funds for the UN populations program
. . .

There are other editorials from papers such as the Kansas City Star,
the San Francisco Examiner, the LA Times, and others.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting to fund UNFPA.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to applaud the chairman for his leadership
in funding UNFPA. This is a smart vote.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Georgia
for yielding me this time and for all her hard and dedicated work on
behalf of women throughout the world.
First, I rise today in support of the United Nation's Population Fund
and in stern opposition to the Smith amendment, which will come up
later this evening. The United Nation's Population Fund provides
responsible family planning and information on reproductive services to
families worldwide. It targets families in developing countries who
otherwise would have to go without such basic services yet such crucial
needs as pre- and post-natal care. The UNFPA is also leading the charge
in confronting the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
The Smith amendment will deprive women who are in dire economic and
personal situations from receiving essential family planning which they
need to survive. This is wrong. Furthermore, my conscience will not
allow me to accept the deaths of an estimated 1,200 additional women
and 22,500 infants who are projected to die if the House refuses to
support the UNFPA. We must do everything to prevent the deaths of these
women and children. It is our moral obligation to do so.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Smith amendment later and
for the Campbell-Maloney-Gilman-Crowley-Greenwood amendment for
responsible family planning.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time each side
has?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from Georgia
(Ms. McKinney) has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) has 7 minutes remaining.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia
for yielding me this time, and I take this opportunity to express my
very sincere appreciation to the members of the committee for including
in this appropriation an additional sum for the operations and
maintenance of the programs at the East-West Center, which is located
in Honolulu, the State of Hawaii.
In 1996, the East-West Center's budget of $24 million, which had been
an ongoing appropriation, was drastically cut to about $11.75 million,
and it has had a tremendous crisis in trying to maintain its staff and
to keep up with the program which it was required to perform on its
establishment in 1960. So this year's appropriation increase, though
not to the full $24 million, but the level of $17.5 million, is a
tremendous boost. It is going to give confidence to those who have
remained in the center to continue on this important work.
The East-West Center is an internationally respected research and
educational institution. It has a 39-year record of achievement. It is
important in the overall response of the United States to the
importance of the Asia-Pacific region.
In 1960, it was the Eisenhower administration and Congress together
that established this center. It is not an instrument or a department
of the University of Hawaii, it is an independent incorporated entity.
It is attached to and reports to the State Department and to the USIA.
Numerous top-ranking officials from all of the Asia-Pacific countries
have been through the East-West Center. They are familiar with the
center, and it serves as an important forum for international
cooperation and study.
Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the most important contributions
that the United States can make is in our ideas. And if we have this
center, we have a place where people from all over the Asia-Pacific
area can come together, study, do research, and communicate on the
problems of mutual concern. And it is one of the most important
contributions, I think, that any center of this kind can make towards
the diplomacy of our country.
The Asia Studies Development Program also, not only with the elements
of individuals from Asia, but also we have an interconnect with our own
universities and our own college students and with the minority
colleges and with others who have an opportunity, because the center
exists, to understand the curricula that would be necessary for the
support of an Asia-Pacific concept.
So this nationwide program, which is unique in its kind, the only one
that exists in the country, centered there at the East-West Center,
serves to expand the opportunities of America's young people in
understanding this most important area of the world where we have
hundreds of millions of people that live and who serve as an important
base for the diplomacy of the United States.

[[Page 16569]]

So with the very small staff of only 30 people, they have mounted
this incredible outreach into the Pacific region. We always talk about
the importance of this region. This center is the reason for our
ability to expand our knowledge and our reach into this region of the
world, and I am really very thankful that the committee has seen fit to
grant us this modest increase this year.
The Asia-Pacific region accounts for more than half the world's
population, about a third of the world's economy, and vast marine and
land resources. The United States has vital national interests in
connecting itself in partnership with the region. As the Asia-Pacific
region continues to develop and change, it is essential that the Untied
States be seen as a part of the region rather than an outsider.
People from Asian and Pacific countries are treated as partners at
the Center. This is why the East-West Center has long had prestige in
the region disproportionate to its small size. With only 30 positions,
the Center's research staff is half the size of a typical department in
a larger state university.
The Center has been able to attract considerable funding in addition
to its Congressional appropriation, which was $12.5 million in FY 1999.
In FY 1998, the Center received grants, contracts, and gifts of $6.5
million; however, the vast majority of these funds ($5.7 million) were
restricted gifts set aside for specific studies or programs requested
by the granting country or organization. It is essential that
Congressional funding support the core functions of this national
institution so that its agenda is not set by external funders.
The funding level authorized by H.R. 2415 would make possible
expanding the Jefferson Fellows media program for journalists from the
region and the United States; expanding the young leaders program for
junior members of national or state legislative bodies; initiating an
intensive professional training program for young strategic specialists
from the region; creating a dialogue among private sector economists on
regional economic and financial issues to occur in conjunction with
meeting of U.S. and regional treasury and central bank officials, thus
paralleling the existing Europe-focused ``Ballegio process'';
strengthening research capabilities in economics, politics/security
environment and health; expanding the reach of the Center's Asia
Studies Development Program; and beginning a new Okinawan Education and
Business Initiative, which would be jointly funded with Japan.
The Okinawan Education and Business Initiative seeks to connect a
younger generation of Okinawans to the United States through the East-
West Center. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Center trained many of
Okinawa's elite: in fact, the Center's most active alumni chapter is in
Okinawa. In recent years, however, few Okinawan students have come to
the Center. The initiative would add a strong and symbolic non-military
dimension to a U.S. relationship with Okinawa that is now dominated by
the military bases.
In addition to its research and short-term training programs, the
East-West Center provides scholarships for 165 students pursuing
bachelor, master, and doctorate degrees. Of the 165 students, 44 are
from the United States, 24 are from the Pacific Islands, and the
balance are from Asia. Of the U.S. students, only 3 are from Hawaii:
the balance are from 18 other states.
The grantees, who live and study together, form lifelong friendships
and a deep appreciation and knowledge of other cultures and viewpoints.
Their educational experience is greatly enriched by the opportunity to
participate in Center research, dialogue, and training activities.
Throughout Asia and the Pacific, former East-West Center grantees from
the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s are leaders in government, business,
academia, the media, and the arts. These opinion leaders gained a deep
understanding of and connection to America in their years at the East-
West Center. These former grantees stay in touch through alumni
chapters located all over the United States, Asia and the Pacific.
The East-West Center, Asia Foundation, and the North-South Center are
small but very cost-effective organizations. They complement the
foreign policy objectives of the United States by providing another
dimension of engagement with leaders in Asia, the Pacific, and Latin
America and help to increase the mutual understanding and cooperation
that is essential for constructive relationships among the nations of
these important regions. I urge all my colleagues to defeat the Sanford
amendment.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time, and as we today debate the authorization for the
State Department and other agencies, I rise in strong support of the
Gilman-Campbell-Maloney amendment, which, in fact, reinstates the
United States' contribution to the largest internationally funded
source of family planning assistance and, in fact, will protect the
lives of women and children around the world.
This is not about supporting abortion. Under current law, not $1 of
U.S. family planning funds can be used to perform or even counsel women
to obtain abortions anywhere in the world. This amendment retains that
prohibition.
This is not about supporting China. This is about preventing illness
and saving lives. U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of women.
Around the world, 500,000 women die in childbirth every year. Access to
family planning in the developing world would reduce unintended
pregnancies by one-fifth and could save the lives of as many as 120,000
of those women.
The aid saves the lives of children. Family planning allows women and
men to choose how many children they want and when to have them.
Spacing children further apart, being able to breast-feed them,
improves the child's chance of survival by up to 20 percent in most
developing countries.
If we fail to pass this amendment today, in 1 year alone there will
be an estimated 22,500 additional infant deaths and 1,200 additional
maternal deaths. For many women, the health services provided by the
United Nation's Family Planning Assistance program are the only source
of preventive health care that can detect diseases such as cervical
cancer in the early stage and save lives.
I call on my colleagues today to support this amendment, support
women's health, support children's health and vote ``yes'' when it
comes time on the Gilman-Campbell-Maloney amendment this afternoon.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California, a member of our Committee on International Relations.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) on his leadership on H.R. 2415, which, of course,
emphasizes the need to enhance the security of the United States
overseas diplomatic missions as well as our U.S. personnel overseas.
As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has stated, among the
greatest threats to the security of American diplomatic missions and
personnel is by Osama bin Laden and his legion of terrorists who train
and operate out of Afghanistan. The primary benefactors of bin Laden's
terrorists are elements in Pakistan and the extremist Taliban militia,
who not only host and protect bin Laden but have imposed a reign of
terror on the people of Afghanistan and especially on the women of
Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, on numerous occasions I have charged and I repeat today
that the Clinton administration, despite statements to the contrary,
has a covert policy of cooperating with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that
has orchestrated the creation, the rise to power, and the ongoing
tyranny of the Taliban. The Taliban are now competing with SLORC, the
SLORC dictatorship in Burma, for the role of the world's largest
producer of opium. They are harboring anti-American terrorists such as
bin Laden, and the Taliban's fanatical leaders are waging a psychotic
reign of terror on millions of women in Afghanistan.
On August 25, 1998, using my oversight responsibility as a senior
member of the House Committee on International Relations, I sent a
letter to the Department of State requesting the pertinent cables and
documents related to U.S. policy on Afghanistan, especially when it
relates to the Taliban. The State Department ignored my original
request.
As the Taliban's tyranny against women and human rights abuses
against their entire population intensified in Afghanistan, and at
committee hearings, I repeatedly restated my call and my request for
documents to the Assistant Secretary of State Rick

[[Page 16570]]

Indefurth and other State Department officials.

{time} 1545

And even as my requests for information were ignored, actions taken
by the State Department seemed to confirm my charges of a covert U.S.
policy of support for the extremist Taliban cult in Afghanistan.
In November of 1998, at a closed hearing on Iraq, for the record, I
asked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when the Afghanistan
material that I requested would be delivered. She said it would be
coming soon.
Christmas, Hannukah, and the New Year came and went and still no
documents.
At the outset of this Congressional session, in February at a full
committee hearing in full public, I reminded Secretary Albright of her
commitment to release the Afghan documents. At that time the gentleman
from New York (Chairman Gilman) supported my request for the record.
Again Secretary Albright told us the documents were forthcoming.
During the following weeks, my staff and the committee staff of the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) continued to call on the
State Department about this commitment for Afghan documents.
To cut the story down to size here, we still have not had one
document from the State Department that would either confirm or
disprove my charges. I am, therefore, ever more convinced and I would
hope the women who have testified here today will join me in insisting
that the State Department provide requested documents that would prove
one way or the other whether or not this administration is again
committing a sin against the people of the world whether it believes in
human rights in supporting the Taliban, one of the world's worst human
rights abusers and one of the world's worst enemies of women's freedom.
So I would ask my fellow colleagues to join me. After over a year of
stonewalling and blockading our attempts to get to the information, I
ask Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in getting the State
Department to give up this stonewalling and to give us the pertinent
information about Afghan policy and what the real position of this
government is.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
join him in that request as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement. I wanted to
engage the gentleman in a colloquy on the amendment that the gentleman
is lead sponsor on, amendment No. 9, related to satellite export
activities.
I want to ensure that my reading of the amendment of the gentleman is
correct; and if it is, I certainly understand it, as a member of the
Cox committee.
It is my understanding that the gentleman is attempting to provide
for expedited approvals for NATO countries, non-NATO allies, and other
friendly countries, but that he is specifically suggesting not that
there would be no exports licenses for satellites but that there would
be no expedited licenses for exports to the People's Republic of China.
Is my understanding correct?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct.
This gentleman believes that the policy of this Congress is to be
very careful about our technology exports to Communist China and other
potentially hostile governments. However, in stating this policy, the
State Department has used a sledge hammer and swung the pendulum so far
over that it is getting in the way of business dealings and technology
transactions with countries that are friendly, Democratic countries,
Brazil, Sweden, Belgium, you name it. And we do not want that.
But my amendment says we should try to expedite that, and it
emphasizes that those dealings with China and other potential hostile
powers not be expedited. That is the purpose of my language.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I
understand the point of the gentleman. I understand this amendment will
be en bloc and it is my only opportunity for debate.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
There has been a great deal of talk on the floor about what UNFPA
does to save lives, to save mothers giving birth, to save children. But
I want to talk about what is not in the bill.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to
imply that this is an abortion vote. But let me say very clearly, this
vote is not a vote on abortion. It clearly states in the text, page 2,
line 6: ``The UNFPA does not fund abortions.''
Also, not a single cent goes to China. But let me tell my colleagues
that they do not need to take my word on it. I would like to quote the
Houston Chronicle. It says:

The sad irony is that the population program would actually
do far more in the way of family planning and the prevention
of unwanted pregnancies and abortions than its critics are
willing to admit. If the motivation for opposition to this
measure is truly to halt abortion, then those who would kill
it are actually doing the legislative equivalent of throwing
gasoline onto a fire.

In other words, UNFPA prevents abortions by family planning.
In my own hometown paper, the New York Times, they said last week:

Let me tell my colleagues another thing that this vote is about. It
is about the fact that we are going to be six billion people on the
planet.
The Courier-Journal from Louisville, Kentucky, says:

The good news is that population growth has, in fact,
slowed in many places, thanks in part to the U.N.'s efforts.
But one big obstacle to more progress has been money. The
House of Representatives will be able to do something about
that by restoring funds for the U.N. population program.

There are other editorials from papers such as The Kansas City Star,
the San Francisco Examiner, the L.A. Times, and others.
Well over 150 of my colleagues joined us on a bill in support of
funding for UNFPA and, likewise, many organizations, non-governmental
organizations, such as the Audubon Society and many others.
I would like to put the list into the Record of the nongovernmental
organizations supporting this funding effort. It is important to save
women's lives.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to engage in a discussion with the
chairman about the ruling in Europe by the European Union on U.S.
aircraft that are hush-kitted or reengined.
Last year, the EU began restricting the use of hushkitted or
reengined aircraft in the European community of U.S. aircraft that have
been reengined or had a hushkit installed to meet our Stage 3 quiet
noise standard.
In fact, the U.S. is 2 years ahead of Europe in that matter.
Nonetheless, the European restriction would apply only to U.S. aircraft
and engines even though they are quieter than many other European
aircraft and engines.

[[Page 16571]]

The U.S. Government objected. The House took strong exception. I
introduced legislation which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) cosponsored, the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan),
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
We passed this bill on the House floor. It has had the dramatic
effect of getting Europe's attention because we would ban the operation
of the noisiest aircraft in the fleet, the Concorde.
The EU agreed to delay implementation of the regulation. But we still
do not have real serious protection for American Airlines who want to
sell aircraft principally to Third World countries to operate those
aircraft into the European Union.
I firmly believe that the European Commission and the European
Parliament should act quickly to end this discriminatory practice.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I agree with the concerns of the gentleman. Our committee held a
hearing recently to discuss this and other EU issues, and the hearing
underscored the problems with recent EU actions in the aviation area.
As a matter of fact, in our meetings recently with the European
parliamentarians, we raised this issue to them and stressed the need to
clarify their position on this matter.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
The chairman has been very diligent on this matter, and I am very
appreciative. It has gotten Europe's attention. But we need to carry
further and ask the European Union understand we are serious.
One option available to the U.S. is to file an Article 84 complaint
under the Chicago Convention that would allow disagreements between
ICAO member states to go to the ICAO Council for resolution.
Would the Chair support such an initiative?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
agree with the gentleman that if the EU does not take strong action on
this directive, the United States should use the options available to
it, including filing an Article 84 complaint with the ICAO.
I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman on this very
important issue and appreciate his important leadership on this issue.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his strong
support.
I would just say in conclusion that the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms.
McKinney) has been a strong advocate for African economic development.
Many of the African countries want to buy U.S. reengined hushkitted
aircraft and operate them into the European Union, and this ruling by
the European Commission would simply discriminate against Africa
principally.
So I greatly appreciate the interest and support of the gentlewoman.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the American Security Act of 1999 is a good bill. This
bill shows strong support for humanitarian programs. In addition, human
rights gains a prominence not seen in a very long time. We also have
strong provisions in this bill for our former allies in Vietnam.
This legislation also provides much-needed minority recruitment.
Black foreign service officers recently settled a lawsuit. We now learn
that there are pending lawsuits that have been filed by the Voice of
America black employees.
For the reason that this Congress for three standing Congresses has
not yet provided an authorization bill, we have not yet provided the
kind of oversight that we need to have provided. Cultural exchange
programs now reflect our interests around the world and not just our
specific interests in a few places around the world. And then, most
importantly, embassy security is provided for.
We are going to see a spirited debate today on this bill, and I urge
my colleagues to support the American Security Act of 1999.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) the senior member of our
Committee on International Relations, the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for
yielding me the time.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I spoke earlier about some of the
other merits of the bill. There will be a very important amendment for
Members later on as we consider this bill.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Campbell amendment. The Campbell
amendment would provide a $20 million grant to the United Population
Fund.
Let me remind everyone that last year the Congress passed and the
President signed, albeit reluctantly, legislation that cut off funding
to the U.N. Population Fund because of its ongoing complicity with the
one-child-per-couple policy in the People's Republic of China, where
forced abortion and forced sterilization are commonplace.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and I are offering an
amendment that says that $25 million can proceed if, and only if, the
UNFPA has terminated all activities in the PRC or during the 12 months
the President can certify that no abortions have been the result of
coercion. The issue is coercion.
I would hope that Members would stand with the oppressed women who
suffer unspeakable cruelty as a result of the one-child-per-couple
policy. Vote ``no'' on the Campbell amendment when we get to it later
on.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 2415 is as follows:

H.R. 2415

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``American Embassy Security
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

Chapter 1--Department of State

Sec. 101. Administration of foreign affairs.
Sec. 102. International organizations.
Sec. 103. International commissions.
Sec. 104. Migration and refugee assistance.
Sec. 105. Public diplomacy programs.
Sec. 106. Voluntary contributions to international organizations.
Sec. 107. Grants to the Asia Foundation.

Chapter 2--Broadcasting Board of Governors

Sec. 121. International broadcasting.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES

Chapter 1--Authorities and Activities

Sec. 201. Authority to lease aircraft to respond to a terrorist attack
abroad.
Sec. 202. Report on Cuban drug trafficking.
Sec. 203. Report on compliance with the Hague Convention on
International Child Abduction.
Sec. 204. Elimination of obsolete reports.
Sec. 205. Continuation of reporting requirements.
Sec. 206. International arms sales code of conduct.
Sec. 207. Human rights and democracy fellowships.
Sec. 208. Joint funds under agreements for cooperation in
environmental, scientific, cultural, and related areas.
Sec. 209. Report on international extradition.
Sec. 210. Effective regulation of satellite export activities.

Chapter 2--Consular And Related Activities

Sec. 251. Deaths and estates of United States citizens abroad.
Sec. 252. Duties of consular officers.
Sec. 253. Machine readable visas.
Sec. 254. Processing of visa applications.
Sec. 255. Repeal of outdated provision on passport fees.
Sec. 256. Fees relating to affidavits of support.

Chapter 3--Refugees

Sec. 271. United States policy regarding the involuntary return of
refugees.

[[Page 16572]]

Sec. 272. Human rights reports.
Sec. 273. Guidelines for refugee processing posts.
Sec. 274. Vietnamese refugees.

TITLE III--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PERSONNEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN SERVICE

Chapter 1--Organization of the Department of State

Sec. 301. Establishment of Bureau for International Information
Programs and Bureau for Educational and Cultural Exchange
Programs.
Sec. 302. Correction of designation of Inspector General of the
Department of State.

Chapter 2--Personnel of the Department of State

Sec. 321. Establishment of Foreign Service Star.
Sec. 322. United States citizens hired abroad.
Sec. 323. Border equalization adjustment.
Sec. 324. Treatment of grievance records.
Sec. 325. Report concerning financial disadvantages for administrative
and technical personnel.
Sec. 326. Extension of overseas hiring authority.
Sec. 327. Medical emergency assistance.
Sec. 328. Families of deceased foreign service personnel.
Sec. 329. Parental choice in education.
Sec. 330. Workforce planning for foreign service personnel by federal
agencies.
Sec. 331. Compensation for survivors of terrorist attacks overseas.

TITLE IV--UNITED STATES INFORMATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND CULTURAL
PROGRAMS

Sec. 401. Educational and cultural exchanges and scholarships for
Tibetans and Burmese.
Sec. 402. Conduct of certain educational and cultural exchange
programs.
Sec. 403. Notification to Congress of grants.
Sec. 404. National security measures.
Sec. 405. Designation of North/South Center as the Dante B. Fascell
North-South Center.
Sec. 406. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
Sec. 407. International expositions.
Sec. 408. Royal Ulster Constabulary.

TITLE V--INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Sec. 501. Permanent authorization for Radio Free Asia.
Sec. 502. Preservation of RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty).
Sec. 503. Immunity from civil liability for Broadcasting Board of
Governors.

TITLE VI--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMISSIONS

Sec. 601. Interparliamentary groups.
Sec. 602. Authority to assist State and local governments.
Sec. 603. International Boundary and Water Commission.
Sec. 604. Concerning United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/
6.

TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Sense of the Congress concerning support for democracy and
human rights activists in Cuba.
Sec. 702. Relating to Cyprus.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on International Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

CHAPTER 1--DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SEC. 101. ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of State under ``Administration of Foreign
Affairs'' to carry out the authorities, functions, duties,
and responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of
the United States and for other purposes authorized by law,
including the diplomatic security program:
(1) Diplomatic and consular programs.--
(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For ``Diplomatic and
Consular Programs'' of the Department of State, such sums as
may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(B) Limitations.--
(i) Worldwide security upgrades.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), $254,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be appropriated only for
worldwide security upgrades.
(ii) Bureau of democracy, human rights, and labor.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A),
$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be
appropriated only for salaries and expenses of the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
(iii) Recruitment of minority groups.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), $2,000,000
for fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be appropriated only
for the recruitment of members of minority groups for careers
in the Foreign Service and international affairs.
(2) Capital investment fund.--For ``Capital Investment
Fund'' of the Department of State, such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(3) Security and maintenance of united states missions.--
(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For ``Security and
Maintenance of United States Missions'', $1,580,066,000 for
the fiscal year 2000.
(B) Security upgrades for united states missions.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A),
$1,146,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be
appropriated only for security upgrades to United States
missions abroad, including construction and relocation costs.
(4) Representation allowances.--For ``Representation
Allowances'', such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal
year 2000.
(5) Emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service.--
For ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'',
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(6) Office of the inspector general.--For ``Office of the
Inspector General'', such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2000.
(7) Payment to the american institute in taiwan.--For
``Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan'', such sums as
may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(8) Protection of foreign missions and officials.--
(A) For ``Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials'',
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(B) Each amount appropriated pursuant to this paragraph is
authorized to remain available through September 30 of the
fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the amount
appropriated was made.
(9) Repatriation loans.--For ``Repatriation Loans'', such
sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000, for
administrative expenses.

SEC. 102. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Assessed Contributions to International
Organizations.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
``Contributions to International Organizations'', such sums
as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000 for the
Department of State to carry out the authorities, functions,
duties, and responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign
affairs of the United States with respect to international
organizations and to carry out other authorities in law
consistent with such purposes.
(b) Assessed Contributions for International Peacekeeping
Activities.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
``Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities'',
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2000 for
the Department of State to carry out the authorities,
functions, duties, and responsibilities in the conduct of the
foreign affairs of the United States with respect to
international peacekeeping activities and to carry out other
authorities in law consistent with such purposes.

SEC. 103. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS.

The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated
under ``International Commissions'' for the Department of
State to carry out the authorities, functions, duties, and
responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of the
United States and for other purposes authorized by law:
(1) International boundary and water commission, united
states and mexico.--For ``International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico''--
(A) for ``Salaries and Expenses'' such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2000; and
(B) for ``Construction'' such sums as may be necessary for
the fiscal year 2000.
(2) International boundary commission, united states and
canada.--For ``International Boundary Commission, United
States and Canada'', such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2000.
(3) International joint commission.--For ``International
Joint Commission'', such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2000.
(4) International fisheries commissions.--For
``International Fisheries Commissions'', such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 104. MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE.

(a) Migration and Refugee Assistance.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for ``Migration and Refugee Assistance''
for authorized activities, $750,000,000 for the fiscal year
2000.
(2) Limitations.--
(A) Tibetan refugees in india and nepal.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), not more than
$2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be
available only for humanitarian assistance, including food,
medicine, clothing, and medical and vocational training, to
Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal who have fled Chinese-
occupied Tibet.
(B) Refugees resettling in israel.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated

[[Page 16573]]

in paragraph (1), $60,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 is
authorized to be available only for assistance for refugees
resettling in Israel from other countries.
(C) Humanitarian assistance for displaced burmese.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1),
$2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 for humanitarian
assistance are authorized to be available only for assistance
(including food, medicine, clothing, and medical and
vocational training) to persons displaced as a result of
civil conflict in Burma, including persons still within
Burma.
(D) Assistance for displaced sierra leoneans.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1),
$2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 for humanitarian
assistance are authorized to be available only for assistance
(including food, medicine, clothing, and medical and
vocational training) and resettlement of persons who have
been severely mutilated as a result of civil conflict in
Sierra Leone, including persons still within Sierra Leone.
(E) Assistance for kosovar refugees.--
(i) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in
paragraph (1), $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 are
authorized to be appropriated only for the Front Line States
Initiative defined in clause (ii).
(ii) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term
``Front Line States Initiative'' means assistance for the
relief of refugees fleeing from the conflict in Kosovo
provided through nongovernmental organizations in the form of
food, housing, clothing, transportation, and other material,
with priority assistance for the relief of refugees in the
front line states of Albania and Macedonia.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant
to this section are authorized to remain available until
expended.

SEC. 105. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY PROGRAMS.

The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of State to carry out international
information activities and educational and cultural exchange
programs under the United States Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948, the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, Reorganization Plan Number 2 of 1977,
the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center Act of 1991, and the
National Endowment for Democracy Act, and to carry out other
authorities in law consistent with such purposes:
(1) International information programs.--For
``International Information Programs'', such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(2) Educational and cultural exchange programs.--
(A) Fulbright academic exchange programs.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for the ``Fulbright Academic
Exchange Programs'' (other than programs described in
subparagraph (B)), such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2000.
(B) Other educational and cultural exchange programs.--
(i) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for other educational and cultural exchange programs
authorized by law, including the Claude and Mildred Pepper
Scholarship Program of the Washington Workshops Foundation
and the Mike Mansfield Fellowship Program, such sums as may
be necessary for the fiscal year 2000.
(ii) South pacific exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated under clause (i), $750,000 for the fiscal
year 2000 is authorized to be available for ``South Pacific
Exchanges''.
(iii) East timorese scholarships.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for
the fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be available for ``East
Timorese Scholarships''.
(iv) Tibetan exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal year
2000 is authorized to be available for ``Ngawang Choephel
Exchange Programs'' (formerly known as educational and
cultural exchanges with Tibet) under section 103(a) of the
Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-319).
(v) African exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal year
2000 is authorized to be available only for ``Educational and
Cultural Exchanges with Sub-Saharan Africa''.
(3) Center for cultural and technical interchange between
east and west.--For the ``Center for Cultural and Technical
Interchange between East and West'', $17,500,000 for the
fiscal year 2000.
(4) National endowment for democracy.--
(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For the ``National
Endowment for Democracy'', $34,000,000 for the fiscal year
2000.
(B) Limitation.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by subparagraph (A), $2,000,000 for the fiscal
year 2000 is authorized to be appropriated only for a
fellowship program, to be known as the ``Reagan-Fascell
Democracy Fellows'', for democracy activists and scholars
from around the world at the International Forum for
Democratic Studies in Washington, D.C., to study, write, and
exchange views with other activists and scholars and with
Americans.
(5) Dante b. fascell north-south center.--For ``Dante B.
Fascell North-South Center'' such sums as may be necessary
for the fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 106. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for ``Voluntary Contributions to
International Organizations'', such sums as may be necessary
for the fiscal year 2000.
(b) Limitations on Authorizations of Appropriations.--
(1) World food program.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year 2000 is authorized to be appropriated only for a United
States contribution to the World Food Program.
(2) United nations voluntary fund for victims of torture.--
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection
(a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be
appropriated only for a United States contribution to the
United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
(3) International program on the elimination of child
labor.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 is
authorized to be appropriated only for a United States
contribution to the International Labor Organization for the
activities of the International Program on the Elimination of
Child Labor.
(4) Organization of american states.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a), $240,000
for the fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be appropriated
only for a United States contribution to the Organization of
American States for the Office of the Special Rapporteur for
Freedom of Expression in the Western Hemisphere to conduct
investigations, including field visits, to establish a
network of nongovernmental organizations, and to hold
hemispheric conferences, of which $6,000 for each fiscal year
is authorized to be appropriated only for the investigation
and dissemination of information on violations of freedom of
expression by the Government of Cuba.
(c) Restrictions on United States Voluntary Contributions
to United Nations Development Program.--
(1) Limitation.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) for the fiscal year 2000 for United States
voluntary contributions to the United Nations Development
Program an amount equal to the amount the United Nations
Development Program will spend in Burma during each fiscal
year shall be withheld unless during such fiscal year the
Secretary of State submits to the appropriate congressional
committees the certification described in paragraph (2).
(2) Certification.--The certification referred to in
paragraph (1) is a certification by the Secretary of State
that all programs and activities of the United Nations
Development Program (including United Nations Development
Program--Administered Funds) in Burma--
(A) are focused on eliminating human suffering and
addressing the needs of the poor;
(B) are undertaken only through international or private
voluntary organizations that have been deemed independent of
the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) (formerly
known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC),
after consultation with the leadership of the National League
for Democracy and the leadership of the National Coalition
Government of the Union of Burma;
(C) provide no financial, political, or military benefit to
the SPDC; and
(D) are carried out only after consultation with the
leadership of the National League for Democracy and the
leadership of the National Coalition Government of the Union
of Burma.
(d) Contributions to United Nations Population Fund.--
(1) Limitations on amount of contribution.--Of the amounts
made available under subsection (a), not more than
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be available for the
United Nations Population Fund (hereinafter in this
subsection referred to as the ``UNFPA'').
(2) Prohibition on use of funds in china.--None of the
funds made available under subsection (a) may be made
available for the UNFPA for a country program in the People's
Republic of China.
(3) Conditions on availability of funds.--Amounts made
available under subsection (a) for fiscal year 2000 for the
UNFPA may not be made available to UNFPA unless--
(A) the UNFPA maintains amounts made available to the UNFPA
under this section in an account separate from other accounts
of the UNFPA;
(B) the UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to
the UNFPA under this section with other sums; and
(C) the UNFPA does not fund abortions.
(4) Withholding of funds subject to certification.--
(A) Of the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 for
United States voluntary contributions to the UNFPA an amount
equal to the amount that UNFPA will spend on a country
program in the People's Republic of China during each fiscal
year shall be withheld unless during such fiscal year, the

[[Page 16574]]

Secretary of State submits to the appropriate congressional
committees the certification described in subparagraph (B).
(B) The certification referred to in subparagraph (A) is a
certification by the Secretary of State that the country
program of the UNFPA in the People's Republic of China--
(i) focuses on improving the delivery of voluntary family
planning information and services;
(ii) is designed in conformity with the human rights
principles affirmed at the International Conference on
Population and Development with the support of 180 nations
including the United States;
(iii) is implemented only in counties in the People's
Republic of China where all quotas and targets for the
recruitment of program participants have been abolished and
the use of coercive measures has been eliminated;
(iv) is carried out in consultation with, and under the
oversight and approval of, the UNFPA executive board,
including the United States representative;
(v) is subject to regular independent monitoring to ensure
compliance with the principles of informed consent and
voluntary participation; and
(vi) suspends operations in project counties found to be in
violation of program guidelines.
(e) Availability of Funds.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) are authorized to remain
available until expended.

SEC. 107. GRANTS TO THE ASIA FOUNDATION.

Section 404 of The Asia Foundation Act (title IV of Public
Law 98-164) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 404. There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of State such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2000 for grants to The Asia Foundation pursuant
to this title.''.

CHAPTER 2--BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

SEC. 121. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING.

The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for
the Broadcasting Board of Governors to carry out certain
international broadcasting activities under the United States
International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio
Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and the Television Broadcasting to
Cuba Act, and for other purposes authorized by law:
(1) International broadcasting operations.--
(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For ``International
Broadcasting Operations'', such sums as may be necessary for
the fiscal year 2000.
(B) Allocation.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subparagraph (A), the Broadcasting Board
of Governors shall seek to ensure that the amounts made
available for broadcasting to nations whose people do not
fully enjoy freedom of expression do not decline in
proportion to the amounts made available for broadcasting to
other nations.
(2) Broadcasting capital improvements.--For ``Broadcasting
Capital Improvements'', such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2000.
(3) Radio free asia.--For ``Radio Free Asia'', $30,000,000
for the fiscal year 2000.
(4) Broadcasting to cuba.--
(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For ``Broadcasting to
Cuba'', such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year
2000.
(B) Limitation.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subparagraph (A), $712,000 for the fiscal
year 2000 is authorized to be appropriated only for the
Office of Cuba Broadcasting to develop and implement new
technology and enhance current methods to strengthen and
improve the transmission capabilities of Radio Marti and TV
Marti.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES

CHAPTER 1--AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO LEASE AIRCRAFT TO RESPOND TO A
TERRORIST ATTACK ABROAD.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, in the event
of an emergency which involves a terrorist attack abroad, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the
Department of Justice is authorized to lease commercial
aircraft to transport equipment and personnel in response to
such attack if there have been reasonable efforts to obtain
appropriate Department of Defense aircraft and such aircraft
are unavailable. The leasing authority under this section
shall include authority to provide indemnification insurance
or guarantees, if necessary and appropriate.

SEC. 202. REPORT ON CUBAN DRUG TRAFFICKING.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of
State shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees an unclassified report (with a classified annex)
on the extent of international drug trafficking from,
through, or over Cuba. Each report shall include the
following:
(1) Information concerning the extent to which the Cuban
Government or any official, employee, or entity of the
Government of Cuba has engaged in, facilitated, or condoned
such trafficking.
(2) The extent to which the appropriate agencies of the
United States Government have investigated and prosecuted
such activities of the Cuban Government or any official,
employee, or entity of the Government of Cuba.
(3) A determination of whether the Government of Cuba
should be included in the list of nations considered to be
major drug trafficking countries.

SEC. 203. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION.

Section 2803(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1999,'' and inserting ``2000,'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``abducted.'' and
inserting ``abducted, are being wrongfully retained in
violation of United States court orders, or which have failed
to comply with any of their obligations under such convention
with respect to applications for the return of children,
access to children, or both, submitted by United States
citizens or lawful residents.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``children'' and inserting ``children,
access to children, or both,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or lawful residents'' after
``citizens''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraph:
``(6) A list of the countries which are Parties to the
Convention, but in which due to the absence of a prompt and
effective method for enforcement of civil court orders, the
absence of a doctrine of comity, or other factors, there is a
substantial possibility that an order of return or access
under a Hague Convention proceeding, or a United States
custody, access, or visitation order, will not be promptly
enforced.''.

SEC. 204. ELIMINATION OF OBSOLETE REPORTS.

(a) Post Language Competence.--Section 304(c) of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3944(c)) is repealed.
(b) Sustainable Economic Growth.--Section 574 of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-107) is repealed.
(c) Redundant Reports on Certain Weapons.--
(1) Section 308 of the Chemical and Biological Weapons and
Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-182) is
repealed.
(2) Section 585 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997
(Public Law 104-208), is repealed.
(d) Situation in Iraq.--Section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is
amended by striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``six months''.

SEC. 205. CONTINUATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Reports on Claims by United States Firms Against the
Government of Saudi Arabia.--Section 2801(b) of the Foreign
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by
division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``the earlier of--'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1); and
(3) by striking the designation for paragraph (2) and
adjusting the tabulation.
(b) Reports on Determinations Under Title IV of the
Libertad Act.--Section 2802(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform
and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended by
striking ``during the period ending September 30, 1999,'' and
inserting a comma.
(c) Relations With Vietnam.--Section 2805 of the Foreign
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by
division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is
amended by striking ``during the period ending September 30,
1999,''.
(d) Reports on Ballistic Missile Cooperation With Russia.--
Section 2705(d) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended by
striking ``and January 1, 2000,'' and inserting ``January 1,
2000, January 1, 2001, and January 1, 2002,''.

SEC. 206. INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES CODE OF CONDUCT.

(a) Negotiations.--The Secretary of State shall attempt to
achieve the foreign policy goal of an international arms
sales code of conduct with all Wassenaar Arrangement
countries. The Secretary of State shall take the necessary
steps to begin negotiations with all Wassenaar Arrangement
countries within 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act. The purpose of such negotiations shall be to
conclude an agreement on restricting or prohibiting arms
transfers to countries that do not meet the criteria under
subsection (b).
(b) Criteria.--The criteria referred to in subsection (a)
are as follows:
(1) Promoting democracy.--Such government--

[[Page 16575]]

(A) was chosen by and permits free and fair elections;
(B) promotes civilian control of the military and security
forces and has civilian institutions controlling the policy,
operation, and spending of all law enforcement and security
institutions, as well as the armed forces;
(C) promotes the rule of law, equality before the law, and
respect for individual and minority rights, including freedom
to speak, publish, associate, and organize; and
(D) promotes the strengthening of political, legislative,
and civil institutions of democracy, as well as autonomous
institutions to monitor the conduct of public officials and
to combat corruption.
(2) Respects human rights.--Such government--
(A) does not engage in gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights, including--
(i) extrajudicial or arbitrary executions;
(ii) disappearances;
(iii) torture or severe mistreatment;
(iv) prolonged arbitrary imprisonment;
(v) systematic official discrimination on the basis of
race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, or
political affiliation; and
(vi) grave breaches of international laws of war or
equivalent violations of the laws of war in internal
conflicts;
(B) vigorously investigates, disciplines, and prosecutes
those responsible for gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights;
(C) permits access on a regular basis to political
prisoners by international humanitarian organizations such as
the International Committee of the Red Cross;
(D) promotes the independence of the judiciary and other
official bodies that oversee the protection of human rights;
(E) does not impede the free functioning of domestic and
international human rights organizations; and
(F) provides access on a regular basis to humanitarian
organizations in situations of conflict or famine.
(3) Not engaged in certain acts of armed aggression.--Such
government is not currently engaged in acts of armed
aggression in violation of international law.
(4) Full participation in united nations register of
conventional arms.--Such government is fully participating in
the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Report of the secretary of state.--Not later than 6
months after the commencement of negotiations under
subsection (a), and not later than the end of every 6-month
period thereafter until an agreement described in subsection
(a) is concluded, the Secretary of State shall report to the
appropriate congressional committees on the progress of such
negotiations.
(2) Human rights report.--In the report required by
sections 116(d) and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, the Secretary of State shall describe the extent to
which the practices of each country evaluated meet the
criteria of subsection (b).
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Wassenaar Arrangement countries'' means those participating
in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for
Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and Technologies, done
at Vienna on July 11-12, 1996.

SEC. 207. HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY FELLOWSHIPS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of State a program which shall be known as the ``Human Rights
and Democracy Fellowship Program''. The program shall be
administered by the Secretary with the assistance of the
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
The program shall provide for the employment of not less than
6 and not more than 12 fellows in the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor. Fellowships shall be for an initial
1 year period which may be extended for a total of not more
than 3 years. Fellowships shall be available to individuals
who have expertise in human rights policy, human rights law,
or related subjects and who are not permanent employees of
the United States Government.
(b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the Human Rights and Democracy
Fellowship Program under subsection (a) $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000.

SEC. 208. JOINT FUNDS UNDER AGREEMENTS FOR COOPERATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL, SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL AND RELATED
AREAS.

Amounts made available to the Department of State for
participation in joint funds under agreements for cooperation
in environmental, scientific, cultural and related areas
prior to fiscal year 1996 which, pursuant to express terms of
such international agreements, were deposited in interest-
bearing accounts prior to disbursement may earn interest, and
interest accrued to such accounts may be used and retained
without return to the Treasury of the United States and
without further appropriation by Congress. The Department of
State shall take action to ensure the complete and timely
disbursement of appropriations and associated interest within
joint funds covered by this section and final disposition of
such agreements.

SEC. 209. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION.

Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to
the Congress a report concerning international extradition.
The report shall review all extradition treaties and
agreements to which the United States is signatory; identify
those countries that have become ``safe havens'' for
individuals fleeing the American justice system; identify the
factors which contribute to the international extradition
problem, particularly laws in foreign countries which
prohibit the extradition to another country of certain
classes of persons; and propose appropriate legislative and
diplomatic solutions to such problem, including, where
appropriate, the renegotiation of extradition treaties.

SEC. 210. EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF SATELLITE EXPORT
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Licensing Regime.--The Secretary of State shall
establish a regulatory regime for the licensing for export of
satellites, satellite technologies, components, and systems
which shall include preferential treatment and expedited
approval, as appropriate, of the licensing for export by
United States companies of satellites, satellite
technologies, components, and systems to NATO allies, major
non-NATO allies, and other friendly countries.
(b) Financial and Personnel Resources.--The Secretary of
State, pursuant to the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, shall obligate
expeditiously $2,000,000 of amounts appropriated under that
Act, above levels made available to the Office of Defense
Trade Controls for fiscal year 1998, to enable that office to
carry out its responsibilities.

CHAPTER 2--CONSULAR AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

SEC. 251. DEATHS AND ESTATES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS
ABROAD.

(a) Repeal.--Section 1709 of the Revised Statutes (22
U.S.C. 4195) is repealed.
(b) Amendment to State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956.--The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 is
amended by inserting after section 43 the following new
sections:

``SEC. 43A. NOTIFICATION OF NEXT OF KIN; REPORTS OF DEATH.

``Pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary of State
may prescribe--
``(1) When a United States citizen or national dies abroad,
a consular officer shall endeavor to notify, or assist the
Secretary of State in notifying, the next of kin or legal
guardian as soon as possible; provided, that in the case of
death of Peace Corps Volunteers, members of the Armed Forces,
their dependents, or Department of Defense civilian
employees, the consular officer shall assist the Peace Corps
or the appropriate military authorities in making such
notifications.
``(2) The consular officer may, for any United States
citizen who dies abroad, (A) in the case of a finding by
appropriate local authorities, issue a report of death or of
presumptive death, or (B) in the absence of a finding by
appropriate local authorities, issue a report of presumptive
death.

``SEC. 43B. CONSERVATION AND DISPOSITION OF ESTATES.

``(a) Conservation of Estates Abroad.--
``(1) Authority to act as conservator.--Pursuant to such
regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe, when a
United States citizen or national dies abroad, a consular
officer shall act as the provisional conservator of the
decedent's estate and, subject to paragraphs (3) and (4),
shall--
``(A) take possession of the personal effects within his
jurisdiction;
``(B) inventory and appraise the personal effects, sign the
inventory, and annex thereto a certificate as to the accuracy
of the inventory and appraised value of each article;
``(C) when appropriate, collect the debts due to the
decedent in the officer's jurisdiction and pay from the
estate the obligations owed there by the decedent;
``(D) sell or dispose of, as appropriate, all perishable
items of property;
``(E) sell, after reasonable public notice and notice to
such next of kin as can be ascertained with reasonable
diligence, such additional items of property as necessary to
provide funds sufficient to pay the decedent's debts and
property taxes in the country of death, funeral expenses, and
other expenses incident to the disposition of the estate;
``(F) at the end of one year from the date of death (or
after such additional period as may be required for final
settlement of the estate), if no claimant shall have
appeared, sell or dispose of the residue of the personal
estate, except as provided in subparagraph (G) below, in the
same manner as United States Government-owned foreign excess
property;
``(G) transmit to the United States, to the Secretary of
State, the proceeds of any sales along with any financial
instruments (including bonds, shares of stock, and notes of
indebtedness), jewelry, heirlooms, and other ticles of
obvious sentimental value, to be held in trust for the legal
claimant; and
``(H) in the event that the decedent's estate includes an
interest in real property located within the jurisdiction of
the officer

[[Page 16576]]

and such interest does not devolve by the applicable laws of
intestate succession or otherwise, provide for title to the
property to be conveyed to the Government of the United
States unless the Secretary declines to accept such
conveyance.
``(2) Authority to act as administrator.--The Secretary of
State may expressly authorize the officer to act as
administrator of the estate in exceptional circumstances,
pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe.
The officer shall not otherwise act in such capacity.
``(3) Exceptions.--
``(A) The function provided for in this section shall not
be performed to the extent that the decedent has left or
there is otherwise appointed, in the country where the death
occurred or where the decedent was domiciled, a legal
representative, partner in trade, or trustee appointed to
take care of his personal estate. If the decedent's legal
representative shall appear at any time prior to transmission
of the estate to the Secretary and demand the proceeds and
effects being held by the officer, the officer shall deliver
them to the representative after having collected any
prescribed fee for the services rendered pursuant to this
section.
``(B) Nothing in this section shall affect the authority of
military commanders under title 10 of the United States Code
with respect to persons or property under military command or
jurisdiction or the authority of the Peace Corps with respect
to Peace Corps Volunteers or their property.
``(4) Conditions.--The functions provided for in this
section shall be performed only when authorized by treaty
provisions or permitted by the laws or authorities of the
country wherein the death occurs, or the decedent is
domiciled, or if such functions are permitted by established
usage.
``(b) Disposition of Estates by the Secretary of State.--
``(1) Personal estates.--
``(A) After receipt of personal estates pursuant to
subsection (a), the Secretary, pursuant to such regulations
as the Secretary may prescribe for the conservation of such
estates, may seek payment of all outstanding debts to the
estate as they become due, may receive any balances due on
such estates, may endorse all checks, bills of exchange,
promissory notes, and other instruments of indebtedness
payable to the estate for the benefit thereof, and may take
such other action as is reasonably necessary for the
conservation of the estate.
``(B) If by the end of the fifth full fiscal year after
receipt of the personal estate pursuant to subsection (a), no
legal claimant for such estate has appeared, title to the
estate shall pass to the Secretary who shall dispose of the
estate in the same manner as surplus United States
Government-owned property or by such means as may be
appropriate in light of the nature and value of the property
involved. The expenses of sales shall be paid from the
estate, and any lawful claim received thereafter shall be
payable to the extent of the value of the net proceeds of the
estate as a refund from the appropriate Treasury account.
``(C) The net cash estate after disposition as provided in
subparagraph (B) shall be remitted to the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
``(2) Real property.--Pursuant to such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe--
``(A) in the event that real property is conveyed to the
Government of the United States pursuant to subsection
(a)(1)(H) and is not needed by the Department of State, such
property shall be considered foreign excess property under
title IV of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 511 et seq.); and
``(B) in the event that the Department needs such property,
the Secretary shall treat such property as if it were an
unconditional gift accepted on behalf of the Department of
State pursuant to section 25 of this Act and section 9(a)(3)
of the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as amended.
``(c) Losses in Connection With the Conservation of
Estates.--
``(1) Authority.--Pursuant to such regulations as the
Secretary of State may prescribe, the Secretary is authorized
to compensate the estate of any United States citizen, who
has died overseas, for property, the conservation of which
has been undertaken under either section 43 or subsection (a)
of this section, and that has been lost, stolen, or destroyed
while in the custody of officers or employees of the
Department of State. Any such compensation shall be in lieu
of personal liability of officers or employees of the
Department of State. Officers and employees of the Department
of State may be liable in appropriate cases to the Department
of State to the extent of any compensation provided pursuant
to this subsection.
``(2) Liability.--The liability of officers or employees of
the Department of State to the Department for payments made
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be determined
pursuant to the Department's procedures for determining
accountability for United States Government property.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 6 months after enactment of this Act or
upon the effective date of any regulations promulgated
hereunder, whichever is sooner.

SEC. 252. DUTIES OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.

Section 43 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (22 U.S.C. 2715) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Authority.--'' before ``In'';
(2) by striking ``disposition of personal effects.'' in the
last sentence and inserting ``disposition of personal estates
pursuant to section 43B of this Act.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section and
sections 43A and 43B of this Act, the term `consular officer'
includes any United States citizen employee of the Department
of State who is designated by the Secretary of State to
perform consular services pursuant to such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe.''.

SEC. 253. MACHINE READABLE VISAS.

Section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (8 U.S.C. 1351 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by amending the first sentence to read
as follows: ``For each of the fiscal years 2000, 2001, and
2002, any amount collected under paragraph (1) that exceeds
$316,715,000 for fiscal year 2000, $338,885,000 for fiscal
year 2001, and $362,607,000 for fiscal year 2002 may be made
available only if a notification is submitted to Congress in
accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming
notifications under section 34 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956.''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).

SEC. 254. PROCESSING OF VISA APPLICATIONS.

(a) Policy.--It shall be the policy of the Department of
State to process immigrant visa applications of immediate
relatives of United States citizens and nonimmigrant k-1 visa
applications of fiances of United States citizens within 30
days of the receipt of all necessary documents from the
applicant and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In
the case of a visa application where the sponsor of such
applicant is a relative other than an immediate relative, it
should be the policy of the Department of State to process
such an application within 60 days of the receipt of all
necessary documents from the applicant and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.
(b) Reports.--For each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001,
the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees an annual report on the extent to
which the Department of State is meeting the policy standards
under subsection (a). Each report shall be based on a survey
of the 22 consular posts which account for approximately 72
percent of immigrant visas issued and, in addition, the
consular posts in Guatemala City, Nicosia, Caracas, Naples,
and Jakarta. Each report should include data on the average
time for processing each category of visa application under
subsection (a), a list of the embassies and consular posts
which do not meet the policy standards under subsection (a),
the amount of funds collected for processing of visa
applications, the costs of processing such visa applications,
and the steps being taken by the Department of State to
achieve such policy standards.
(c) Task Force.--The Secretary of State, in consultation
with other Federal agencies, shall establish a joint task
force with the goal of reducing the overall processing time
for visa applications.

SEC. 255. REPEAL OF OUTDATED PROVISION ON PASSPORT FEES.

Section 4 of the Passport Act of June 4, 1920 (22 U.S.C.
216, 41 Stat. 751) is repealed.

SEC. 256. FEES RELATING TO AFFIDAVITS OF SUPPORT.

(a) Authority for Fee For Preparation Assistance.--Subject
to subsection (b), the Secretary of State is authorized to
charge a fee for services provided by the Department of State
to an individual for assistance in the preparation and filing
of an affidavit of support pursuant to section 213A of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183A) to ensure
that the affidavit is properly completed before consideration
of the affidavit and an immigrant visa application by a
consular officer.
(b) Limitation.--An individual may be charged a fee under
this section only once, regardless of the number of separate
affidavits of support and visa applications for which
services are provided.
(c) Treatment of Fees.--Fees collected under the authority
of subsection (a) shall be deposited as an offsetting
collection to any Department of State appropriation, to
recover the costs of providing affidavit preparation services
under subsection (a). Such fees shall remain available for
obligation until expended. Fees collected shall be available
only to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in
advance in an appropriation act.

CHAPTER 3--REFUGEES

SEC. 271. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING THE INVOLUNTARY
RETURN OF REFUGEES.

(a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this
Act or by section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee
Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)) shall be available
to effect the involuntary return by the United States of any
person to a country in which the person has a well-founded
fear of persecution on

[[Page 16577]]

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion, except on
grounds recognized as precluding protection as a refugee
under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees of July 28, 1951, and the Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees of January 31, 1967, subject to the
reservations contained in the United States Senate Resolution
of Ratification.
(b) Migration and Refugee Assistance.--None of the funds
made available by this Act or by section 2(c) of the
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C.
2601(c)) shall be available to effect the involuntary return
of any person to any country unless the Secretary of State
first notifies the appropriate congressional committees,
except that in the case of an emergency involving a threat to
human life the Secretary of State shall notify the
appropriate congressional committees as soon as practicable.
(c) Involuntary Return Defined.--As used in this section,
the term ``to effect the involuntary return'' means to
require, by means of physical force or circumstances
amounting to a threat thereof, a person to return to a
country against the person's will, regardless of whether the
person is physically present in the United States and
regardless of whether the United States acts directly or
through an agent.

SEC. 272. HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS.

Section 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2304(b)) is amended by inserting after the fourth
sentence the following: ``Each report under this section
shall describe the extent to which each country has extended
protection to refugees, including the provision of first
asylum and resettlement.''.

SEC. 273. GUIDELINES FOR REFUGEE PROCESSING POSTS.

(a) Guidelines for Addressing Hostile Biases.--Section
602(c) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-292; 112 Stat. 2812) is amended by inserting
``and of the Department of State'' after ``Service''.
(b) Guidelines for Overseas Refugee Processing.--Section
602(c) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Year 2000, the Secretary of State (after consultation with
the Attorney General) shall issue guidelines to ensure that
persons with potential biases against any refugee applicant,
including persons employed by, or otherwise subject to
influence by, governments known to be involved in persecution
on account of religion, race, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion, shall not in
any way be used in processing determinations of refugee
status, including interpretation of conversations or
examination of documents presented by such applicants.''.

SEC. 274. VIETNAMESE REFUGEES.

No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
made available to support a larger number of personnel
assigned to United States diplomatic or consular posts in the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam than the number assigned to
such posts on March 22, 1999, unless not less than 60 days
prior to any obligation or expenditure of such funds the
Secretary of State submits a certification to the appropriate
congressional committees that--
(1) all United States refugee programs in Vietnam, as well
as programs to provide visas for Amerasians and for immediate
relatives of refugees and asylees, are supervised by a
Refugee Counselor or Refugee Coordinator who has a proven
record of sensitivity to the problems of refugees and other
victims of human rights violations and who reports directly
to the Ambassador or the Consul General at the United States
Consulate in Saigon and receives policy guidance from the
Assistant Secretary of State for the bureau with principal
responsibility for refugees;
(2) a program has been established in which all former
United States Government employees who were adjudicated
through a Vietnamese government interpreter and whose
applications for refugee status were denied will be re-
interviewed by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Asylum Officers reporting directly to INS headquarters in
Washington, D.C., and receiving specialized training and
written guidance from the INS Asylum Division and Office of
General Counsel;
(3) members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups who
fought alongside United States forces prior to 1975, and who
later served three years or more in prisons or re-education
camps, will not be disqualified from eligibility for
resettlement in the United States as refugees on the sole
ground that they continued to fight the Communists after 1975
and therefore did not begin their prison or re-education
sentences until several years later;
(4) allied combat veterans whose three-year re-education or
prison sentences began before April 30, 1975, because they
were serving in parts of the country that fell to the
Communists before Saigon, and who are otherwise eligible for
resettlement as refugees in the United States, are not
disqualified on the sole ground of the date their re-
education or prison sentences began;
(5) persons who were eligible for the Orderly Departure
Program (ODP), but who missed the application deadline
announced and imposed in 1994 because they were still in
detention, in internal exile in a remote and inaccessible
location, unable to afford bribes demanded by corrupt local
officials for documentation and permission to attend refugee
interviews, or for other reasons beyond their control, will
be considered for interviews on a case-by-case basis, and
that such case-by-case consideration is subject to clear
written guidance and administrative review to ensure that
persons who missed the deadline for reasons beyond their
control will not be denied consideration on the merits;
(6) widows of allied combat veterans who died in re-
education camps, including those who did not apply before the
1994 deadline solely because they lacked documentary evidence
from the Communist authorities to prove the death and/or
marriage, and who are otherwise eligible for ODP will have
their cases considered on the merits;
(7) unmarried sons and daughters of persons eligible for
United States programs, including persons described in
section 2244 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring
Act of 1998 (enacted as Division G of the Omnibus
Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-277) will not be
disqualified from accompanying or following to join their
parents on the sole ground that they have not been
continuously listed on the household registration issued to
their parents by the government of the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam;
(8) returnees from refugee camps outside Vietnam who met
the criteria for the Resettlement Opportunities for
Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR) program, in that they either
signed up for repatriation or were actually repatriated
between October 1, 1995, and June 30, 1996, but did not fill
out a ROVR application before their repatriation, will be
given the opportunity to fill out an application in Vietnam
and will have their cases considered on the merits;
(9) returnees whose special circumstances denied them any
meaningful opportunity to apply for ROVR in the camps, such
as those who were not offered applications because they were
in hospitals or were being held in detention centers within
certain camps, or who were erroneously told by camp
administrators or Vietnamese government officials that they
were ineligible for the program, will be given an opportunity
to apply in Vietnam and will have their cases considered on
the merits, even if their repatriation took place after June
30, 1996;
(10) a program has been established to identify, interview,
and resettle persons who have experienced recent persecution
or credible threats of persecution because of political,
religious, or human rights activities in Vietnam, subject to
clear written standards to ensure that such persons will have
access to the program whether or not they are included in a
ROVR or ODP interview category and whether or not their cases
are referred by an international organization;
(11) written guidance with respect to applications for
reconsideration has been issued by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service Office of General Counsel to ensure
that applicants whose cases were denied on grounds described
in paragraphs (2) through (10), because they were unwilling
or unable to describe mistreatment by the Vietnamese
government in the presence of a Vietnamese government
interpreter, or for other reasons contrary to the interest of
justice, will be re-interviewed; and
(12) all applicants described in paragraphs (2) through
(11) will have the assistance of a Joint Voluntary Agency
(JVA) in preparing their cases.

TITLE III--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PERSONNEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; FOREIGN SERVICE

CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU FOR INTERNATIONAL
INFORMATION PROGRAMS AND BUREAU FOR EDUCATIONAL
AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS.

Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(i) Establishment of Certain Bureaus, Offices, and Other
Organizational Entities Within the Department of State.--
``(1) Bureau for international information programs.--There
is established within the Department of State the Bureau for
International Information Programs which shall assist the
Secretary of State in carrying out international information
activities formerly carried out by the United States
Information Agency.
``(2) Bureau for educational and cultural exchange
programs.--There is established within the Department of
State a Bureau for Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
which shall assist the Secretary of State in carrying out
educational and cultural exchange programs.''.

[[Page 16578]]

SEC. 302. CORRECTION OF DESIGNATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

(a) Amendments to Foreign Service Act of 1980.--The Foreign
Service Act of 1980 is amended--
(1) in section 105(b)(2)(B) by striking ``State and the
Foreign Service)'' and inserting ``State)'';
(2) in section 209(a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``State and the Foreign Service,'' and
inserting ``State,''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence;
(3) in section 603(a) by striking ``State and the Foreign
Service,'' and inserting ``State,''; and
(4) in section 1002(12)(E) by striking ``and the Foreign
Service''.
(b) Amendments to the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998.--The Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted in division G of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended--
(1) in section 2208(c) by striking ``and the Foreign
Service''; and
(2) in section 1314(e) by striking ``and the Foreign
Service''.
(c) Amendments to Public Law 103-236.--Effective October 2,
1999, subsections (i) and (j) of section 308 of the United
States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6207
(i) and (j)) are amended by striking ``Inspector General of
the Department of State and the Foreign Service'' each place
it appears and inserting ``Inspector General of the
Department of State''.
(d) Amendments to United States International Broadcasting
Act of 1994.--Section 304(a)(3)(A) of the United States
International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C.
6203(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``and the Foreign
Service''.

CHAPTER 2--PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SEC. 321. ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE STAR.

The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 is
amended by inserting after section 36 the following new
section:

``SEC. 36A. THE FOREIGN SERVICE STAR.

``(a) Authority.--The President may award a decoration
called the `Foreign Service Star' to an individual--
``(1) who is killed or injured after August 1, 1998,
``(2) whose death or injury occurs while the individual is
a member of the Foreign Service or a civilian employee of the
Government of the United States--
``(3) whose death or injury occurs while the individual--
``(A) is employed at, or assigned permanently or
temporarily to, an official mission overseas, or
``(B) was traveling abroad on official business, and
``(4) whose death or injury occurs while performing
official duties, while on the premises of a United States
mission abroad, or due to such individual's status as an
employee of the United States Government, and results from
any form of assault including terrorist or military action,
civil unrest, or criminal activities directed at facilities
of the Government of the United States.
``(b) Selection.--The Secretary shall submit
recommendations for the Foreign Service Star to the
President. The Secretary shall establish criteria and
procedures for nominations for the Foreign Service Star
pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe
for awards under this section.
``(c) Funding.--Any expenses incident to an award under
this section may be paid out of the applicable current
account of the agency with which the individual was or is
employed.
``(d) Posthumous Award.--A Foreign Service Star award to an
individual who is deceased shall be presented to the
individual's next of kin or representative, as designated by
the President.''.

SEC. 322. UNITED STATES CITIZENS HIRED ABROAD.

Section 408(a)(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 3968(a)(1)) is amended in the last sentence by
striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through ``(B)''.

SEC. 323. BORDER EQUALIZATION ADJUSTMENT.

Chapter 4 of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) is amended by adding the following new
section at the end:

``SEC. 414. BORDER EQUALIZATION ADJUSTMENT.

``(a) In General.--An employee who regularly commutes from
his or her place of residence in the continental United
States to an official duty station in Canada or Mexico shall
receive a border equalization adjustment equal to the amount
of comparability payments under section 5304 of title 5,
United States Code, that he or she would receive if assigned
to an official duty station within the United States locality
pay area closest to the employee's official duty station.
``(b) Definition of Employee.--For purposes of this
section, the term `employee' shall mean a person who--
``(1) is an `employee' as defined under section 2105 of
title 5, United States Code; and
``(2) is employed by the United States Department of State,
the United States Agency for International Development, or
the International Joint Commission, except that the term
shall not include members of the Foreign Service as defined
by section 103 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Public Law
96-465), section 3903 of title 22 of the United States Code.
``(c) Treatment as Basic Pay.--An equalization adjustment
payable under this section shall be considered basic pay for
the same purposes as are comparability payments under section
5304 of title 5, United States Code, and its implementing
regulations.
``(d) Regulations.--The agencies referenced in subsection
(b)(2) are authorized to promulgate regulations to carry out
the purposes of this section.''.

SEC. 324. TREATMENT OF GRIEVANCE RECORDS.

Section 1103(d)(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4133(d)(1)) is amended by adding the following new
sentence at the end: ``Nothing in this subsection shall
prevent a grievant from placing a rebuttal to accompany a
record of disciplinary action in such grievant's personnel
records nor prevent the Department from including a response
to such rebuttal, including documenting those cases in which
the Board has reviewed and upheld the discipline.''.

SEC. 325. REPORT CONCERNING FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that administrative and
technical personnel posted to United States missions abroad
who do not have diplomatic status suffer financial
disadvantages from their lack of such status.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees concerning
the extent to which administrative and technical personnel
posted to United States missions abroad who do not have
diplomatic status suffer financial disadvantages from their
lack of such status, including proposals to alleviate such
disadvantages.

SEC. 326. EXTENSION OF OVERSEAS HIRING AUTHORITY.

Section 202(a) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 3922(a)) is amended by inserting at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) When and to the extent the Secretary of State deems
it in the best interests of the United States Government, the
Secretary of State may authorize the head of any agency or
other Government establishment (including any establishment
in the legislative or judicial branch), to appoint pursuant
to section 303 individuals hired abroad as members of the
Service and to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system
under such regulations as the Secretary of State may
prescribe, provided that appointments of United States
citizens under this subsection shall be limited to
appointments authorized by section 311(a).''.

SEC. 327. MEDICAL EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.

Section 5927 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5927. Advances of pay

``(a) Up to three months' pay may be paid in advance--
``(1) to an employee upon the assignment of the employee to
a post in a foreign area;
``(2) to an employee, other than an employee appointed
under section 303 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (and
employed under section 311 of such Act), who--
``(A) is a citizen of the United States;
``(B) is officially stationed or located outside the United
States pursuant to Government authorization; and
``(C) requires (or has a family member who requires)
medical treatment outside the United States, in circumstances
specified by the President in regulations; and
``(3) to a foreign national employee appointed under
section 303 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, or a
nonfamily member United States citizen appointed under such
section 303 (and employed under section 311 of such Act) for
service at such nonfamily member's post of residence, who--
``(A) is located outside the country of employment of such
foreign national employee or nonfamily member (as the case
may be) pursuant to Government authorization; and
``(B) requires medical treatment outside the country of
employment of such foreign national employee or nonfamily
member (as the case may be), in circumstances specified by
the President in regulations.
``(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `country of
employment', as used with respect to an individual under
subsection (a)(3), means the country (or other area) outside
the United States where such individual is appointed (as
described in subsection (a)(3)) by the Government.''.

SEC. 328. FAMILIES OF DECEASED FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL.

Section 5922 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f)(1) If an employee dies at post in a foreign area, a
transfer allowance under section 5924(2)(B) may be granted to
the spouse or dependents of such employee (or both) for the
purpose of providing for their return to the United States.
``(2) A transfer allowance under this subsection may not be
granted with respect to the spouse or a dependent of the
employee unless, at the time of death, such spouse or
dependent was residing--

[[Page 16579]]

``(A) at the employee's post of assignment; or
``(B) at a place, outside the United States, for which a
separate maintenance allowance was being furnished under
section 5924(3).
``(3) The President may prescribe any regulations necessary
to carry out this subsection.''.

SEC. 329. PARENTAL CHOICE IN EDUCATION.

Section 5924(4) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``between that post and
the nearest locality where adequate schools are available,''
and inserting ``between that post and the school chosen by
the employee, not to exceed the total cost to the Government
of the dependent attending an adequate school in the nearest
locality where an adequate school is available,''; and
(2) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) In those cases in which an adequate school is
available at the post of the employee, if the employee
chooses to educate the dependent at a school away from post,
the education allowance which includes board and room, and
periodic travel between the post and the school chosen, shall
not exceed the total cost to the Government of the dependent
attending an adequate school at the post of the employee.''.

SEC. 330. WORKFORCE PLANNING FOR FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL BY
FEDERAL AGENCIES.

Section 601(c) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4001(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and
inserting the following:
``(4) Not later than March 1, 2001, and every four years
thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate which shall
include the following:
``(A) A description of the steps taken and planned in
furtherance of--
``(i) maximum compatibility among agencies utilizing the
Foreign Service personnel system, as provided for in section
203, and
``(ii) the development of uniform policies and procedures
and consolidated personnel functions, as provided for in
section 204.
``(B) A workforce plan for the subsequent five years,
including projected personnel needs, by grade and by skill.
Each such plan shall include for each category the needs for
foreign language proficiency, geographic and functional
expertise, and specialist technical skills. Each workforce
plan shall specifically account for the training needs of
Foreign Service personnel and shall delineate an intake
program of generalist and specialist Foreign Service
personnel to meet projected future requirements.
``(5) If there are substantial modifications to any
workforce plan under paragraph (4)(B) during any year in
which a report under paragraph (4) is not required, a
supplemental annual notification shall be submitted in the
same manner as is required under paragraph (4).''.

SEC. 331. COMPENSATION FOR SURVIVORS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS
OVERSEAS.

The Secretary of State shall examine the current benefit
structure for survivors of United States Government employees
who are killed while serving at United States diplomatic
facilities abroad as a result of terrorist acts. Such a
review shall include an examination of whether such benefits
are adequate, whether they are fair and equitably distributed
without regard to category of employment, and how they
compare to benefits available to survivors of other United
States Government employees serving overseas, including
noncivilian employees.

TITLE IV--UNITED STATES INFORMATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND CULTURAL
PROGRAMS

SEC. 401. EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGES AND SCHOLARSHIPS
FOR TIBETANS AND BURMESE.

(a) Designation of Ngawang Choephel Exchange Programs.--
Section 103(a) of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other
Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-319)
is amended by inserting after the first sentence the
following: ``Exchange programs under this subsection shall be
known as the `Ngawang Choephel Exchange Programs'.''.
(b) Scholarships for Tibetans and Burmese.--Section
103(b)(1) of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign
Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-319; 22
U.S.C. 2151 note) is amended by striking ``for the fiscal
year 1999'' and inserting ``for the fiscal year 2000''.

SEC. 402. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS.

Section 102 of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign
Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 2452 note) is
amended by striking ``Director'' and all that follows through
the period and inserting the following: ``Secretary of State,
with the assistance of the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy, shall--
``(1) include, as a substantial proportion of the
participants in such programs, nationals of such countries
who have demonstrated a commitment to freedom and democracy;
``(2) consult with human rights and democracy advocates
from such countries on the selection of participants and
grantees for such programs; and
``(3) select grantees for such programs only after a
competitive process in which proposals are solicited from
multiple applicants and in which important factors in the
selection of a grantee include the relative likelihood that
each of the competing applicants would be willing and able:
``(A) to identify and recruit as participants in the
program persons described in paragraph (1); and
``(B) in selecting participants who are associated with
governments or other institutions wielding power in countries
described in this section, to identify and recruit those most
likely to be open to freedom and democracy and to avoid
selecting those who are so firmly committed to the
suppression of freedom and democracy that their inclusion
could create an appearance that the United States condones
such suppression.''.

SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS OF GRANTS.

Section 705 of the United States Information and
Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1477c(b)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``705.''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal year,
the Secretary of State may not award any grant to carry out
the purposes of this Act until 45 days after written notice
has been provided to the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate of the intent to award such grant. In
determining whether to award a grant the Secretary shall
consider any objections or modifications raised in the course
of consultations with such committees.''.

SEC. 404. NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES.

The United States Information and Educational Exchange Act
of 1948 is amended by adding after section 1011 the following
new sections:

``national security measures

``Sec. 1012. In coordination with other appropriate
executive branch officals, the Secretary of State shall take
all appropriate steps to prevent foreign espionage agents
from participating in educational and cultural exchange
programs under this Act.

``proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

``Sec. 1013. The Secretary of State shall take all
appropriate steps to ensure that no individual, who is
employed by or attached to an office or department involved
with the research, development, or production of missiles or
weapons of mass destruction, from a country identified by the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the
National Security Agency, or the Department of Energy, as a
country involved in the proliferation of missiles or weapons
of mass destruction is a participant in any program of
educational or cultural exchange under this Act. Appropriate
steps under this section shall include prior consultation
with the Federal agencies designated in the first sentence
with respect to all prospective participants in such programs
with respect to whom there is a reasonable basis to believe
that such prospective participant may be employed by or
attached to an office or department identified under the
first sentence.''.

SEC. 405. DESIGNATION OF NORTH/SOUTH CENTER AS THE DANTE B.
FASCELL NORTH-SOUTH CENTER.

(a) Designation.--Section 208 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2075) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the `Dante
B. Fascell North-South Center Act of 1991'.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by amending the section heading to read as follows:
``Dante B. Fascell North-South Center.--''; and
(B) by striking ``known as the North/South Center,'' and
inserting ``which shall be known and designated as the Dante
B. Fascell North-South Center,''; and
(3) in subsection (d) by striking ``North/South Center''
and inserting ``Dante B. Fascell North-South Center''.
(b) References.--
(1) Center.--Any reference in any other provision of law to
the educational institution in Florida known as the North/
South Center shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dante
B. Fascell North-South Center''.
(2) Short title.--Any reference in any other provision of
law to the North/South Center Act of 1991 shall be deemed to
be a reference to the ``Dante B. Fascell North/South Center
Act of 1991''.

SEC. 406. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY.

Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (enacted as Division G of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999; Public Law 105-277)
is repealed.

SEC. 407. INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITIONS.

(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of
State may

[[Page 16580]]

not obligate or expend any funds for a United States
Government funded pavilion or other major exhibit at any
international exposition or world's fair registered by the
Bureau of International Expositions in excess of amounts
expressly authorized and appropriated for such purpose.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) The Department of State is authorized to utilize its
personnel and resources to carry out its responsibilities--
(A) under section 102(a)(3) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452(a)(3), to
provide for United States participation in international
fairs and expositions abroad;
(B) under section 105(f) of such Act with respect to
encouraging foreign governments, international organizations,
and private individuals, firms, associations, agencies and
other groups to participate in international fairs and
expositions and to make contributions to be utilized for
United States participation in international fairs and
expositions; and
(C) to encourage private support to the United States
Commissioner General for participation in international fairs
and expositions.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
authorizing the use of funds appropriated to the Department
of State to make payments for--
(A) contracts, grants, or other agreements with any other
party to carry out the activities described in this
subsection; or
(B) any legal judgment or the costs of litigation brought
against the Department of State arising from activities
described in this subsection.
(c) Repeal.--Section 230 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 2452
note) is repealed.

SEC. 408. ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY.

The Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps to
ensure that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
are not participants in any program of educational or
cultural exchange or training through the National Academy
Program at Quantico, Virginia, under the auspices of the
Department of State or the Federal Bureau of Investigation of
the Department of Justice unless the President certifies that
complete, independent, credible and transparent
investigations of the murders of defense attorneys Rosemary
Nelson and Patrick Finucane have been initiated by the
Government of the United Kingdom and that the Government has
taken appropriate steps to protect defense attorneys against
RUC harassment in Northern Ireland, in which case the
President may permit any program, exchange, or training set
forth herein.

TITLE V--INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

SEC. 501. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION FOR RADIO FREE ASIA.

(a) Repeal of Sunset Provision.--Section 309 of the United
States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C.
6208) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (g); and
(2) in subsection (d)(2) by striking ``Government,'' and
all that follows through the period and inserting
``Government.''.
(b) Repeal of Funding Limitations.--Section 309 of the
United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 is
further amended --
(1) in subsection (d) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5)
and by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (4); and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``the funding'' and all
that follows through the semicolon and inserting ``any
funding limitations under subsection (d);''; and
(B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``the funding'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``any funding
limitations under subsection (d).''.

SEC. 502. PRESERVATION OF RFE/RL (RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO
LIBERTY).

(a) Repeal of Privatization Policy Statement.--Section 312
of the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994
(22 U.S.C. 6211) is repealed.
(b) Increase in Limitation on Grant Amounts.--Section
308(c) of the United States International Broadcasting Act of
1994 (22 U.S.C. 6207(c)) is amended by striking
``$75,000,000'' and inserting ``$80,000,000''.

SEC. 503. IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BROADCASTING
BOARD OF GOVERNORS.

Section 304 of the United States International Broadcasting
Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6203) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(g) Immunity From Civil Liability.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997
shall apply to the members of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors when acting in their capacities as members of the
boards of directors of RFE/RL, Incorporated and Radio Free
Asia.''.

TITLE VI--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMISSIONS

SEC. 601. INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUPS.

(a) American Delegations to Conferences.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, whenever either the House of
Representatives or the Senate does not appoint its allotment
of members as part of the American delegation or group to a
conference or assembly of the British-American
Interparliamentary Group, the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the Mexico-United States
Interparliamentary Group, the North Atlantic Assembly, or any
similar interparliamentary group of which the United States
is a member or participates and so notifies the other body of
Congress, the other body may make appointments to complete
the membership of the American delegation. Any appointment
pursuant to this section shall be for the period of such
conference or assembly and the body of Congress making such
an appointment shall be responsible for the expenses of any
member so appointed. Any such appointment shall be made in
same manner in which other appointments to the delegation by
such body of Congress are made.
(b) Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue.--Section 109(c) of
the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984
and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 276 note) is amended by striking ``United
States-European Community Interparliamentary Group'' and
inserting ``Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue (United
States-European Union Interparliamentary Group)''.

SEC. 602. AUTHORITY TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

(a) Authority.--The Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission may provide
technical tests, evaluations, information, surveys, or others
similar services to State or local governments upon the
request of such State or local government on a reimbursable
basis.
(b) Reimbursements.--Reimbursements shall be paid in
advance of the goods or services ordered and shall be for the
estimated or actual cost as determined by the U.S. Section of
the International Boundary and Water Commission. Proper
adjustment of amounts paid in advance shall be made as agreed
to by the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and
Water Commission on the basis of the actual cost of goods or
services provided. Reimbursements received by the U.S.
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission
for providing services under this section shall be credited
to the appropriation from which the cost of providing the
services will be charged.

SEC. 603. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION.

(a) Expanded Authority to Receive Payments.--Section 2(b)
of the American-Mexican Chamizal Convention Act of 1964
(Public Law 88-300; 22 U.S.C. 277d-18(b)) is amended by
inserting ``operations, maintenance, and'' after ``cost of''.

SEC. 604. CONCERNING UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
RESOLUTION ES-10/6.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In an Emergency Special Session, the United Nations
General Assembly voted on February 9, 1999, to pass
Resolution ES-10/6, Illegal Israeli Actions In Occupied East
Jerusalem And The Rest Of The Occupied Palestinian Territory,
to convene for the first time in 50 years the parties of the
Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in
Time of War.
(2) Such resolution unfairly places full blame for the
deterioration of the Middle East Peace Process on Israel and
dangerously politicizes the Geneva Convention, which was
established to deal with critical humanitarian crises.
(3) Such vote is intended to prejudge direct negotiations,
put added and undue pressure on Israel to influence the
results of those negotiations, and single out Israel for
unprecedented enforcement proceedings which have never been
invoked against governments with records of massive
violations of the Geneva Convention.
(b) Congressional Statement of Policy.--The Congress--
(1) commends the Department of State for the vote of the
United States against United Nations General Assembly
Resolution ES-10/6 affirming that the text of such resolution
politicizes the Fourth Geneva Convention which was primarily
humanitarian in nature; and
(2) urges the Department of State to continue its efforts
against convening the conference.

TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR
DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS IN CUBA.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the United States should increase its support to
democracy and human rights activists in Cuba, providing
assistance with the same intensity and decisiveness with
which it supported the pro-democracy movements in Eastern
Europe during the Cold War; and
(2) the United States should substantially increase funding
for programs and activities under section 109 of the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6021
et seq.) designed to support democracy and human rights
activists and others in Cuba who are committed to peaceful
and democratic change on the island.

SEC. 702. RELATING TO CYPRUS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:

[[Page 16581]]

(1) At the urging of the United States Government, the
Republic of Cyprus refrained from exercising that country's
sovereign right to self-defense, a right fully recognized by
the United States Government and by Article 51 of the Charter
of the United Nations, and canceled the deployment on Cyprus
of defensive antiaircraft missiles.
(2) In close cooperation with the United States Government
and the Government of Greece, Cyprus rerouted the missiles to
the Greek island of Crete.
(3) This extraordinarily conciliatory and courageous action
was taken in the interest of peace.
(4) With this action, the Republic of Cyprus displayed its
full compliance with the recently adopted United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 1217 and 1218 which address the
Cyprus issue, demonstrated its support for President Bill
Clinton's December 22, 1998, commitment to ``take all
necessary steps to support a sustained effort to implement
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1218'', and
continued its efforts of the last 25 years to take
substantive steps to reduce tensions and move toward a Cyprus
settlement.
(5) The Republic of Cyprus has no navy, air force, or army
and faces one of the world's largest and most sophisticated
military forces, just minutes away, in Turkey, as well as an
area described by the United Nations Secretary General as,
``one of the most densely militarized areas in the world'' in
the Turkish-occupied area of northern Cyprus.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) in light of this and other similar extraordinary
actions taken by the Republic of Cyprus, as well as the
importance of a Cyprus settlement to American security and
other interests, the United States should do all that is
possible to bring about commensurate actions by Turkey;
(2) the time has come for the United States to expect from
Turkey actions on the Cyprus issue in the interest of peace,
including steps in conformity with United States proposals
concerning Cyprus and in compliance with provisions contained
in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1217 and 1218;
and
(3) such an effort would also be in the best interest of
the people of Turkey, as well as in the interest of all
others involved.

The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall
be in order to consider the first amendment printed in part A of House
Report 106-235 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)
or his designee. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment.

{time} 1600

No further amendment shall be in order except those printed in the
report and amendments en bloc described in section 2 of House
Resolution 247. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc
consisting of amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier
disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment.
The amendments en bloc shall be considered read, except that
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member, or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gilman

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Gilman:
Page 4, after line 9, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED PROVISIONS
Page 12, line 4, before the period insert ``and for
returned or returning refugees, displaced persons, and other
victims of the humanitarian crisis within Kosovo''.
Page 15, strike lines 1 through 16, and insert the
following:
(4) National endowment for democracy.--For the ``National
Endowment for Democracy'', $32,000,000 for the fiscal year
2000.
(5) Reagan-fascell democracy fellows.--For a fellowship
program, to be known as the ``Reagan-Fascell Democracy
Fellows'', for democracy activists and scholars from around
the world at the International Forum for Democratic Studies
in Washington, D.C., to study, write, and exchange views with
other activists and scholars and with Americans, $2,000,000
for the fiscal year 2000.
Page 17, after line 14, insert the following:
(5) UNICEF.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
under subsection (a), $110,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000
is authorized to be appropriated only for a United States
contribution to UNICEF.
Page 21, line 25, strike ``such sums as may be necessary''
and insert ``$15,000,000''.
Page 56, strike line 16.
Page 67, after line 22, insert the following new section:

SEC. 332. PRESERVATION OF DIVERSITY IN REORGANIZATION.

Section 1613(c) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``changed.'' and inserting
``changed, nor shall the relative positions of women and
minorities in the administrative structures of the agencies
subject to this section be adversely affected as a result of
such transfers.''.
Page 68, strike line 21, and all that follows through line
4 on page 70 and insert the following:

SEC. 402. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS.

Section 102 of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign
Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 2452 note) is
amended by striking ``Director'' and all that follows through
the period and inserting the following: ``Secretary of State,
with the assistance of the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy, shall--
``(1) include, as a significant proportion of the
participants in such programs, nationals of such countries
who the Secretary has reason to believe are committed to
freedom and democracy;
``(2) consult with human rights and democracy advocates
from such countries on the inclusion of participants and
grantee organizations for such programs;
``(3) take all appropriate steps to ensure that inclusion
in such programs does not compromise the personal safety of
participants; and
``(4) select grantee organizations for such programs
through an open, competitive process in which proposals are
solicited from multiple applicants and in which important
factors inthe selection of a grantee include the relative
likelihood that each of the competing applicants would be
willing and able--
``(A) to recruit as participants in the program persons
described in paragraph (1); and
``(B) in selecting participants who are associated with
governments or other institutions wielding power in countries
described in this section, to recruit those most likely to be
open to an understanding of the principles of freedom and
democracy, and to avoid--
``(i) giving such governments inappropriate influence in
the selection process; and
``(ii) selecting those who are so firmly committed to the
suppression of freedom and democracy that their inclusion
could create an appearance that the United States condones
such suppression.''.
Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
DIVISION B--SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS

SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Security Assistance Act
of 1999''.
TITLE XI--TRANSFERS OF EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES

SEC. 1101. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CENTRAL EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES.

Section 105 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 1427) is
amended by striking ``1996 and 1997'' and inserting ``2000
and 2001''.

[[Page 16582]]

SEC. 1102. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT
STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

(a) Uses For Which Funds Are Available.--Notwithstanding
section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321j(e)), during each of the fiscal years 2000 and
2001, funds available to the Department of Defense may be
expended for crating, packing, handling, and transportation
of excess defense articles transferred under the authority of
section 516 of that Act to Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
(b) Content of Congressional Notification.--Each
notification required to be submitted under section 516(f) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(f)) with
respect to a proposed transfer of a defense article described
in subsection (a) shall include an estimate of the amount of
funds to be expended under subsection (a) with respect to
that transfer.
TITLE XII--FOREIGN MILITARY SALES AUTHORITIES

SEC. 1201. TERMINATION OF FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCED TRAINING.

Section 617 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2367) is amended--
(1) by inserting in the second sentence ``and the Arms
Export Control Act'' after ``under this Act'' the first place
it appears;
(2) by striking ``under this Act'' the second place it
appears; and
(3) by inserting in the third sentence ``and under the Arms
Export Control Act'' after ``this Act''.

SEC. 1202. SALES OF EXCESS COAST GUARD PROPERTY.

Section 21(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2761(a)(1)) is amended in the text above subparagraph (A) by
inserting ``and the Coast Guard'' after ``Department of
Defense''.

SEC. 1203. COMPETITIVE PRICING FOR SALES OF DEFENSE ARTICLES.

Section 22(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2762(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Procurement contracts'' and inserting
``(1) Procurement contracts''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Direct costs associated with meeting additional or
unique requirements of the purchaser shall be allowable under
contracts described in paragraph (1). Loadings applicable to
such direct costs shall be permitted at the same rates
applicable to procurement of like items purchased by the
Department of Defense for its own use.''.

SEC. 1204. REPORTING OF OFFSET AGREEMENTS.

(a) Government-to-Government Sales.--Section 36(b)(1) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)) is amended
in the fourth sentence by striking ``(if known on the date of
transmittal of such certification)'' and inserting ``and, if
known on the date of transmittal of such certification, a
description of the offset agreement. Such description may be
included in the classified portion of such numbered
certification''.
(b) Commercial Sales.--Section 36(c)(1) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)(1)) is amended in the second
sentence by striking ``(if known on the date of transmittal
of such certification)'' and inserting ``and, if known on the
date of transmittal of such certification, a description of
the offset agreement. Such description may be included in the
classified portion of such numbered certification''.

SEC. 1205. NOTIFICATION OF UPGRADES TO DIRECT COMMERCIAL
SALES.

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) The provisions of subsection (b)(5) shall apply to
any equipment, article, or service for which a numbered
certification has been transmitted to Congress pursuant to
paragraph (1) in the same manner and to the same extent as
that subsection applies to any equipment, article, or service
for which a numbered certification has been transmitted to
Congress pursuant to subsection (b)(1). For purposes of such
application, any reference in subsection (b)(5) to `a letter
of offer' or `an offer' shall be deemed to be a reference to
`a contract'.''.

SEC. 1206. EXPANDED PROHIBITION ON INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 39A(a) of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2779a(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or licensed'' after ``sold''; and
(2) by inserting ``or export'' after ``sale''.
(b) Definition of United States Person.--Section
39A(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2779a(d)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``or by an entity
described in clause (i)'' after ``subparagraph (A)''.

SEC. 1207. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR LEASING OF DEFENSE
ARTICLES.

Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2796(a)) is amended in paragraph (4) of the first sentence by
inserting after ``including reimbursement for depreciation of
such articles while leased,'' the following: ``a fee for the
administrative services associated with processing such
leasing,''.
TITLE XIII--STOCKPILING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES

SEC. 1301. ADDITIONS TO UNITED STATES WAR RESERVE STOCKPILES
FOR ALLIES.

Paragraph (2) of section 514(b) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h(b)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2)(A) The value of such additions to stockpiles of
defense articles in foreign countries shall not exceed
$340,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $60,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000.
``(B)(i) Of the amount specified in subparagraph (A) for
fiscal year 1999, not more than $320,000,000 may be made
available for stockpiles in the Republic of Korea and not
more than $20,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in
Thailand.
``(ii) Of the amount specified in subparagraph (A) for
fiscal year 2000, not more than $40,000,000 may be made
available for stockpiles in the Republic of Korea and not
more than $20,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in
Thailand.''.

SEC. 1302. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE OR SURPLUS DEFENSE
ARTICLES IN THE WAR RESERVES STOCKPILE FOR
ALLIES.

(a) Items in the Korean Stockpile.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h), the President is
authorized to transfer to the Republic of Korea, in return
for concessions to be negotiated by the Secretary of Defense,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, any or all of
the items described in paragraph (2).
(2) Covered items.--The items referred to in paragraph (1)
are munitions, equipment, and material such as tanks, trucks,
artillery, mortars, general purpose bombs, repair parts,
ammunition, barrier material, and ancillary equipment, if
such items are--
(A) obsolete or surplus items;
(B) in the inventory of the Department of Defense;
(C) intended for use as reserve stocks for the Republic of
Korea; and
(D) as of the date of enactment of this Act, located in a
stockpile in the Republic of Korea.
(b) Items in the Thailand Stockpile.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h), the President is
authorized to transfer to Thailand, in return for concessions
to be negotiated by the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, any or all of the
items in the WRS-T stockpile described in paragraph (2).
(2) Covered items.--The items referred to in paragraph (1)
are munitions, equipment, and material such as tanks, trucks,
artillery, mortars, general purpose bombs, repair parts,
ammunition, barrier material, and ancillary equipment, if
such items are--
(A) obsolete or surplus items;
(B) in the inventory of the Department of Defense;
(C) intended for use as reserve stocks for Thailand; and
(D) as of the date of enactment of this Act, located in a
stockpile in Thailand.
(c) Valuation of Concessions.--The value of concessions
negotiated pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall be at
least equal to the fair market value of the items
transferred. The concessions may include cash compensation,
services, waiver of charges otherwise payable by the United
States, and other items of value.
(d) Prior Notifications of Proposed Transfers.--Not less 30
days before making a transfer under the authority of this
section, the President shall transmit to the chairmen of the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives a detailed notification of the proposed
transfer, which shall include an identification of the items
to be transferred and the concessions to be received.
(e) Termination of Authority.--No transfer may be made
under the authority of this section more than three years
after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE XIV--INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES CODE OF CONDUCT ACT OF 1999

SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``International Arms Sales
Code of Conduct Act of 1999''.

SEC. 1402. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) The proliferation of conventional arms and conflicts
around the globe are multilateral problems. The only way to
effectively prevent rogue nations from acquiring conventional
weapons is through a multinational ``arms sales code of
conduct''.
(2) Approximately 40,000,000 people, over 75 percent of
whom were civilians, died as a result of civil and
international wars fought with conventional weapons during
the 45 years of the cold war, demonstrating that conventional
weapons can in fact be weapons of mass destruction.
(3) Conflict has actually increased in the post cold war
era.
(4) It is in the national security and economic interests
of the United States to reduce dramatically the
$840,000,000,000 that all countries spend on armed forces
every year, $191,000,000,000 of which is spent by developing
countries, an amount equivalent to 4 times the total
bilateral and multilateral foreign assistance such countries
receive every year.
(5) The Congress has the constitutional responsibility to
participate with the executive branch in decisions to provide
military assistance and arms transfers to a foreign

[[Page 16583]]

government, and in the formulation of a policy designed to
reduce dramatically the level of international
militarization.
(6) A decision to provide military assistance and arms
transfers to a government that is undemocratic, does not
adequately protect human rights, or is currently engaged in
acts of armed aggression should require a higher level of
scrutiny than does a decision to provide such assistance and
arms transfers to a government to which these conditions do
not apply.

SEC. 1403. INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES CODE OF CONDUCT.

(a) Negotiations.--The President shall attempt to achieve
the foreign policy goal of an international arms sales code
of conduct with all Wassenaar Arrangement countries. The
President shall take the necessary steps to begin
negotiations with all Wassenaar Arrangement countries within
120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The
purpose of these negotiations shall be to conclude an
agreement on restricting or prohibiting arms transfers to
countries that do not meet the following criteria:
(1) Promotes democracy.--The government of the country--
(A) was chosen by and permits free and fair elections;
(B) promotes civilian control of the military and security
forces and has civilian institutions controlling the policy,
operation, and spending of all law enforcement and security
institutions, as well as the armed forces;
(C) promotes the rule of law, equality before the law, and
respect for individual and minority rights, including freedom
to speak, publish, associate, and organize; and
(D) promotes the strengthening of political, legislative,
and civil institutions of democracy, as well as autonomous
institutions to monitor the conduct of public officials and
to combat corruption.
(2) Respects human rights.--The government of the country--
(A) does not engage in gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights, including--
(i) extra judicial or arbitrary executions;
(ii) disappearances;
(iii) torture or severe mistreatment;
(iv) prolonged arbitrary imprisonment;
(v) systematic official discrimination on the basis of
race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, or
political affiliation; and
(vi) grave breaches of international laws of war or
equivalent violations of the laws of war in internal
conflicts;
(B) vigorously investigates, disciplines, and prosecutes
those responsible for gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights;
(C) permits access on a regular basis to political
prisoners by international humanitarian organizations such as
the International Committee of the Red Cross;
(D) promotes the independence of the judiciary and other
official bodies that oversee the protection of human rights;
(E) does not impede the free functioning of domestic and
international human rights organizations; and
(F) provides access on a regular basis to humanitarian
organizations in situations of conflict or famine.
(3) Not engaged in certain acts of armed aggression.--The
government of the country is not currently engaged in acts of
armed aggression in violation of international law.
(4) Full participation in united nations register of
conventional arms.--The government of the country is fully
participating in the United Nations Register of Conventional
Arms.
(b) Reports to Congress.--(1) In the report required in
sections 116(d) and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, the Secretary of State shall describe the extent to
which the practices of each country evaluated meet the
criteria in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a).
(2) Not later than 6 months after the commencement of the
negotiations under subsection (a), and not later than the end
of every 6-month period thereafter until an agreement
described in subsection (a) is concluded, the President shall
report to the appropriate committees of the Congress on the
progress made during these negotiations.
(c) Definition.--The term ``Wassenaar Arrangement
countries'' means Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United
Kingdom.
TITLE XV--AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT INDIA AND PAKISTAN FROM CERTAIN SANCTIONS

SEC. 1501. WAIVER AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
President may waive, with respect to India or Pakistan, the
application of any sanction or prohibition (or portion
thereof) contained in section 101 or 102 of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa or 2799aa-1), section 620E(e)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2375(e)), or
section 2(b)(4) of the Export Import Bank Act of 1945 (12
U.S.C. 635(b)(4)).
(2) Effective date.--A waiver of the application of a
sanction or prohibition (or portion thereof) under paragraph
(1) shall be effective only for a period ending on or before
September 30, 2000.
(b) Exception.--The authority to waive the application of a
sanction or prohibition (or portion thereof) under subsection
(a) shall not apply with respect to a sanction or prohibition
contained in subparagraph (B), (C), or (G) of section
102(b)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act.
(c) Notification.--A waiver of the application of a
sanction or prohibition (or portion thereof) contained in
section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not
become effective until 15 days after notice of such waiver
has been reported to the congressional committees specified
in section 634A(a) of such Act in accordance with the
procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under
that section.

SEC. 1502. CONSULTATION.

Prior to each exercise of the authority provided in section
1501, the President shall consult with the appropriate
congressional committees.

SEC. 1503. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Not later than August 31, 2000, the Secretary of State
shall prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on economic and national security
developments in India and Pakistan.

SEC. 1504. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

In this title, the term ``appropriate congressional
committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives;
and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
TITLE XVI--TRANSFER OF NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

SEC. 1601. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER NAVAL VESSELS.

(a) Dominican Republic.--The Secretary of the Navy is
authorized to transfer to the Government of the Dominican
Republic the medium auxiliary floating dry dock AFDM 2. Such
transfer shall be on a grant basis under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(b) Ecuador.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Ecuador the ``OAK RIDGE'' class
medium auxiliary repair dry dock ALAMOGORDO (ARDM 2). Such
transfer shall be on a sales basis under section 21 of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761).
(c) Egypt.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Egypt the ``NEWPORT'' class
tank landing ships BARBOUR COUNTY (LST 1195) and PEORIA (LST
1183). Such transfers shall be on a sales basis under section
21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761).
(d) Greece.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Greece the ``KNOX'' class
frigate CONNOLE (FF 1056). Such transfer shall be on a grant
basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(2) The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to
the Government of Greece the medium auxiliary floating dry
dock COMPETENT (AFDM 6). Such transfer shall be on a sales
basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2761).
(e) Mexico.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Mexico the ``NEWPORT'' class
tank landing ship NEWPORT (LST 1179) and the ``KNOX'' class
frigate WHIPPLE (FF 1062). Such transfers shall be on a sales
basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2761).
(f) Poland.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Poland the ``OLIVER HAZARD
PERRY'' class guided missile frigate CLARK (FFG 11). Such
transfer shall be on a grant basis under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(g) Taiwan.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative
Office in the United States (which is the Taiwan
instrumentality designated pursuant to section 10(a) of the
Taiwan Relations Act) the ``NEWPORT'' class tank landing ship
SCHENECTADY (LST 1185). Such transfer shall be on a sales
basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2761).
(h) Thailand.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Thailand the ``KNOX'' class
frigate TRUETT (FF 1095). Such transfer shall be on a grant
basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(i) Turkey.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to
transfer to the Government of Turkey the ``OLIVER HAZARD
PERRY'' class guided missile frigates FLATLEY (FFG 21) and
JOHN A. MOORE (FFG 19). Such transfers shall be on a sales
basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2761).

SEC. 1602. INAPPLICABILITY OF AGGREGATE ANNUAL LIMITATION ON
VALUE OF TRANSFERRED EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

The value of a vessel transferred to another country on a
grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) pursuant to authority provided

[[Page 16584]]

by section 1601 shall not be counted for the purposes of
section 516(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in the
aggregate value of excess defense articles transferred to
countries under that section in any fiscal year.

SEC. 1603. COSTS OF TRANSFERS.

Any expense incurred by the United States in connection
with a transfer of a vessel authorized by section 1601 shall
be charged to the recipient.

SEC. 1604. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority to transfer vessels under section 1601 shall
expire at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 1605. REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT OF VESSELS IN UNITED
STATES SHIPYARDS.

The Secretary of the Navy shall require, to the maximum
extent possible, as a condition of a transfer of a vessel
under section 1601, that the country to which the vessel is
transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel
as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of
that country, performed at a shipyard located in the United
States, including a United States Navy shipyard.

SEC. 1606. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO TRANSFER OF
NAVAL VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHILIPPINES.

(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the President should transfer to the Government of the
Philippines, on a grant basis under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j), the excess
defense articles described in subsection (b); and
(2) the United States should not oppose the transfer of F-5
aircraft by a third country to the Government of the
Philippines.
(b) Excess Defense Articles.--The excess defense articles
described in this subsection are the following:
(1) UH-1 helicopters, A-4 aircraft, and the ``POINT'' class
Coast Guard cutter POINT EVANS.
(2) Amphibious landing craft, naval patrol vessels
(including patrol vessels of the Coast Guard), and other
naval vessels (such as frigates), if such vessels are
available.
TITLE XVII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 1701. ANNUAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE REPORTS.

Section 655(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2415(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Information Relating to Military Assistance and
Military Exports.--Each such report shall show the aggregate
dollar value and quantity of defense articles (including
excess defense articles), defense services, and international
military education and training activities authorized by the
United States and of such articles, services, and activities
provided by the United States, excluding any activity that is
reportable under title V of the National Security Act of
1947, to each foreign country and international organization.
The report shall specify, by category, whether such defense
articles--
``(1) were furnished by grant under chapter 2 or chapter 5
of part II of this Act or under any other authority of law or
by sale under chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act;
``(2) were furnished with the financial assistance of the
United States Government, including through loans and
guarantees; or
``(3) were licensed for export under section 38 of the Arms
Export Control Act.''.

SEC. 1702. PUBLICATION OF ARMS SALES CERTIFICATIONS.

Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776)
is amended in the second subsection (e) (as added by section
155 of Public Law 104-164)--
(1) by inserting ``in a timely manner'' after ``to be
published''; and
(2) by striking ``the full unclassified text of'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``the full
unclassified text of--
``(1) each numbered certification submitted pursuant to
subsection (b);
``(2) each notification of a proposed commercial sale
submitted under subsection (c); and
``(3) each notification of a proposed commercial technical
assistance or manufacturing licensing agreement submitted
under subsection (d).''.

SEC. 1703. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL EXPORT OF
SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT ON UNITED STATES
MUNITIONS LIST.

(a) Notification Requirement.--Section 38 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(i) As prescribed in regulations issued under this
section, a United States person to whom a license has been
granted to export an item identified as significant military
equipment on the United States Munitions List shall, not
later than 15 days after the item is exported, submit to the
Department of State a report containing all shipment
information, including a description of the item and the
quantity, value, port of exit, and destination of the
item.''.
(b) Quarterly Reports to Congress.--Section 36(a) of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking ``third-party
transfers.'' and inserting ``third-party transfers; and'';
and
(C) by adding after paragraph (12) (but before the last
sentence of the subsection), the following:
``(13) a report on all exports of significant military
equipment for which information has been provided pursuant to
section 38(i).''.

SEC. 1704. ENFORCEMENT OF ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.

The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) is
amended in sections 38(e), 39A(c), and 40(k) by inserting
after ``except that'' each place it appears the following:
``section 11(c)(2)(B) of such Act shall not apply, and
instead, as prescribed in regulations issued under this
section, the Secretary of State may assess civil penalties
for violations of this Act and regulations prescribed
thereunder and further may commence a civil action to recover
such civil penalties, and except further that''.

SEC. 1705. VIOLATIONS RELATING TO MATERIAL SUPPORT TO
TERRORISTS.

Section 38(g)(1)(A)(iii) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2778(g)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended by adding at the end
before the comma the following: ``or section 2339A of such
title (relating to providing material support to
terrorists)''.

SEC. 1706. AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO THIRD PARTY TRANSFER OF
EX-U.S.S. BOWMAN COUNTY TO USS LST SHIP
MEMORIAL, INC.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is the long-standing policy of the United States
Government to deny requests for the retransfer of significant
military equipment that originated in the United States to
private entities.
(2) In very exceptional circumstances, when the United
States public interest would be served by the proposed
retransfer and end-use, such requests may be favorably
considered.
(3) Such retransfers to private entities have been
authorized in very exceptional circumstances following
appropriate demilitarization and receipt of assurances from
the private entity that the item to be transferred would be
used solely in furtherance of Federal Government contracts or
for static museum display.
(4) Nothing in this section should be construed as a
revision of long-standing policy referred to in paragraph
(1).
(5) The Government of Greece has requested the consent of
the United States Government to the retransfer of HS Rodos
(ex-U.S.S. Bowman County (LST 391)) to the USS LST Ship
Memorial, Inc.
(b) Authority To Consent to Retransfer.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President
may consent to the retransfer by the Government of Greece of
HS Rodos (ex-U.S.S. Bowman County (LST 391)) to the USS LST
Ship Memorial, Inc.
(2) Conditions for consent.--The President should not
exercise the authority under paragraph (1) unless USS LST
Memorial, Inc.--
(A) utilizes the vessel for public, nonprofit, museum-
related purposes;
(B) submits a certification with the import application
that no firearms frames or receivers, ammunition, or other
firearms as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms
Act (26 U.S.C. 5845) will be imported with the vessel; and
(C) complies with regulatory policy requirements related to
the facilitation of monitoring by the Federal Government of,
and the mitigation of potential environmental hazards
associated with, aging vessels, and has a demonstrated
financial capability to so comply.

SEC. 1707. EXCEPTIONS RELATING TO PROHIBITIONS ON ASSISTANCE
TO COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN TRANSFER OR USE OF
NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 2 of the Agriculture Export Relief
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-194; 112 Stat. 627) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d); and
(2) by striking the second sentence of subsection (e).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act or
September 30, 1999, whichever occurs earlier.

SEC. 1708. CONTINUATION OF THE EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS
UNDER IEEPA.

To the extent that the President exercises the authorities
of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to carry
out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979
in order to continue in full force and effect the export
control system maintained by the Export Administration
regulations issued under that Act, including regulations
issued under section 8 of that Act, the following shall
apply:
(1) The penalties for violations of the regulations
continued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act shall be the same as the penalties for violations
under section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
if that section were amended--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
whoever knowingly violates

[[Page 16585]]

or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of this
Act or any license, order, or regulation issued under this
Act--
``(1) except in the case of an individual, shall be fined
not more than $500,000 or 5 times the value of any exports
involved, whichever is greater; and
``(2) in the case of an individual, shall be fined not more
than $250,000 or 5 times the value of any exports involved,
whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by striking ``five
times'' and inserting ``10 times'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$500,000''; and
(iii) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking ``$250,000, or
imprisoned not more than 5 years'' and inserting ``$500,000,
or imprisoned not more than 10 years'';
(C) in subsection (c)(1)--
(i) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``except that the civil penalty'' and all
that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting
``except that the civil penalty for a violation of the
regulations issued pursuant to section 8 may not exceed
$50,000.''; and
(D) in subsection (h)(1), by inserting after ``Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778)'' the following: ``section 16 of
the Trading with the enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 16), or, to the
extent the violation involves the export of goods or
technology controlled under this or any other Act or defense
articles or defense services controlled under the Arms Export
Control Act, section 371 or 1001 of title 18, United States
Code,''.
(2) The authorities set forth in section 12(a) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979 may be exercised in
carrying out the regulations continued pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
(3) The provisions of sections 12(c) and 13 of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 shall apply in carrying out the
regulations continued pursuant to the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
(4) The continuation of the provisions of the Export
Administration Regulations pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act shall not be construed as not
having satisfied the requirements of that Act.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan, noncontroversial amendment put
together in conjunction with the ranking minority member on the
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson), and the ranking minority member on the subcommittee on
international operations and human rights, the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Ms. McKinney).
This amendment makes technical corrections. It provides $110 million
for the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Children's fund, UNICEF. It
authorizes $15 million for a grant to the Asia Foundation. It amends
the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 to provide
that personnel transfers from the agencies being consolidated into the
State Department shall not adversely affect the relative positions of
women and minorities.
This amendment also modifies section 402 of H.R. 2415 which requires
the inclusion of persons committed to democracy in U.S. international
exchange programs.
The amendment also requires periodic reports on the investigation
into the March 1997 grenade attack in Cambodia that killed 17 democracy
activists.
Finally, the amendment adds a new division B, the Security Assistance
Act of 1999. This provision is identical to H.R. 973 which passed the
House under suspension of the rules on June 15, 1999. It modifies
authorities with respect to the provision of security assistance. These
provisions address the transfer of excess defense articles, the foreign
military sales program, new reporting requirements for offset
agreements associated with arms transfers, and ensuring the Department
of Defense charges foreign customers for the administrative costs of
processing leases.
Accordingly, I urge Members to support this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, while not in opposition, I ask unanimous
consent to have the time allotted in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I join the chairman in supporting this en bloc amendment.
There are a number of important provisions here. One that I am
particularly interested in, of course, is the multilateral code of
conduct to get this administration to take a lead in establishing some
controls on arms proliferation. The world is not made safer when
particularly poor, impoverished countries are entered into arms races
time and time again, increasing the volatility and diverting important
resources from the needs of their own people and feeding and educating
them. So I think that is a particularly important amendment.
I also think the waiver authority of the Glenn amendment sanctions is
particularly important. India and Pakistan are two important countries.
We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem and we have to
find a way to engage particularly the Indians, the world's most
populous democracy.
The increased penalties in the Export Administration Act of 1979 are
important. Some of these fines are so antiquated that it is frankly
cheaper for many companies to take the fines even if they know they are
violating the rules then under the present regime. Increasing these
fines will make at least the fines be a deterrent.
This amendment is an important amendment. There are a number of other
critical provisions in this bill. I join with the chairman for its
passage.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for Section 274 of ``The State Department Authorization Act''.
This section seeks to resolve the serious problems in our refugee
programs in Vietnam. Serious problems that many of my constituents face
on a daily basis.
In my hand I hold copies of hundreds of unresolved constituent cases.
My constituents are facing situations which none of us in this chamber
would ever want to face.
Many refugees resettled in Orange County without their children and
have not been able to re-unite with their loved ones because the INS
refuses to reconsider their cases.
This section would correct this situation. This section also calls
for the retention of the JVA as an advocate for refugees.
As many of you know, this organization has been most helpful in
helping applications in Viet Nam overcome the communist bureaucracy and
rampant corruption.
I recently traveled to Viet Nam and met with U.S. consular officials
and Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel who participate in
the refugee programs. I discussed with them the problems many
individuals face including: bribery, corruption and extortion. I
expressed to them my support of the recommendations offered in Section
274.
I urge my colleagues to support this effort and vote ``yes'' on
Section 274.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for a
provision in this bill of great importance to the future of U.S. public
diplomacy. This legislation reestablishes the U.S. Advisory Commission
on Public Diplomacy, an important bipartisan, advisory and oversight
committee responsible for the promotion and improvement of U.S.
international information and exchange programs.
In particular, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Chris Smith), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on International Organizations and Human Rights for his
support and hard work to reestablish the advisory commission. I also
thank the other Members of the Committee for their continued support
and recognition that public diplomacy is an integral component of our
foreign policy objectives.
Mr. Chairman, the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, which is
currently part of the U.S. Information Agency--is bipartisan and
presidentially-appointed, with the consent of the U.S. Senate. Its
membership has included distinguished Americans like Father Ted
Hesburgh, George Gallup, William F. Buckley, Frank Stanton and James
Michener, who have all served without compensation save travel
reimbursements.
Before USIA was created and when the overseas information and
cultural programs were still located in the State Department, Congress
decided in the Smith-Mundt Act that distinguished Americans be asked to
provide ``great constructive value to the Secretary of

[[Page 16586]]

State and the Congress in the best development of public relations
programs in the foreign relations of the United States .'' I strongly
believe this policy remains relevant today more than ever.
Currently, the advisory commission has a budget of less than $500,000
and it has returned an average of $75,000 to the taxpayers in each of
the last three years. Certainly, American taxpayers are getting their
money's worth. For more than 50 years, the advisory commission and its
predecessor bodies have issued several intelligent and thoughtful
reports in which relevant public diplomacy issues have been examined
and recommendations delivered to the American public, the Congress and
the U.S. Information Agency, which will be merged into the Department
of State later this year.
For example, the advisory commission helped USIA expand its research
and program evaluation to target information to women's and labor
groups abroad during the 1960s and 1970s. Furthermore, it helped
improve Voice of America programming and signal delivery, in addition
to direct broadcast satellite research. Without question, the advisory
commission's contributions in these areas have gone a long way to help
the United States communicate its message to the rest of the world
regarding democracy, human rights, free market principles, as well as
other traditional American values.
In the 1980s, the commission broke new ground when it released a
special report entitled ``Terrorism and Security: The Challenge for
Public Diplomacy,'' which recommended ways to make the difficult and
dedicate balance between the need to protect our diplomats and overseas
installations and the need to reach out to overseas publics. It has
done so again in the 1990s by focusing on a new diplomacy for the
information age.
Mr. Chairman, our country enjoys a considerable ``edge'' in public
diplomacy, both in reaching publics through advanced technology and in
communicating our message of democracy, human rights, free markets as
well as ethnic and cultural diversity. Clearly, it is to our advantage
to use that edge. In the post-Cold war era of instant global journalism
and people power, foreign public opinion is critical to the success of
American foreign policy initiatives. The advisory commission's reports
illustrate how the increase in global communications and technology
makes foreign publics far more important than ever and why we should
use our advanced skills in these areas to inform, understand and
influence those foreign publics.
For instance, last year's report--entitled ``A New Diplomacy for the
Information Age''--explains how Saddam Hussein used public diplomacy to
his advantage when he shifted the focus of the world media from his
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to the tragic suffering of Iraqi
children, a campaign that did nothing to help the United States build
the same coalition in 1998 as assembled against Saddam's sinister
regime in 1991. The advisory commission's report, which can be accessed
via USIA's web page, also includes intelligent and thoughtful
recommendations on how to deal with such problems in the future. I
believe this represents one of the most important advisory functions of
the commission, and I encourage my colleagues to read the report.
Mr. Chairman, the new State Department we have created since enacting
the reorganization bill last year must be a responsive and flexible
diplomatic institution that can deal as effectively with foreign
publics as with foreign governments. We need the insight and experience
of the advisory commission to make this transition successful and to
achieve our foreign policy goals. In this age of information and
democracy, of globalized free markets and the Internet, foreign publics
are far more important than ever. As we are developing a new diplomacy
for the 21st Century, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy
is of even greater constructive value to the Congress and the
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his
supporting remarks and for his working with the majority in trying to
work out this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2415) to
enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to
authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year
2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the following three bills that were
considered today: H.R. 1033, H.R. 31, and H. Con. Res. 121.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until approximately 6 p.m.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 7 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 6 p.m.

____________________

{time} 1802

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Petri) at 6 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM HON. J.C. WATTS, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable J.C. Watts, Chairman of the House
Republican Conference:

House Republican Conference,

Washington, DC, July 19, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to inform you that pursuant to
clause 5(b) of rule X, Representative Michael P. Forbes is no
longer a member of the Republican Conference.
Sincerely,
J.C. Watts, Jr.,
Chairman.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker of the House of Representatives:

The Speaker's Rooms,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 19, 1999.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to advise you that
Representative Michael P. Forbes' election to the Committee
on Appropriations has been automatically vacated pursuant to
clause 5(b) of rule X effective today.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker of the House of Representatives:

The Speaker's Rooms,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 19, 1999.
Hon. James M. Talent,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to advise you that
Representative Michael P. Forbes's election to the Committee
on Small Business has been automatically vacated pursuant to
clause 5(b) of rule X effective today.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

[[Page 16587]]

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8 of
rule

XX, the Chair will now put the question on each motion to suspend the
rules on which further proceedings were postponed earlier today in the
order in which that motion was entertained.
Votes will be taken in the following order: H.R. 1033 by the yeas and
nays, H. Con. Res. 121 by the yeas and nays, and H.R. 1477, by the yeas
and nays.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first such vote in this series.

____________________

LEWIS AND CLARK EXPEDITION BICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1033.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1033, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 381,
nays 1, not voting 51, as follows:

[Roll No. 308]

YEAS--381

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Paul

NOT VOTING--51

Allen
Andrews
Baker
Barrett (NE)
Berman
Brown (FL)
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Crowley
Danner
Edwards
Fossella
Fowler
Gutierrez
Hayes
Hinchey
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Kennedy
Klink
Larson
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Moore
Neal
Norwood
Olver
Owens
Peterson (PA)
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thurman
Toomey
Towns
Weiner
Wise

{time} 1828

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 308 on July 19,
1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, I was not able
to be here due to a delayed airline flight. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Pursuant to the provisions of
clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by
electronic device will be taken on each additional motion to suspend
the rules on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

____________________

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES VICTORY IN THE
COLD WAR AND FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 121, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution
121, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 381,
nays 0, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 50, as follows:

[Roll No. 309]

YEAS--381

[[Page 16588]]

Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

Kucinich
Lee

NOT VOTING--50

Allen
Andrews
Baker
Barrett (NE)
Berman
Brown (FL)
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Crowley
Danner
Edwards
Fossella
Fowler
Granger
Gutierrez
Hayes
Hinchey
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Kennedy
Klink
Larson
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Moore
Neal
Norwood
Olver
Owens
Peterson (PA)
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thurman
Toomey
Towns
Wise

{time} 1836

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SANCHEZ, Mr. Speaker during rollcall vote No. 309 on July 19,
1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 309, I was not able
to be here due to a delayed airline flight. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''

____________________

IRAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION ACT OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1477.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1477, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 383,
nays 1, not voting 49, as follows:

[Roll No. 310]

YEAS--383

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman

[[Page 16589]]

Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Carson

NOT VOTING--49

Allen
Andrews
Baker
Barrett (NE)
Berman
Brown (FL)
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Crowley
Danner
Edwards
Fossella
Fowler
Gutierrez
Hayes
Hinchey
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Kennedy
Klink
Larson
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Moore
Neal
Norwood
Olver
Peterson (PA)
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Smith (TX)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thurman
Toomey
Towns
Wise

{time} 1843

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 310, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 310, I was not able
to be here due to a delayed airline flight. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''

____________________

AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2415.

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and
personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of
State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Miller of
Florida (Chairman pro tempore) in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, amendment number 1 printed in part A of House Report
106-235 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) had been
disposed of.

{time} 1845

Amendments En Bloc Offered By Mr. Gilman

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the authority granted in H.
Res. 247, I offer amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The Clerk will
designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

Part B amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman, consisting
of the following:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Capuano:
Page 12, after line 4, insert the following:
(F) International rape counseling program--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), $2,500,000
for the fiscal year 2000 are authorized to be appropriated
only for a United States based rape counseling program for
assistance to women who have been victimized by the
systematic use of rape as a weapon in times of conflict and
war.
____

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 15, after line 20, insert the following:
(6) Israel-arab peace partners program.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $1,500,000
for the fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be available only
for people-to-people activities (with a focus on young
people) to support the Middle East peace process involving
participants from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Arab
countries, and the United States, to be known as the
``Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program''. Not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of State shall submit a plan to the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives for
implementation of such program, The Secretary shall not
implement the plan until 45 days after its submission to the
Committee.
____

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC 211. GENDER RELATED PERSECUTION TASK FORCE.

(a) Establishment of Task Force.--The Secretary of State,
in consultation with other Federal agencies, shall establish
a task force with the goal of determining eligibility
guidelines for women seeking refugee status overseas due to
gender-related persecution (including but not limited to
domestic and workplace violence and female genital
mutilation).
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare
and submit to the Congress a report outlining the guidelines
determined by the task force under subsection (a).
____

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 257. DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS SUBJECT
TO STATE ARREST WARRANTS IN CASES OF NONPAYMENT
OF CHILD SUPPORT.

The Secretary of State is authorized to refuse a passport
or revoke, restrict, or limit a passport in any case in which
the Secretary of State determines, or is informed by
competent authority, that the applicant or passport holder is
a noncustodial parent who is the subject of an outstanding
State warrant of arrest for nonpayment of child support,
where the amount in controversy is not less than $2,500.
____

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
Page 57, after line 18, insert the following:

SEC. 303. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISER TO SECRETARY OF
STATE.

(a) Establishment of Position.--Section 1 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Science and Technology Adviser.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be within the Department of
State a Science and Technology Adviser (in this paragraph
referred to as the `Adviser'). The Adviser shall have
substantial experience in the area of science and technology.
The Adviser shall report to the Secretary of State through
the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
``(2) Duties.--The Adviser shall--
``(A) advise the Secretary of State, through the Under
Secretary of State for Global Affairs, on international
science and technology matters affecting the foreign policy
of the United States; and
``(B) perform such duties, exercise such powers, and have
such rank and status as the Secretary of State shall
prescribe.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than six months after receipt by the
Secretary of State of the report by the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences with respect to
the contributions that science, technology, and health
matters can make to the foreign policy of the United States,
the Secretary of State, acting through the Under Secretary of
State for Global Affairs, shall submit a report to Congress
setting forth the Secretary of State's plans for
implementation, as appropriate, of the recommendations of the
report.
____

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mrs. Capps:
Page 68, after line 20, insert the following:
(c) Scholarships for Preservation of Tibet's Culture,
Language, and Religion.--Section 103(b)(1) of the Human
Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act
of 1966 (Public Law 104-319; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note) is further
amended by striking ``Tibet,'' and inserting ``Tibet
(whenever practical giving consideration to individuals who
are active in the preservation of Tibet's culture, language,
and religion),''.
____

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Engel:
Page 75, line 7, strike ``The Secretary of State'' and
insert ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), the Secretary of State''.
``Page 75, line 8, strike ``that members'' and insert ``the
following:
(1) Members''.
Page 75, beginning on line 13, strike ``unless'' and insert
a period.
Page 75, after line 13, insert the following:
(2) Items designated as crime control and detection
instruments and equipment for purposes of section 6(n) of the
Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(n)) are not
approved for export for use by the RUC.

[[Page 16590]]

Page 75, line 14, strike ``the President'' and insert the
following:
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
President''.
Page 75, beginning on line 20, strike ``, in which case''
and all that follows through line 21 and insert a period.
____

Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Engel:
Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 703. RECOGNITION OF THE MAGEN DAVID ADOM SOCIETY IN
ISRAEL AS A FULL MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL
RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT MOVEMENT.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) It is the mission of the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement to prevent and alleviate human
suffering, wherever it may be found, without discrimination
(2) The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
is a worldwide institution in which all National Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies have equal status and share equal
responsibilities.
(3) The state of Israel has ratified the Geneva Conventions
which govern the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement.
(4) The Magen David Adom Society is the national
humanitarian society in the state of Israel.
(5) The Magen David Adom Society follows all the principles
of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
(6) Since the founding of the Magen David Adom Society in
1930, the American Red Cross has regarded it as a sister
national society and close working ties have been established
between the two societies.
(7) The Magen David Adom Society is excluded from full
membership in the International Conference of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement solely because the Society is not
an official protective symbol recognized by either the Geneva
Conventions governing the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement or the Statutes of the International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
(8) During the past 25 years the American Red Cross has
consistently advocated recognition and membership of the
Magen David Adom Society in the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement.
(9) The state of Israel has unsuccessfully tried in the
past to amend the Geneva Conventions to allow for the
emblematic recognition of the Magen David Adom Society.
(10) Recognition of the Magen David Adom Society in Israel
as a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement would help fortify the spirit of goodwill in the
Middle East peace process.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the President should, at the earliest possible date,
enlist the cooperation of all nations that are signatory to
the Geneva Conventions to ensure that the recognition of the
Magen David Adom Society in Israel as a full member of the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is resolved
at the forthcoming 27th International Conference of the Red
Cross and Red Crescent; and
(2) the President should support a resolution by that
Conference requesting the International Committee of the Red
Cross to waive on an exceptional basis the 5th condition of
recognition in article 4 of its Statutes of the Movement,
thus enabling the full participation of the Magen David Adom
Society as a member of the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement.
____

Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Delahunt:
Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 703. ANNUAL REPORTING ON WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY, AND GENOCIDE.

(a) Section 116 of Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--Section
116(d) of the Foreign assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151n(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) wherever applicable, consolidated information
regarding the commission of war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and evidence of acts that may constitute
genocide.''.
(b) Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--
Section 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2304(b)) is amended by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``Wherever applicable, such report
shall include consolidated information regarding the
commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
evidence of acts that may constitute genocide.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments, as
modified.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 9, as modified, offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
Page 34, strike line 18, and all that follows through line
9 on page 35, and insert the following:

SEC. 210. EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF SATELLITE EXPORT
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Licensing regime.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall establish
a regulatory regime for the licensing for export of
commercial satellites, satellite technologies, their
components, and systems which shall include expedited
approval, as appropriate, of the licensing for export by
United States companies of commercial satellites, satellite
technologies, their components, and systems, to NATO allies,
major non-NATO allies, and other friendly countries, but not
to the Peoples Republic of China.
(2) Requirements.--For proposed exports to those nations
which meet the requirements of paragraph (1) above, the
regime should include expedited processing of requests for
export authorizations that--
(A) are time-critical, including a transfer or exchange of
information relating to a satellite failure or anomaly in-
flight or on-orbit;
(B) are required to submit bids to procurements offered by
foreign persons;
(C) relate to the re-export of unimproved materials,
products, or data; or
(D) are required to obtain launch and on-orbit insurance.
(b) Financial and Personnel Resources.--Of the funds
authorized to be appropriated in section 101(1)(A),
$11,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for the Office
of Defense Trade Controls for fiscal year 2000, to enable
that office to carry out its responsibilities.
(c) Improvement and Assessment.--The Secretary shall, not
later than six months after the date of enactment of this
Act, submit to the Congress a plan for--
(1) continuously gathering industry and public suggestions
for potential improvements in the State Department's export
control regime for commercial satellites; and
(2) arranging for the conduct and submission to Congress,
not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, an independent review of the export control regime for
commercial satellites as to its effectiveness at promoting
national security and economic competitiveness.
____

Amendment No. 12, as modified, offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 211. REPORT CONCERNING ATTACK IN CAMBODIA.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and every 6 months thereafter until the
investigation referred to in this section is completed, the
Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney
General, shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees, in classified and unclassified
form, containing the most current information on the
investigation into the March 30, 1997, grenade attack in
Cambodia, including a discussion of communication between the
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh and Washington.
____

Amendment No. 16, as modified, offered by Mr. Salmon:
Page 46, after line 22, insert the following new section:

SEC. 257. REPORT ON TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN WHICH UNITED STATES
CITIZENS WERE KILLED AND RELATED MATTERS.

(a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date
of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall prepare and submit a report, with a
classified annex as necessary, to the appropriate
congressional committees regarding terrorist attacks in
Israel, in territory administered by Israel, and in territory
administered by the Palestinian Authority.
(b) Contents.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
contain the following information:
(1) A list of formal commitments the Palestinian Authority
has made to combat terrorism.
(2) A list of terrorist attacks, occurring between
September 13, 1993 and the date of the report, against United
States citizens in Israel, in territory administered by
Israel, or in territory administered by the Palestinian
Authority, including--
(A) a list of all citizens of the United States killed or
injured in such attacks;
(B) the date of each attack and the total number of people
killed or injured in each attack;
(C) the person or group claiming responsibility for the
attack and where such person or group has found refuge or
support;
(D) a list of suspects implicated in each attack and the
nationality of each suspect, including information on--
(i) which suspects are in the custody of the Palestinian
Authority and which suspects are in the custody of Israel;
(ii) which suspects are still at large in areas controlled
by the Palestinian Authority or Israel; and
(iii) the whereabouts (or suspected whereabouts) of
suspects implicated in each attack.
(3) Of the suspects implicated in the attacks described in
paragraph (2) and detained

[[Page 16591]]

by Palestinian or Israeli authorities, information on--
(A) the date each suspect was incarcerated;
(B) whether any suspects have been released, the date of
such release, and whether any released suspect was implicated
in subsequent acts of terrorism; and
(C) the status of each case pending against a suspect,
including information on whether the suspect has been
indicted, prosecuted, or convicted by the
PalestinianAuthority or Israel.
(4) The policy of the Department of State with respect to
offering rewards for information on terrorist suspects,
including any information on whether a reward has been posted
for suspects involved in terrorist attacks listed in the
report.
(5) A list of each request by the United States for
assistance in investigating terrorist attacks listed in the
report, a list of each request by the United States for the
transfer of terrorist suspects from the Palestinian Authority
and Israel since September 13, 1993, and the response to each
request from the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
(6) A description of efforts made by United States
officials since September 13, 1993, to bring to justice
perpetrators of terrorist acts against United States citizens
as listed in the report.
(7) A list of any terrorist suspects in each such case who
are members of Palestinian police or security forces, the
Palestine Liberation Organization, or any Palestinian
governing body.
(c) Consultation With Other Departments.--In preparing each
report required by this section, the Secretary of State shall
consult and coordinate with all other Government officials
who have information necessary to complete the report.
Nothing contained in this section shall require the
disclosure, on a classified or unclassified basis, of
information that would jeopardize sensitive sources and
methods or other vital national security interests or
jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings.
(d) Initial Report.--The initial report filed under this
section shall cover the period between September 13, 1993,
and the date of the report.
(e) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``appropriate congressional
committee'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.
Amendment No. 40, as modified, offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS SUPPORTING HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF BURMA.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
Government should support humanitarian assistance that is
targeted to the people of Burma and does not support the
State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and is only
implemented and monitored by international or private
voluntary organizations that are independent of the SPDC.

Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments, as modified, be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleagues who have agreed to place
their amendments in this en bloc amendment. This is the product of a
bipartisan effort to incorporate amendments and to expedite
consideration of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act.
As the Clerk read, we have included 13 amendments in this en bloc.
These amendments make improvements such as adding the reporting of
genocide to the Human Rights Reports, the establishment of a qualified
science advisor to the State Department, requiring a report on the
grenade attack in Cambodia, requiring a report outlining terrorists
attacks in Israel, and establishing an Israel-Arab Peace Partners
program.
The report on terrorist attacks is important because it allows
killers of American citizens to be brought to justice. It is important
to the conduct of our foreign policy and to the oversight of our
foreign aid that Congress know whether an entity receiving assistance
is cooperating in the apprehension of those who kill and maim our U.S.
citizens in terrorist incidents.
We welcome the contributions these Members are making to this bill,
and I urge support to the en bloc amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, in 1976 Congress passed legislation
mandating the State Department to produce reports on human rights
practices in countries around the world. To the credit of the State
Department, these reports have become the most accepted and widely used
resource for highlighting human rights abuses and have become
invaluable to the work of any individual or any organization serious
about protecting human rights.
Additionally, they have become a critical component in fashioning our
own bilateral relationships with foreign governments. They also help us
to determine how we should exercise our influence in multilateral
organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank.
However, the reports are not presently required to provide
information on crimes against humanity, war crimes, or evidence of acts
that may constitute genocide in a manner that most clearly profiles
these most serious, I would submit, of human rights abuses.
This amendment would address that omission and would mandate
inclusion of such information in a separate section of the annual
country reports. I would submit that evidence of acts of genocide
should be particularly noted, as I would submit that genocide
represents the ultimate violation of human rights.
In fact, many of us in this Chamber were convinced to support the
administration's policy in Kosovo based upon our concern that
Milosevic's targeting of Albanians for ethnic cleansing would lead to
another Holocaust.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in 1976 Congress passed legislation mandating the State
Department to produce reports on human rights practices in countries
around the world. To the State Department's credit, these reports have
become the most accepted and widely-used resource for highlighting
human rights abuses and have become invaluable to the work of any
individual or organization serious about protecting human rights.
Additionally, they have become a critical component in fashioning our
own bilateral relationships with foreign governments. They also help us
to determine how we should use our influence in multilateral
organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank.
However, the reports are not presently required to provide
information on crimes against humanity, war crimes, or evidence of acts
that may constitute genocide in a manner that most clearly profiles
these most serious of human rights abuses. This amendment would address
that omission and would mandate inclusion of such information in a
separate section in the annual country reports. Evidence of acts of
genocide should be especially noted, as I would submit that genocide
represents the ultimate violation of human rights.
Many of us in this chamber were convinced to support the
Administration's policy in Kosovo based upon our concern that
Milosevic's targeting of Albanians for ethnic cleansing would lead to
another genocide. Unfortunately, in 1994 there were some in the State
Department who debated whether what was happening in Rwanda constituted
``genocide''--even as 800,000 people were slaughtered because of their
ethnic origin. This House passed a Concurrent Resolution on June 15,
condemning the genocidal acts and crimes against humanity committed by
the Government of Sudan. And yet this year's country report on Sudan
does not call those crimes what they are. If it is a war crime, call it
a war crime. If it is genocide, call it genocide.
Adoption of this amendment would focus the attention of the State
Department on the issues of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide in a timely manner and make that information available in a
clear and unequivocal form to the family of nations. It should
strengthen the genocide early warning initiative the Administration
announced last year. It could save thousands--if not millions--of lives
throughout the world by directing world attention to these atrocities,
hopefully provoking early diplomatic intervention.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page 16592]]

Amnesty International USA,

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE,

Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
Hon. William Delahunt,
1317 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Delahunt: I understand that you have
offered an amendment that would ask the Department of State
to include information on the commission of war crimes and
genocide, where applicable, in its annual volume of Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices. We welcome your initiative
and feel that it can only serve to support the
Administration's announcement last December 10th of the
creation of a genocide early warning initiative.
The Department of State's annual report has become an
important and very comprehensive treatment of human rights
conditions which already includes reports of individual
killings. However, a single murder may also amount to a war
crime or represent part of a pattern of genocide which should
be noted when applicable as well. Your proposal that the
Department look for and report patterns of behavior amounting
to genocide and war crimes is a useful one which we are
confident the drafters of the annual report sections will
support.
Your interest in this issue and your continued strong
support for human rights are deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Stephen Rickard,
Legislative Director.
____

Centers for Religious Freedom,

Washington, DC, June 15, 1999.
Hon. William Delahunt,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Delahunt: Freedom House applauds your
efforts to direct the State Department to report on genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes on a timely basis.
Too many times the world has ignored serious evidence of
genocide while it was occurring. For example, the fact that
genocidal acts and crimes against humanity are being
conducted by the government of Sudan, as noted in House
Resolution 75 of June 15, has gone uncommented on in the most
recent State Department Human Rights Reports on country
practices. Improved reporting could lead to thousands, even
millions of lives, being saved. We enthusiastically support
your important initiative.
Sincerely,
Nina Shea,
Director.
____

The International Campaign

to End Genocide

Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
Congressman William D. Delahunt,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Delahunt: I am writing on behalf of the
Campaign to End Genocide, an international coalition of over
a dozen human rights groups dedicated to ending genocide in
the coming century.
We strongly support the Delahunt Amendment to H.R. 2415,
which will require the State Department in its annual Human
Rights Report to include annual reporting on war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and genocide.
Genocides and other mass murders have killed more people in
this century than all the war combined. ``Never again'' has
turned into ``Again and again.'' Again and again, the
response to genocide has been too little and too late.
During the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, the world's
response was denial. In 1994, while 800,000 Tutsis died in
Rwanda, State Department lawyers debated whether it was
``genocide'', and the U.N. Security Council withdrew U.N.
peacekeeping troops who could have saved hundreds of
thousands of lives. By focusing State Department attention on
war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, we hope
that such moral callousness in U.S. policy-making will never
again be repeated.
We are encouraged that this amendment has received the
bipartisan support it deserves. Opposition to such heinous
crimes dates back to the beginning of our republic when
President Jefferson sent American warships to end the
depredations of the Barbary pirates. President Bush mobilized
the U.N. forces that defeated the genocidal war criminal,
Saddam Hussein. And now President Clinton has led the NATO
defeat of the indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosovic.
Please let us know how we can be of further help.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gregory H. Stanton,
Director.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the plane of the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson) has been delayed because of weather. She chairs the
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
When I chaired that committee, we did a great deal of work as part of
the welfare reform bill, the child support provision. In that, we put a
provision into the law regarding passports. This goes directly towards
what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has suggested in
amendment number 17.
I would ask that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) work with
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and Members of the
Committee on Ways and Means in order that we not have an inconsistency
in the law with regard to the issuance of passports on past-due child
support payments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Shaw) that I appreciate the concern with regard to the work of the
Committee on Ways and Means and will work with the gentleman on any
concerns pertaining to the amendment he has referred to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms.
McKinney) seek to control the time of the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson)?
Ms. McKINNEY. I absolutely do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Georgia will
control the remaining 8\1/2\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman)
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their hard work
on this bill.
I am pleased that the amendment includes a provision that I have
authored to encourage the study and preservation of Tibetan culture.
For many years, the Tibetan people have suffered tremendously under a
succession of oppressive regimes in China.
The United States Information Agency currently offers 30 scholarships
to Tibetan students who wish to study in the United States. My
amendment directs the USIA to consider, whenever practical, individuals
who are active in the preservation of Tibet's culture, language, and
religion when granting these scholarships.
My amendment is the result of conversations that I have held with
U.S. experts on Tibet, some of whom reside in my district at the
University of California at Santa Barbara. It is clear that these
subtle changes to the program will be very helpful in our efforts to
preserve this ancient culture.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc
amendment to H.R. 2415. I have two provisions included in the en bloc
regarding export of U.S. satellite technology, and I am the original
cosponsor of a third provision that calls for the United States to
support and defend the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan.
I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his
timely provision in support of the Taiwanese allies.
My first amendment will strongly improve the State Department's
process of approving export licenses for American satellites and
related technologies.
Last year, the Congress made a bipartisan decision to transfer the
licensing of satellite exports from Commerce back to the State
Department. Our intention was obvious. We wanted someone to scrutinize
proposed exports to potentially threatening countries like Communist
China. Instead, the bureaucracy clamped down on everyone, stopping even
normal business transactions with friendly nations like Canada and
Sweden.
The en bloc amendment before us today includes my amendment forcing
the State Department to create and properly fund a streamlined export
regime which would apply to allies and

[[Page 16593]]

friendly countries, but which would not be available for Communist
China and other hostile powers.
I appreciate both the chairman's and the ranking member's acceptance
of this amendment as well as the strong support shown by the U.S.
aerospace industry. With all of their continued support in conference,
I believe we can enact this mandate and funding into law that will
serve America's security as well as our economic and commercial
interest.
My other amendment calls for the State Department to provide the
appropriate congressional committee a report in classified and
unclassified form on the March 30, 1997 grenade attack on Democrats in
Cambodian. In this attack, where 17 Cambodian men, women and children
were killed, among the 120 persons wounded was an American citizen
named Ron Abney who is a member of the International Republican
Institute. Thus, we need to see that report.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my
provisions in the en bloc amendment.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson),
the ranking member, for their cooperation in including in this en bloc
amendment two amendments in which I have an interest.
The first is a matter which I worked on with the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)
which requires systematic and thorough reporting on the efforts of the
United States Government to extradite those accused of committing
crimes under the jurisdiction of U.S. law against U.S. citizens. These
are important provisions that I believe will help us crack down on
terrorism.
I also thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my
legislation which will deny passports to custodial parents who have
accrued a child support obligation of more than $2,500. I think it is
very important that, before Americans enjoy the privilege of traveling
abroad, that they make meet their obligations to their own children
here at home.
This is an important tool in our effort to step up child support
enforcement. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their cooperation by adding this to the en bloc. I urge the adoption of
the en bloc amendment.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the amendment that I have
proposed with Representatives Andrews and Saxton, which would require
the State Department to issue periodic reports on the investigations of
Palestinian terrorists who have murdered Americans, will be included in
the American Embassy Security Act. I thank Chairman Ben Gilman for his
personal involvement in this matter. The Senate unanimously accepted
this anti-terrorism amendment to the Senate State Department
Authorization bill.
At least twelve American citizens have been killed by Palestinian
terrorists in Israel since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September
1993. Over 20 suspects in the attacks currently reside in territory
controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Several of these suspects are
walking about free. Some have reportedly been given positions in
Palestinian police forces.
The United States has the right and the responsibility under U.S. law
to prosecute the terrorist killers of Americans. The House of
Representatives strongly endorsed this principle last year when it
voted 406 to 0 in favor of a resolution declaring that the
``[Palestinian] suspects should be tried in the United States unless it
is determined that such action is contrary to effective prosecution.''
While the administration should be commended for sending investigative
teams to Israel to investigate these attacks, the effort has been
incomplete. For example, no rewards have yet been offered by the U.S.
government for information leading to the capture of the Palestinian
killers of the murdered Americans, even though multimillion dollar
rewards have been offered in other cases of Americans killed by
terrorists abroad. And despite reams of evidence implicating certain
individuals in the murders of Americans--including in one case an
outright confession--no indictments have been secured by U.S.
authorities. The reports will help to respond to concerns that
political considerations may be stalling these investigations.
The bipartisan amendment responds to the lack of progress in the
investigations. Specifically, the amendment would require the
administration to provide Congress with regular, detailed reports on
the status of the investigations into the killers of Americans. The
report would also contain information on the policy of the State
Department with respect to offering rewards for information leading to
the capture of the terrorist suspects and a list of suspected
terrorists serving in Palestinian security forces.
Smartly, the language protects against the disclosure of information
that would impede ongoing investigations. Obviously, the American
families that have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks do not want
these investigations compromised in any way.
The families of the victims support our effort. I quote from a letter
signed by three of the families: ``Your legislation addresses a serious
and immediate problem. We have constantly been frustrated and
disappointed at the difficulty of finding out the most basic
information about the status of U.S. investigators into the attacks in
which our children were killed. This legislation will help rectify the
problem. Reports to Congress on these investigations will help to make
it possible for Congress to play a crucial supportive role in
facilitating efforts to apprehend, prosecute, and punish terrorists who
have murdered American citizens in Israel or the administered
territories.'' The letter continues: ``Keeping a spotlight on these
issues is a crucial component in the process of achieving Middle East
Peace. . . . The peace process can only be strengthened by a move
toward justice.''
The amendment is about achieving justice, and achieving peace for the
families who have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks. It's about
recognizing that American life isn't cheap, and that if you're an
American citizen killed abroad, the United States will never forget
you.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel's amendment
(amendment #47, part of the en bloc) builds on Section 408 of the bill,
a section which was added as a result of an amendment I successfully
offered with Mr. Peter King of New York during consideration of this
legislation in the International Relations Committee. Section 408--and,
by extension, the language offered today--seeks to end the intimidation
of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland, and to secure just and
impartial investigations of the murders of two heroic defense
attorneys, Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane.
As adopted by the full committee, Section 408 cuts off funding
authority for U.S.-sponsored training and exchange programs offered to
Northern Ireland's police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC),
unless the President certifies that the United Kingdom has initiated
independent investigations into the murders of two Catholic defense
attorneys. It also conditions the funds on the President certifying
that the UK is appropriately protecting other defense attorneys who
have been harassed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
On September 29, 1998, Rosemary Nelson, a defense attorney from
Northern Ireland, testified before the Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights and told us that, as a defense attorney
working on high-profile, political cases, she feared the RUC. She
reported that she had been ``physically assaulted by a number of RUC
officers,'' and that the harassment included, ``at the most serious,
making threats against my personal safety including death threats.''
Six months later, on March 15, 1999, Rosemary Nelson was murdered,
the victim of a car bomb. Because of Rosemary's own stated fears, and
because of subsequent reports issued by Northern Ireland's Independent
Commission on Police Complaints, several questions have been raised
about RUC complicity in her murder.
Amazingly, however, the British government insists that the RUC be
the agency most involved in investigating Rosemary's murder.
In addition to the Nelson family, numerous international human rights
organizations, the European Union, the Northern Ireland Law Society,
elected officials from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland,
and the U.S. Congress have all called for independent inquiries--RUC-
free inquiries--into Rosemary Nelson's murder. Similarly, leading human
rights activists are calling for an independent judicial inquiry into
the allegations of government collusion in the murder of slain defense
attorney Patrick Finucane.
In an extraordinary show of bipartisan support, this past April, the
U.S. House of Representatives passed my bill, H. Res. 128, condemning
the Finucane and Nelson killings and

[[Page 16594]]

calling on the British government to adequately protect defense
lawyers. The resolution unequivocally linked Ms. Nelson's murder with
that of Patrick Finucane, recognizing the hostile environment within
which Northern Ireland's defense lawyers function, particularly
aggravated by threats coming directly or indirectly from the police.
Section 408 of this bill renews our previous calls for the
independent inquiries as but one step toward accountability for human
rights violations against defense lawyers in Northern Ireland. It
blocks U.S. funds to RUC programs and requires the President and the
State Department to do more to persuade the Blair government to
mitigate the harassment of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland. Mr.
Engel's amendment extends our efforts in Section 408 by restricting the
export of law enforcement equipment to the RUC until the Section 408
goals are met. While the RUC does not currently receive the equipment
banned by the Engel amendment, the added language precludes them from
doing so, or even qualifying for such equipment, until the standards
are met.
It is important to note that even while negotiations have been
stalled and the future of the new Northern Ireland Assembly is in
jeopardy, the British government can take some unilateral steps to
restore confidence in the peace process. As recommended in this bill,
the Blair government should pull the RUC off the Rosemary Nelson murder
case, take decisive action to protect defense attorneys, and initiate
an objective, public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
speak in support of my amendment to HR 2415, which would allow the
Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or limit passports to non-custodial
parents who owe $2,500 or more in child support. Current law sets the
threshold at $5,000--an amount that does not go far enough to protect
America's children.
Only half of all custodial parents who are awarded child support
actually receive the full amount ordered by a court. Over $5 billion is
owed in delinquent child support payments each year. In a time when
millions of American children live below the poverty level, the
government must make a strong statement that significant delinquency in
child support payments will not be tolerated. I believe we must stand
up for personal responsibility and the well being of children around
the nation and I thank the Chairman for offering this en bloc amendment
and including this important provision.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I want to
make clear why I do. One of the most depraved and beastly actions
toward defenseless civilians by armed men in recent conflicts has been
the commission of rape as a tool of war. It's been done in Kosovo and
in Rwanda. This isn't ``date rape''; it isn't even rape by someone who
knows the person he's doing it to. It is rape as a kind of ultimate
demonstration of power and control and of contempt for the women being
raped and the groups they belong to.
As a result, the number of women who have been raped in this way and
for these reasons has continued to grow. Like any other form of torture
or degradation in wartime, rape as war crime leaves behind devastating
physical and especially psychological effects that can last a lifetime.
People become unable to sleep, unable to work, unable to trust other
people, unable to escape from the constant feeling of the events
themselves.
The Human Rights subcommittee of which I am the ranking member just
held a hearing on the U.S. response to victims of torture. It is
obvious that one of the consistent characteristics of the 160 centers
worldwide for torture victims--not enough to have live-in facilities
for people in the greatest need, not enough to provide even outpatient
counseling.
We need to do more to help. I commend my colleague Mike Capuano for
recognizing that fact and finding a way to start doing so. I strongly
support this amendment and I encourage the House to adopt it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment
and my two amendments contained therein.
In the United States, people know that in the event of an emergency
they can always count on the American Red Cross to come to the rescue.
Other countries' Red Cross or Red Crescent societies perform similar
functions.
The Israeli counterpart to the American Red Cross is the Magen David
Adom (MDA) society. MDA carries out all of the traditional roles of a
voluntary medical aid society, such as emergency medical services,
maintenance of blood supplies, first aid, and disaster relief.
Unfortunately, unlike the American Red Cross and every other nation's
ICRC component organization, MDA is not accepted as a member of the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
The Magen David Adom Society is excluded from full membership in the
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
solely because the Red Shield of David, the organization's emblem, is
not officially recognized by either the Geneva Conventions or the
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. I
have the fullest respect for the religious traditions represented by
the red cross and red crescent, but I also respect the decision of
Israel, as a Jewish state, to choose a sign more in line with its
religious tradition. With peace slowly but surely coming to the Middle
East and Israel developing progressively more relations with its
neighbors, it is time that the ICRC accepts the Magen David Adom as a
full member.
The amendment, which I offer with my friend, the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Weiner, seeks to shine light on this problem and presses our
government to seek a solution. Specifically, it urges the President to
work with other nations to achieve recognition of MDA as a full member
of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement at the
forthcoming 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent.
My second amendment, Mr. Chairman, conditions exports of crime
control equipment--such as batons, hand cutts, or tear gas--to the
Royal Ulster Constabulary on independent investigations into the
murders of defense attorneys Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson.
Section 408 of the underlying bill already conditions FBI and police
training of the RUC on independent investigations of these suspicious
murders. My amendment adds to that section by restricting exports of
police items.
I share the fear of many members of Congress and human rights groups
that the RUC will white wash these investigations. My amendment and the
bill, itself, are designed to send the signal that we will no longer
stand for bungled investigations and cover-ups of politically-motivated
killings. It is time that peace and justice came to northern Ireland.
I would like to thank Chairman Gilman, Ranking member Gejdenson, and
Subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith for their exceptional cooperation and
support during this process.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Salmon-Andrews-
Saxton amendment to H.R. 2415, which requires the Administration to
provide Congress with regular, detailed reports on the status of the
investigations into the killers of Americans. Over 20 suspects in the
deaths of twelve American citizens currently reside in the territory
controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and several of these suspects
are walking free.
While the United States has a right and responsibility to prosecute
the terrorist killers of Americans, the Administration's effort has
been incomplete. This amendment would hold the Administration
responsible for following through with the pursuit of justice. We must
be active in our fight against terrorism, and this bill will aid in the
maintenance of U.S. vigilance against terrorism.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues, Mr.
Salmon, who are tireless foes of terrorism, and I would also like to
thank Mr. Gilman for offering the en bloc amendment and for including
this important provision in his amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, during this past week the
Communist People's Republic of China started a series of events to
threaten Taiwan:
Starting just this last weekend and going into this week, China has
been conducting the first military exercise in the Taiwan Strait since
1996, with soldiers chanting ``We will liberate Taiwan'';
Meanwhile the Communist Party newspapers ran the headline, ``Those
who play with fire will get burnt'';
In addition, last Thursday, China declared that it has mastered the
design technology for the neutron bomb.
In light of these imminent threats from mainland China, the U.S.
Congress must send a clear message that we support our democratic ally
Taiwan and that the U.S. will defend Taiwan from military attacks.
Without that clear message, Communist China may be tempted to attack
Taiwan and destabilize the world, hoping that the U.S. will stand
aside, particularly when the Clinton Administration advocates for ``one
China.'' If there were one democratic China, the U.S. Congress and the
people of the United States would support it. For now, there is only
one democratic State in China--The Republic of China on Taiwan--so we
will support Taiwan.
The people of Taiwan have spoken with their votes to stay separate
from the Communist mainland until there is democracy for

[[Page 16595]]

all. We respect their votes and their voice. We commend them for
building this flourishing democracy regardless of threats from the
Beijing. I support the amendment from my colleagues Mr. Andrews, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Wu, and Mr.
Bilirakis, to declare that we stand with our democratic allies, and we
will defend democratic Taiwan.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 2 printed in part A of House Report 106-235.

Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Page 19, strike line 1 and all that follows through line
17, on page 21, and insert the following:
(d) Contribution to United Nations Population Fund.--
(1) Limitation.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) for United States voluntary contributions no
funds may be made available to the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA) unless the President submits to the appropriate
congressional committees the certification described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Certification.--The certification referred to in
paragraph (1) is a certification by the President that--
(A) the UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People's
Republic of China, and the United States has received
assurances that UNFPA will conduct no such activities during
the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available;
or
(B) during the 12 months preceding such certification there
have been no abortions as the result of coercion associated
with the family planning policies of the national government
or other governmental entities within the People's Republic
of China.
(3) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction
or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, and
severe psychological pressure.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk which was made in order by the Committee on Rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to offer his
amendment at this time?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer it at this time, but if I might
ask a parliamentary inquiry, it might be most efficient simply to
allocate all time and divide it fairly between the two sides on the
issue, whether it be on my second-degree amendment or the first-degree
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would
be willing to do so if that is possible.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, and actually
this is an inquiry to the Chair, that the time on the Smith amendment
will be divided. I would take that time in opposition. Then my
understanding is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell)
would have some time on his secondary amendment, and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), I imagine, would be in opposition, and that
would give us all an opportunity to divide the time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is perfectly
acceptable with me. I simply wish to offer my second-degree amendment
at such a time as to protect the opportunity to present that. If I have
now done so, then I will wait until the time that has been allocated to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is expired. Is that acceptable?

{time} 1900

Is that acceptable?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman may
offer the substitute amendment at this point and the debate time will
be allocated accordingly, and debate on the two amendments will be
consumed simultaneously.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Campbell as a Substitute for Amendment
No. 2 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a
substitute for the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Campbell as a
substitute for Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Smith of
New Jersey:
Page 19, strike line 1, and all that follows through line
17 on page 21, and insert the following:
(d) Contributions to United Nations Population Fund.--
(1) Limitations on amount of contribution.--Of the amounts
made available under subsection (a), not more than
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be available for the
United Nations Population Fund (hereinafter in this
subsection referred to as the ``UNFPA'').
(2) Prohibition on use of funds in china.--None of the
funds made available under subsection (a) may be made
available for the UNFPA for a country program in the People's
Republic of China.
(3) Conditions on availability of funds.--Amounts made
available under subsection (a) for fiscal year 2000 for the
UNFPA may not be made available to UNFPA unless--
(A) the UNFPA maintains amounts made available to the UNFPA
under this section in an account separate from other accounts
of the UNFPA;
(B) the UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to
the UNFPA under this section with other sums; and
(C) the UNFPA does not fund abortions.
(4) Report to congress and withholding of funds.--
(A) Not later than February 15, 2000, the Secretary of
State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees indicating the amount of funds that the United
Nations Population Fund is budgeting for the year in which
the report is submitted for a country program in the People's
Republic of China.
(B) If a report under subparagraph (A) indicates that the
United Nations Population Fund plans to spend funds for a
country program in the People's Republic of China in the year
covered by the report, then the amount of such funds that the
UNFPA plans to spend in the People's Republic of China shall
be deducted from the funds made available to the UNFPA after
March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year
in which the report is submitted.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition
to that, and I understand that under regular order the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) would proceed first?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) will
control 15 minutes; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will
control 15 minutes on the Campbell amendment; the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) will control 15 minutes on his amendment; and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) will control 15 minutes in
opposition.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, one further inquiry, I think it would be
efficient, but would it be possible simply to proceed with both
together; the 30 minutes times two? In other words, the 1 hour of
debate all at the same time, with alternating between various
spokespersons?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize for debate to be shared in the
appropriate amount of time with each Member controlling 15 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. So, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson)
would have 15, I would have 15 minutes to control, I would have 15
minutes to control, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) would
have 30?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is agreeable.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain all debate before putting the
question of the vote on the subtitle amendment offered by the gentleman
from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

[[Page 16596]]

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee
on International Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-
Gilman-Gejdenson-Porter-Johnson amendment and in opposition to the
Smith amendment.
I remain as dedicated as anyone in this chamber to the cause of human
rights in China. From the freedom fighters of Tianamen to the Dalai
Lama's loyal supporters in Tibet we have, in the Congress, have
supported the cause of human rights in China. But that is not what is
under debate at this moment. Under current law, no U.S. funds can be
spent on abortions. The U.N. Population Fund does not support China's
one-child policy and has condemned the abuses of that program. UNFPA
operates in only 32 of China's counties to support maternal and child
health, and that is all.
This debate should not be about China, it should be about the
programs in over 100 other countries where UNFPA operates. And, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to highlight one Nation for which U.S. support
would be cut off by the Smith amendment, and that happens to be Mexico.
I believe that we can all agree that helping Mexican mothers space
the births of their children is good for Mexico and good for our own
Nation. Birth spacing is the best way to improve child survival and to
limit Mexico's rapidly expanding population. We have no USAID mission
in Mexico. UNFPA is the largest external donor to the Mexican family
program. UNFPA is the only channel we have to support Mexican family
planning. The Smith amendment, regrettably, would have the effect of
cutting off all support to Mexico.
We must support that program and other vital UNFPA programs such as
their anti-AIDS campaign in Haiti, not just to benefit Mexicans and
Haitians but to also benefit our own Nation. If the countries south of
our border develop into strong stable societies, it will help our
exports and relieve some of the immigration pressure on our own Nation.
Population growth in Latin America and the Caribbean drive the
environmental pressures on Florida, on Texas, on New Mexico, Arizona,
California, and some of our other States. This pressure will be
relieved if UNFPA's voluntary family planning programs move forward in
these regions with our own support.
The Smith amendment would have the effect of cutting off all U.S.
support for those programs, like UNFPA's support to the victims of
storms like Hurricane Mitch. It would also block U.S. support for
UNFPA's program to stop the horrific practice of female genitalia
mutilation.
Mr. Chairman, the Campbell amendment has been endorsed by 47
organizations, including the YWCA, the American Association of
University Women, the American Public Health Association, the National
Wildlife Federation, and the League of Conservation Voters.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the
Campbell amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Barcia), and I have great concerns about the policies and
practices used by the United Nations Population Fund.
The United States cannot give taxpayer money to an organization that
is intricately involved with human rights abuses that are taking place
in China and other places around the world. I wish to read the words of
a woman who worked to enforce China's population program. Mrs. Gao was
the administrator at the Fujian Province Planned Birth Office from 1984
to 1988. These are her own words before the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on
International Relations.

My work at the planned birth office included establishing a
computer data bank of all the women of childbearing age in
the town. I also issued birth-allowed certificates to women
who meet the policy and regulations of the Central and
Provincial Planned Birth Committees and are, therefore,
allowed to give birth to children. Should a woman be found
pregnant without a certificate, an abortion is performed
immediately, regardless of how many months pregnant she is.
This case about a Miss Chen Li-Ren who was a female
resident of a village outside of Yonghe Town. In 1996, she
became pregnant in spite of the fact she was not married and
did not have a certificate. It's a violation of the planned
birth policy to become pregnant without a birth-allowed
certificate.
To avoid heavy monetary penalties and abortion, she in
order to save the child's life, when she was 3 months
pregnant, left the town. But when she was 9 months pregnant,
somebody informed on her. The planned birth enforcement team
of Yonghe Town began searching for her. They were unable to
find her, so they tore down her husband's family's house and
also threatened to also tear down the house of her parents.
One day, when she was at her parents house, the enforcement
officials forced their way into the house. They found her and
immediately stuffed her into a car and escorted her to the
Municipality Planned Birth Induced Delivery Center where the
abortion was performed.
This is the document that we issue to people who have
already given birth to a son. It's the birth-not-allowed
notices. Such notices are sent to the couple when the data
concludes they do not meet the requirement of the policy and
are not allowed to have any further children. Any couple who
has already given birth to a son will receive this notice and
such notices are made public. The purpose of this is to make
it known to everyone that the couple, if they are having a
second child, is in violation of the policy, therefore,
facilitating supervision of the couple. We also issue control
device inspection and pregnancy test notices.
According to the specific data on each woman, every woman
of childbearing age is notified that she has to have a
contraceptive device, reliability, and pregnancy examinations
when necessary. Should she fail to present herself in a
timely manner for these examinations, she will not only be
forced to pay a fine, but our supervision team will apprehend
her and force her to have such an examination. This is the
document that we issue to women who must undergo
sterilization or other birth control methods.
We also imposed monetary penalties on those who violated
central and provincial regulations. If they refused to pay
the penalties, our supervision team members would apprehend
and detain them until they paid such fines.
We also analyze informant materials submitted in accordance
with the informing system and then put these cases on file
for investigation.
Most planned birth offices in Fujian Province's rural areas
have their own detention facilities. In our town, the
facility is right next door to my office. It has one room for
males and one room for females, each with the capacity of
about 25 to 30 people. To catch violators, our planned birth
office does not need consent by the courts or judicial
departments, or the public security departments. Our actions
are completely independent of them. There are no paperwork
formalities and there are no time limits associated with the
detention. Detainees pay 8 RMB per day for food. They are not
allowed to make phone calls or mail letters.
The majority of the detainees are, of course, either women
who are pregnant without birth-allowed certificates or women
who are to be sterilized or women who have been fined. As I
explained previously, if we do not apprehend the women
themselves, we detain their family members, such as a father,
a mother, a sister, brothers, or their husband. And we detain
them until the women themselves come forward to be sterilized
or to have an abortion.
I led my subordinates to Yinglin Town Hospital to check on
births. I found two women in Zhoukeng Town had extra-plan
births. I led a planned birth supervision team composed of a
dozen cadres and public security agents. With sledge hammers
and heavy crowbars in hand, we went to dismantle their
houses.
We were unable to apprehend the women in the case so we
took their mothers in lieu of them and detained them in the
planned birth office's detention facility. It wasn't until
about half a month later that the women surrendered
themselves to the planned birth office. They were sterilized,
fined heavily, and their mothers were finally released. I
myself did so many brutal things, but I thought that I was
conscientiously implementing the policy of our party and that
I was an exemplary citizen and a good cadre.
Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant, but did not
have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy,
she was forced to undergo an induced abortion. In the
operating room, I saw the child's lips were moving and how
its arms and legs were also moving. The doctor injected
poison into its skull and the child died and it was thrown
into the trash can. Afterwards the husband was holding his
wife and crying loudly and saying, what kind of man am I?
What kind of

[[Page 16597]]

husband am I? I can't even protect my wife and child. Do you
have any sort of humanity?
All of those 14 years, I was a monster in the daytime,
injuring others by the Chinese Communist authorities'
barbaric planned birth policy. But in the evening I was like
all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my
children. I couldn't go on living with such a dual life any
more.
It is also my sincere hope that what I describe here today
can lead you to give your attention to this issue so that you
can extend your arms to save China's women and children.

Mrs. MYRICK. So, if Members of the House agree with the UNFPA that
what Mrs. Gao described is voluntary and suits China's current
conditions, then by all means support the Campbell-Gilman substitute to
give them at least $20 million. I, for one, will never give my vote to
an organization that could look the other way when such atrocities are
being committed against women and children.
I will vote for the Smith amendment and no on the Campbell-Gilman
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
If the gentlewoman wants to achieve a reduction in the kinds of
incidents she just referenced, then she should vote for the Campbell
amendment, because what is clear in every country where family planning
activities have increased, abortions have been decreased.
We only need to look at our experience. In Tunisia, as contraceptive
use increased by 94 percent, abortion rates plummeted. In South Korea,
abortion rates were halved as contraceptive use went up by 80 percent.
What is absolutely clear is that if the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) gets his way, if the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) gets her way, there will be more forced abortions in China. It
is as simple as that.
If we cut back on the voluntary family planning funds, what will
happen? More forced abortions.

{time} 1915

Now, if my colleagues talk to some folks, they will say they have got
problems with family planning, they are against some of the methods
used for birth control. Get up and make that debate. It is a slight of
hand to talk about the forced abortions in China and to try to use that
as an assault on family planning.
Every dollar that is cut from family planning, every time the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) succeeds, he increases forced
abortion in China. It is absolutely clear. What happens is, if women do
not have access to family planning, voluntary family planning, if they
cannot get contraception, there will be more forced abortion.
In every country's experience, as family planning dollars increase,
abortions decrease. It is not the gentleman from New Jersey that will
decrease abortions and forced abortions in China. It is the gentleman
from California. And those of us who support family planning funds that
will reduce the number of abortions in China and all other countries,
support family planning and we will reduce abortion. Limit family
planning funds, and we increase the number of abortions.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give my colleagues a few statistics to
think about as we debate whether to restore funding for UNFPA.
If each woman averages two children, world population would rise to
11 billion in the next century and level off.
If women average 2.5 children each, our globe would face a world with
27 billion people by 2150.
But if the fertility rate fell to 1.6 children per woman, population
would reach a peak of 7.7 billion in 2050 and drop to 3.6 billion by
2150.
It's clear that rampant population growth affects governments'
ability to provide waste treatment and sanitation, schools, food,
transportation, health care and environmental protection.
World population is increasing by 78 million people a year--97
percent of this increase is in developing countries, where access to
family planning and reproductive health services is limited and where
pregnancy and childbirth are still a risk to the lives and health of
women.
We know that in high-fertility countries in sub-Saharan Africa,
between 36 and 55 percent of women report that their most recent birth
was mistimed or unwanted.
We have the tools to give these women access to needed services and
combat this global problem--it's called the UNFPA (UN Fund for
Population Assistance)--but last year we slashed UNFPA's budget to
zero.
In this one year alone, the impact of the U.S.'s decision to withdraw
funding to UNFPA deprived 870,000 women of access to contraception.
This resulted in 500,000 unwanted pregnancies, 234,000 unwanted births
and 200,000 abortions.
We also hurt UNFPA's ability to encourage safe delivery practices,
resulting in the deaths of an additional 1,200 maternal deaths and the
loss of 22,500 infants who couldn't access UNFPA services.
I am here today to urge my colleagues not to make the same mistake
again. The Smith Amendment will leave millions of women and men without
a choice.
In the 30 years since the U.S. Government began helping other
countries provide their citizens with family planning services, the
number of couples using contraception in developing countries has
multiplied tenfold and the average number of children per woman
declined from nearly six to fewer than four.
As we all know, there are many countries around the world that have a
population rate that is higher than their GDP. Their impressive
economic advances become outweighed by their population growth, which
means that they are effectively just treading water. By failing to fund
UNFPA, we are leaving them to drown.
Why oppose the Smith Amendment?
First, the Smith Amendment requires UNFPA to leave China entirely or
lose U.S. support. This puts UNFPA in an impossible Catch-22.
China, as a member of the United Nations, can ask for--and UNFPA must
give--family planning assistance. UNFPA cannot choose its clientele. So
asking UNFPA to leave China is a provision that they can never satisfy.
Second, conditioning UNFPA's funding on certification that there have
been no forcible abortions in China by anyone--including the Chinese
governments family planning program--is also an impossible task.
UNFPA's funding is for UNFPA programs which operate under stringent
human rights standards and with a firm opposition to coercion in all of
its forms. UNFPA does not support abortion--in no case is abortion
allowed as a method of family planning. UNFPA also opposes quotas or
targets in family planning programs and only works in those counties in
China that have abolished such measures.
Contrary to what some people may think, UNFPA did not leave its
conscience at the door when it agreed to provide family planning
assistance to China.
We must remember that we are funding programs of UNFPA, not the
Chinese government. UNFPA conducts a voluntary family planning program
with a rigorous commitment to human rights. The Smith Amendment won't
change China's policies but it will continue to cause suffering around
the world.
Don't hold women and men in the nearly 150 other nations who need and
use UNFPA's services hostage because you don't agree with the policies
of one nation. Support UNFPA's lifesaving work in AIDS prevention,
family planning assistance, and safe pregnancy and childbirth. Reject
the Smith Amendment. Support the Campbell Amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for 20 years the U.N. Population Fund has poured
millions of dollars, about $157 million to be exact, provided technical
assistance, and given effusive praise to China's program that relies on
forced abortion and forced sterilization to achieve its goals.
For 20 years, the UNFPA has whitewashed these crimes, the kind the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) just talked about, and
has heaped lavish praise on China's one-child-per-couple program. It
has provided cover and covered up for the Beijing hardliners who
oppress and victimize women and murder their children.
In fact, Nafis Sadik, the executive director of the UNFPA, has had
this to say about the Chinese program: ``The implementation of the
policy in China and the acceptance of the policy is purely voluntary.
There is no such thing as a license to have a birth.'' That is an
unmitigated lie, I say to my colleagues.
She has also said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the
Government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a
totally voluntary program.'' That, too, is a lie.

[[Page 16598]]

For 20 years, the UNFPA has participated with the perpetrators of the
most egregious systematic abuse of women in history. My colleagues
heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) talk about Mrs.
Gao. She was one of those who ran the program in Fujian Province for 14
years. That is what the UNFPA has covered up for all of these years.
Let me just remind my colleagues that both Presidents Reagan and
Bush, with the support of Democratic Congresses, barred all funding to
the UNFPA because of its complicity and support of China's barbaric
program.
Last year Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Omnibus
Appropriations Act that included a total cut-off of UNFPA funding. Why?
Because it includes heavily forced abortion and forced sterilization.
The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and I are
offering would prohibit U.S. funding to the UNFPA unless the President
certified that UNFPA has terminated all activities in the PRC; or,
during the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no
abortions as a result of coercion.
This is all about forced abortion. The UNFPA has been complicit. They
have supported it. And they have said it with their statements and have
been part of a cover-up.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.
Mr. Chairman, this does not provide for money for abortion in China.
The Campbell amendment takes away money for family planning in China
for every dollar that the U.N. spends there. So this debate is very,
very serious, but it is not on China's abortion policy.
The Campbell amendment authorizes no money for abortion, no money for
China. And for every dime that the U.N. chooses to spend in China, we
take back one dime from the U.N.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, who is the
introducer of the substitute that I support very strongly, for yielding
the time to me.
So I rise in support of the Campbell substitute and in opposition to
the Smith amendment.
The U.N. Population Fund is one of the world's leading international
agencies providing for women's sexual and reproductive health. It
collaborates with government agencies and NGOs to develop and implement
effective policies and programs dealing with female genital mutilation,
HIV/AIDS, comprehensive care for refugees, as we saw in Kosovo, child
and maternal nutrition, and family planning methods and services.
Contrary to what we have heard this evening, UNFPA does not fund or
provide abortion services or related equipment. The UNFPA does not
support China's despicable population programs.
The Campbell amendment prohibits U.S. funds from being used in
UNFPA's China program. It addresses the concern of some Members about
the fungibility of funding by reducing our UNFPA contribution dollar
for dollar for the agency spending in China. It restates U.S. law
forbidding funding for any abortion services.
The goal of the Smith amendment is to force UNFPA to leave China,
even though its current program gives it exclusive control of the
family planning programs in 32 countries. Passage of the Smith
amendment will cut off the U.S. contribution to UNFPA's work worldwide
unless China stops its policies of coercive abortion.
Mr. Chairman, more than 500 million women and girls live in China.
That is one in every five women on this planet. The irony of the
efforts of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is that if UNFPA
were to pull out of China, the only source which Chinese women will
have for family planning and reproductive health services is the
Chinese Government. Again, if the Smith amendment passes, the Chinese
Government will be women's only option for reproductive health care.
It is important that we support the Campbell substitute.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman a question if she
would return to the microphone.
She mentioned a moment ago that this program will be run exclusively
by the UNFPA. Is that her statement?
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I said China is in charge of the
reproductive health and services for the 32 countries.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but who is
running the family planning/population program?
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
UNFPA.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just so the record is very
clear on this, the question was asked by our former U.S. ambassador to
the United Nations, what will be the role of the Chinese Government?
And the answer back from the executive director of the UNFPA was as
follows:

The Chinese Government, at the central and provincial
levels, will be in charge of coordination, internal
monitoring, guidance, and evaluation, all of which will be
conducted in accordance with ICPD principles. The local
government will be in charge of the actual implementation of
project activities at the county level program.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the problem. The Chinese Government, as
they have been doing for the last 20 years, will run this program; and
again, the UNFPA will give it more cover, which it certainly does not
deserve.
Women, it even says in the document, will be assessed a social
compensation fee if they do not conform to the guidelines, the one-
child-per-couple program.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) but no money for
UNFPA goes for Chinese abortion policies or abortion.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment, with
great respect for the maker of this amendment but in complete
disagreement, because it would eliminate funding for international
family planning under the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, and to
support the Campbell-Maloney amendment.
The Smith amendment, if enacted, would punish women and families
around the world in a misguided effort to affect China's family
planning program.
I do not understand why the poorest women on this planet, year in and
year out, must be held hostage to the conservative politics of the
Republican party. And I say that, as I say, with respect for the
individuals involved here.
We should ask, who suffers from the Smith amendment? The World Health
Organization estimates that nearly 600,000 women die each year of
pregnancy and child-birth related causes. Nearly all of these women are
in developing countries.
The UNFPA funds program to reduce this mortality and related health
problems. Women around the world, particularly impoverished women, will
be harmed by this amendment.
I understand my colleagues' concern about some of the horrible
practices in China. That is why this amendment says that any funds used
in China by UNFPA will be deducted from the UNFPA. None of us, none of
us, support forced abortions or forced sterilizations.
The Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment addresses these
concerns by specifically banning U.S. funds from being spent in China.
Furthermore, it requires that for every dollar that UNFPA spends in
China, America's contribution will be reduced, as I have mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I follow closely the human rights
violations in China. The gentleman from

[[Page 16599]]

New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is a leader on that subject, and I support what
he wants to do about China. And that is what we do in the Campbell-
Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment.
While current law already bans U.S. funding for abortions or abortion
services, to once and for all overcome any misunderstanding, this
amendment once again reiterates that prohibition of U.S. funding for
abortions.
We should note that UNFPA is already on record in opposing coercion
and UNFPA conforms to universal human rights standards. The UNFPA does
not fund abortions nor abortion-related activities anywhere in the
world. UNFPA opposes China's one-child-per-family policy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment and to support the
Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment.
With these legal protections and the tremendous need for family
planning efforts around the world, Congress should not block important
programs that promote women's safety and health.
UNFPA programs work and these programs should be given the
opportunity to go forward.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to
how much time remains on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 19\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Smith-Barcia amendment
to the American Embassy Security Act.
The Smith-Barcia amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions to the
UNFPA until UNFPA terminates its involvement with the Chinese coercive
population control program or until China ends its brutal and abusive
one-child-per-family policy.
For 20 years, the UNFPA has been a supporter and defender of China's
population control program, giving the Chinese Government over $150
million.
It is a tragedy that some of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle would even suggest that we should vote to send taxpayer money to
support this brutal Chinese program. This is a tragic and wasteful
expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money.
Why would we contribute taxpayer money to a program that has been a
partner to some of the most heinous population control programs in the
world, including incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they
consent to abortions or sterilizations, forcing pregnant women to
attend ``study sessions'' away from their families until they agree to
have abortions, and carrying about sterilizations without the consent
or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical services?
The worst part of this is that UNFPA is turning a blind eye to these
atrocities against the women of China. In fact, UNFPA has publicly
praised their forced abortion program in China. UNFPA even provides
cover for China's program by calling it voluntary.
This program is anything but voluntary. Here are some horrifying
examples. It is reported that Australia has deported at least three
pregnant women to China, and one of them was very close to her delivery
date. So what happened? Just days before this woman was to give birth,
she was forced to have an abortion.
This abuse is beyond tragic. I do not understand how anyone, in good
conscience, could support UNFPA while they are funding and actively
promoting China's oppressive population control program.
Now, my colleagues will hear our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle push for a compromise with the Gilman-Campbell amendment. Do not
be fooled.

{time} 1930

The Gilman-Campbell amendment is merely an attempt to block an up-or-
down vote on this issue, an attempt to block an up-or-down vote on
Smith-Barcia. It is window dressing for those who are afraid to admit
they are supporting China's policy.
In fact, this amendment proposal was defeated by the House when it
was last offered in 1997 and it should be rejected again today. Why do
we need to keep going over this again and again?
This is plain and simple. The U.S. already contributes to activities
to promote women's health and well-being by contributing to other
international organizations and NGOs that work in this field. It is not
necessary to finance organizations such as UNFPA which collaborate with
programs that violate the fundamental human rights of women and
children.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in a show of our bipartisan strength the
Republican side wishes to yield a 2- minute slot to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, there is something about the debate on
UNFPA up to this point that has been really interesting. The people
against UNFPA do not really want to talk about UNFPA. Instead, they
want to talk about China and how bad China's policies are. You could
never figure from these folks that UNFPA spends less than 2 percent of
its worldwide budget in China and is active in only 32 of China's 2,700
counties.
Now, I do not like China's policies on controlling family size,
forced abortion or forced sterilization and UNFPA's program in China
moves China away from these practices.
I would rather talk about the 98 percent rather than the 2 percent.
In Uganda, UNFPA runs programs to eliminate female genital mutilation
and reduce the number of mothers who die giving birth. In the
Philippines, UNFPA helps women achieve economic empowerment. In Kosovo,
UNFPA gave pregnant refugee women thousands of clean delivery kits.
They did the same thing in Central America after Hurricane Mitch and in
Papua-New Guinea after a tidal wave. In Africa, UNFPA is cooperating
with UNICEF and WHO on a pilot initiative in seven countries to prevent
mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
This is what UNFPA does. What UNFPA does not do is support or fund
abortions. UNFPA does not condone coercion in family planning nor do
they support China's one-child policy and they do not support forced
sterilization.
If we vote against UNFPA, we will ensure that more mothers will die
giving birth, that more children will contract HIV disease and that
female genital mutilation will not go away. That cannot be what we want
and that is why we have to support UNFPA.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Smith amendment to H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of
1999, and in support of the Gilman-Campbell substitute amendment. While
the Smith amendment claims to protect women from coerced abortions in
China, its real effect is to deny poor women around the world access to
voluntary family planning. Further, the Smith amendment fails to
acknowledge that the United Nations Population Fund does not support
abortion as a family planning method, opposes quotas in family planning
programs, and works only in counties in China that have abolished such
practices.
The Gilman-Campbell substitute amendment, on the other hand, provides
the needed funds for millions of women and men around the world who
depend on international support for family planning, AIDS prevention,
and approved infant and maternal mortality. Simply put, the lives of
poor women around the world are at stake if we should pass the Smith
amendment. Poor resources make these women highly vulnerable to death-
related delivery practices, sexually-transmitted diseases, and other
horrible conditions.
Please support the Campbell-Gilman amendment and let us defeat the
Smith amendment.

[[Page 16600]]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Smith-Barcia amendment
and to oppose the Campbell amendment. This amendment prevents U.S.
funding for China's deplorable population control program which
includes coercion, forced abortion and forced sterilization for both
Chinese men and women.
Women all over China are victimized daily due to their desire to bear
children. Let me share with Members a few of the methods used in
China's so-called family planning policy that are a matter of record:
Arresting pregnant women and taking them to abortion clinics tied up
or in handcuffs; incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they
acquiesce to abortions and/or sterilizations; forcing pregnant women to
attend ``study sessions'' away from their families until they agree to
have abortions; carrying out sterilization or abortion without the
consent or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical
services; crushing the skulls of babies with forceps during delivery or
injecting iodine, alcohol or formaldehyde into the soft spots of their
tiny heads as they are crowning so that they are born dead; imprisoning
husbands until their wives submit to child-killing procedures; cutting
off food, electricity, water and wages for couples who refuse to comply
with the Chinese government's barbaric policies; confiscating the
furniture, livestock and even homes of families who refuse to comply;
finally, demolishing the homes of those who refuse to comply, as
reportedly occurred in two Catholic villages in the Hepel province.
When Steven Mosher wrote from his research in China, he said this:

From Sandhead Brigade there were 18 women, all 5 to 9
months pregnant, and many red-eyed from lack of sleep and
crying. They sat listlessly on short plank benches arranged
in a semicircle about the front of the room, where He
Kaifeng, a commune cadre and Communist Party member,
explained the purpose of the meeting. He said slowly and
deliberately, ``None of you has any choice in this matter.
The two of you who are 8 or 9 months pregnant will have a
caesarean; the rest of you will have a shot which will cause
you to abort.''

In order to return home to their families, the women had to agree to
abort their babies no matter how far along their pregnancies were.
This is not family planning. These are outright human rights abuses.
I do not believe that this is a pro-life or a pro-choice issue. It is a
human issue. It is a woman's issue. It is a family issue. This is an
issue of blatant government abuse and the United States taxpayers
should not in any way be a part of it.
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, we should agree that China's
so-called family planning techniques are inhumane. Their slogan is,
this is what China uses to market their campaigns, ``Better to have
more graves than more than one child.''
Mr. Chairman, we cannot stand by claiming that we see no evil, hear
no evil as the UNFPA assists the China program, holding it up as an
excellent example for other countries. Until the UNFPA stops aiding in
the abuse of women in China, we should not fund it.
I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) control my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) have done here
has been truly on a bipartisan basis.
I was sorry to hear the comments of the gentlewoman from San
Francisco (Ms. Pelosi) that seemed to put a partisan tinge on this.
This is the Campbell-Frelinghuysen-Gilman-Greenwood-Horn-Houghton-Nancy
Johnson-Kelly-Morella-Shays amendment and we tried to match every one
of those with a Democratic Member of the House and that has been done.
This amendment is truly bipartisan.
When the Chinese Nationalists moved from the mainland to Taiwan in
1949, they established one of the world's most dynamic economies. In
the 1960s and the 1970s, there were billboards throughout Taiwan. On
those billboards were happy faces and smiles in the family of four of
which two were little kids. Then there was the family and maybe six
little kids and they had unhappy faces. The government educated the
population. They did that with contraception, not abortion.
This is what we are talking about in the Campbell amendment. It is
not funds for abortion. It is funds for contraception, not abortion. A
wise population policy is sorely needed in this world. Over population
is the most serious problem in the world today. There has been a
population explosion in Africa, Asia, and the developing nations of
Latin America. Without educating their people, those countries will not
have a prosperous economy as is the Republic of China on Taiwan. The
Taiwanese will have opportunities.
I happen to be particularly interested in the country of Cambodia.
There are 50,000 to 60,000 Cambodians in Long Beach, California, where
I live. These refugees chose freedom and have opportunity. When I look
at what is going on in the homeland which was devastated by the
murderous Pol Pot. He killed more than a million of his fellow
countrymen. People who live in Cambodia need a population program.
Those in this chamber who want to stop an effective United Nations
Population Program are just plain wrong. We need these funds for
contraception. Women not only in the United States but in developing
nations, in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, need those funds. The
House should not be shortsighted as we have been too often in this
Chamber. If you want to reduce abortions, then encourage contraception
and family planning.
How can you not have contraception and let impoverished women be
forced to have abortions. Provide family planning and contraception?
Then you will not need abortions. Think of the success on Taiwan. That
is what other nations must do. Taiwan's success showed that a nation
does not need to chew up its economic human resources. Taiwan has
provided a good life for most of its people. The people Mr. Campbell's
amendment would help do not have a good life. Vote for the Campbell
amendment and help thousands of people out of poverty.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-
Maloney-Gilman amendment and in opposition to the Smith amendment.
The debate is very simple. If you support the work that the United
Nations Population Fund is doing around the world to reduce unintended
pregnancies and abortions, encourage child spacing and proper nutrition
for mothers and babies, and help women deliver healthy babies in high
risk areas, then vote for the Campbell amendment. If you support
cutting off this critical assistance and leaving women around the world
without the resources they need to keep themselves and their babies
healthy and strong, then vote for the Smith amendment. It is just that
simple.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-Maloney-Gilman
Amendment and in opposition to the Smith Amendment.
This debate is very simple. If you support the work that the United
Nations Population Fund is doing around the world to reduce unintended
pregnancies and abortions, encourage child spacing and proper nutrition
for mothers and babies, and help women deliver healthy babies in high
risk areas, then vote for the Campbell Amendment. If you support
cutting off this critical assistance and leaving women around the world
without the resources they need to keep themselves and their babies
healthy and strong, then vote for the Smith Amendment. It's that
simple.
The fact is: UNFPA does not support coercive abortion policies in
China or anywhere else. UNFPA only operates in counties in

[[Page 16601]]

China that have eliminated the use of any coercive family planning
measures, and encourages voluntary family planning and the elimination
of coercive policies throughout China.
No one can deny that the need for family planning services in
developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable
and worthwhile.
My colleagues, in forty years our planet's population will more than
double. As a responsible world leader, the United States must do more
to deter the environmental, political, and health consequences of this
explosive growth.
And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women
around the world. Complications from pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age
throughout the developing world. One million women die each year as a
result of reproductive health problems.
Mr. Chairman, this vote comes down to one question: Do you support
family planning? If you support voluntary family planning to reduce
unintended pregnancies and abortions around the world, you must vote
yes on the Campbell Amendment and no on the Smith Amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Just let me remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) regarding
his statement earlier, we provide about $385 million to nongovernmental
organizations and governments. Hopefully it will have the Mexico City
conditions attached to it. But that money goes for contraception and
for family planning. We also provide AIDS money and child survival
money. There is an enormous amount of humanitarian aid and I support
much of that aid.
Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, that Amnesty International
recently did a report on coercion in China. They pointed out with an
absolute, declarative sentence, this is something that many of the
human rights groups have pointed out, including the State Department in
its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Here is Amnesty's
statement: ``Birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979.''
There is no right to choice on birth control. That includes, by the
Chinese government's definition, abortion. It is estimated that in
excess of 10 million abortions are performed in China every year, 90
percent of which are coerced in some way. Brothers and sisters, I say
to my colleagues, are illegal in China. It is a one-child-per-couple
policy. That is not family planning. That is Big Brother control.
I would hope my colleagues would realize that the means to
implementing that just happen to be IUDs, abortion, things that many
people in this Chamber, particularly on the other side of this issue,
have no problem with. But when it is coerced, when that line of
demarcation is crossed and forced abortion, which was properly
construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes
Tribunal, is looked at by the UNFPA year in and year out as being a
voluntary program, that is where we have to draw the line and say,
``Wait a minute. The judgment of this organization is suspect.'' It is
a very coercive program. Read the State Department's report. It is
replete with examples and statements about how coercive it truly is.
And read Amnesty's report. These are human rights organizations that
have come out and said it is coercive.
I hope that we can draw the line and withhold this $20 million
because an organization that does this kind of thing does not deserve
it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very
much for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Smith
amendment and in support of the Campbell-Gilman-Maloney bipartisan
amendment. Frankly I think it is important to emphasize what the United
Nations Population Fund really does. The Smith amendment simply
prevents it from doing the good work that it does all over the world.
That is the important statement that we make today. The UNFPA is the
largest internationally funded source of population assistance to
developing countries. It is funded through voluntary contributions by
88 member nations.
This is not an isolated group. This is not a group that participates
in coercing forced abortions in China. In fact, they stand up against
it. Most of their work deals with family planning. Their donors are the
United States, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden,
among others. They provide support to 150 countries in Africa, Latin
America, the Caribbean, Asia, the Pacific, the Arab states and in
Europe. Since 1969, UNFPA has provided almost $4 billion for voluntary
family planning.

{time} 1945

Mr. Chairman, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that someone who
provides a safe delivery kit is involved in forced and coercive
abortions. This is a kit that saves lives, and I would argue very
vigorously, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the UNFPA should be
supported and this amendment, the Smith amendment, voids what we are
trying to do, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to support wholeheartedly
the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) and all others in a bipartisan way to promote family
planning.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by
Representative Campbell, Gilman, and Maloney. This amendment restores
funding to the United Nations Population Fund (``UNFPA'') but ensures
that no U.S. funds will be spent in China. It allows the U.S. to
maintain control over the funds it provides to the UNFPA and requires
that any funds used for a program in China shall be deducted from the
funds made available to the UNFPA.
The UNFPA is the largest internationally funded source of population
assistance to developing countries. It is funded through voluntary
contributions by 88 member nations. The major donors are the United
States, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Great
Britain, Canada, Finland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Australia and
Italy. However, U.S. funding for UNFPA was eliminated for FY 1999.
UNFPA provides support to 150 countries in Africa, Latin America, the
Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, the Arab states in Europe. Since 1969,
UNFPA has provided almost $4 billion for voluntary family planning and
reproductive health care. UNFPA does not provide support for abortions
or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world.
The services provided by the UNFPA are crucial in developing
countries. Each year an estimated 600,000 women die as a result of
pregnancy and childbirth where pregnancy and childbirth are among the
leading causes of death for women of childbearing age.
For example, this safe delivery kit is provided to women in
developing countries. This kit contains a bar of soap, a disposable
razor, a surgical blade, two rolls of umbilical tap, plastic sheeting
and 12 rolls of gauze bandage. This kit saves the lives of the mother
and the child.
Women in these countries must have access to information that will
allow them to make informed reproductive health decisions. These
decisions can mean the difference between life and death.
We all condemn the human rights abuses conducted by China. Therefore,
this amendment requires that U.S. funds contributed to UNFPA be placed
under specific restrictions. U.S. funds will be kept in a separate
account and may not be commingled with other UNFPA funds. It also
deducts dollar for dollar the funds that UNFPA spends in China.
I urge my Colleagues to support this amendment. It restores the U.S.
funding to UNFPA on behalf of women around the world. It also places
restrictions on UNFPA funding to China. This amendment renews our
commitment to save the lives of women around the world.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, governments in many countries that have
experienced rapid growth for nearly two generations are now bursting at
the seams and are unable to meet the challenge of providing even the
most basic services for their citizens. This is the arena in which the
UNFPA works, an arena in which every action has a reaction. In the most
extreme cases, population growth along with poverty, ethnic tensions,
and the misgovernance has resulted in vile conflict. The UNFPA is one
of the most effective

[[Page 16602]]

means available to address the problems caused by rapid population
growth around the world. Its 900 staffers work in more than 150
countries to provide voluntary family planning and reproductive health
services. By doing so, it allows women and men to freely choose to
limit the size of their families, and it helps to reduce the number of
unintended pregnancies and abortions.
I would like to ask my colleagues to ask themselves a few questions
when voting on this, questions like:
Who would do this work if the UNFPA did not?
Where would some countries be without UNFPA?
I know the answers I think of are unsettling, and I am sure many
here, when they stop and think about the bigger picture, will come up
with their own stark conclusions.
I urge my colleagues to support the Campbell amendment and support
funding for UNFPA. And finally let me say in response to my partner in
this effort, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) I am
disappointed. I would like to point out that both Democrats and
Republicans are supportive of family planning; just as, sadly, some
Democrats and some Republicans oppose it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, at least 350 million couples worldwide
do not have access to information about family planning and a full
range of contraceptives. Each day, 55,000 unsafe abortions take place,
95 percent of them in developing countries.
Unsafe abortions result in nearly 600,000 maternal deaths. It is
estimated that the impact of the $20 million cut off will lead to half
a million more unintended pregnancies, 200,000 more abortions, 1,200
maternal deaths, 22,500 infant deaths. And while we are worried about
human rights in China, of course, we are, let us worry about what
desperate women will do. They will try to induce abortions by inserting
objects like sticks and wires and knitting needles into the uterus,
drinking harmful or poisonous substances. They will take dangerous
doses of over-the-counter medication, douche with poisonous and caustic
substances, inflict physical abuse like falling down stairs and blows
to the belly and jumping from heights.
This is the kind of violence against women we need to worry about,
and we can prevent if we support the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) and oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), my good friend.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith-
Barcia amendment and in opposition to the Campbell-Gilman amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there have been many efforts to make the Campbell
amendment look reasonable and rational and easy for a cross-section of
Members to support. However, this amendment merely masks support for
the inhumane treatment of women in China and all around the world. We
cannot overlook the horrendous treatment of women because the United
Nations Population Fund provides some needed services.
Just recently, the world was confronted with the reality of China's
forced abortion policy when a woman who was deported from Australia to
China was forced to go to the People's hospital just 10 days before she
was due to give birth, and she was forced to undergo a mandatory
abortion. Fellow Members of the House, this is totally unacceptable and
intolerable, yet the organization we are talking about funding today,
the United Nations Population Fund, does not even acknowledge a problem
with China's policies. We should not add $20 million in funding to this
organization.
Mr. Chairman, China is not the only place where the United Nations
Population Fund is active in implementing questionable and sometimes
outrageous policies. Peru's population program has violated the human
rights of women by coercing them into sterilization. This may include
offering poor women food in exchange for sterilization or pressing
health workers to reach sterilization quotas and women being sterilized
without their consent.
The U.N. Population Fund is also active in Vietnam and North Korea
which have been credibly accused of coercive practices. They have not
only turned a blind eye to forced abortions and sterilizations, but
have even given China an award in its population control program.
I believe we must stand up and say this is enough. We should not fund
the United Nations Population Fund until the organization has reformed
and renounced coercive and abusive policies. The United States of
America should not give the United Nations Population Fund $25 million
in taxpayers' money until they stop these practices.
According to the Campbell amendment, we will give 25 million to the
United Nations Population Fund, and we will take it away if we can
prove that they are involved.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield since he
referred to my amendment?
Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Can the gentleman kindly point where in my amendment I
give any money to the UNFPA?
Mr. DeMINT. As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment does fund.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the
underlying bill funds, and my amendment takes away from that funding
dollar for dollar whatever UNFPA spends in China.
Mr. DeMINT. Okay, but it does not address, reclaiming my time, this
does not address what this organization is doing around the world, and
it does not send a signal to the organization that we want
accountability to this horrendous treatment of women.
We must strike at the heart of the issue, we must do whatever we can
to send a message to the world that while we appreciate the good things
that this organization does, we expect them to stop this inhumane
treatment.
Please join me in sending a clear message to the Chinese, the United
Nations, that we do not condone this behavior.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Ms. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to ask the gentleman from
California, in a Dear Colleague dated July 15 signed by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) he points out as a truth UNFPA manages
its own program in China.
Does he stand by that statement?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the UNFPA arrangement
with China yields to China the management of the program within China,
and for that reason I do not, in my amendment, give a dime to China.
In fact, if the United Nations spends one dime in China, my amendment
takes that dime back from the U.N. so that the United States tax
dollars are not going to China.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, the point I am trying to make is that in a Dear Colleague that
was sent to every Member on the Hill, every House Member, the statement
has been made that the UNFPA manages its own program in China. That is
demonstrably false.
As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the United Nations
Population Fund on January 7, 1998, assigned by Dr. Sadik what will be
the role of the U.S. government or the Chinese government was the
question. The answer: The Chinese government at the central and
provincial levels would be in charge of coordination in terms of
monitoring, guidance, and evaluation. It also points out that the local
government; that is, the Chinese government, will be in charge of the
actual implementation of project activities at the county level. The
UNFPA will not

[[Page 16603]]

be managing this program, so that it is false and misleading, and I
hope Members will take that into consideration.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
bipartisan Gilman-Campbell amendment, and I place into the Record a
letter to the ambassador, the American ambassador at the U.N.,
outlining UNFPA's policy that states there will be no birth quotas,
that all birth quotas are lifted, and if there is any coercion it will
be investigated and the program will be suspended. And also, a letter
from the State Planning Commission of China, I would like to have that
placed into the Record, and I repeat that this debate is not about
China. It is about helping the 149 other countries where UNFPA is
saving the lives of women giving birth to children and family planning.
The letters referred to are as follows:

United Nations Population Fund,

New York, NY, 7 January 1998.
His Excellency, Mr. Bill Richardson,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent
Representative of the United States of America to the
United Nations, United States Mission to the United
Nations, New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Ambassador: I am writing to provide you with
information in response to the questions and concerns raised
by your Government in your letter of 2 December regarding the
UNFPA Programme of Assistance to China, which will be
presented to the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board at this month's
session.
Your questions with our responses are attached. We hope
that this information will answer the queries to your
satisfaction. We shall stay in close contact with you and
your staff in preparation for the Executive Board, and remain
available to answering further questions you may have.
I remain, dear Mr. Ambassador,
Yours sincerely,
Nafis Sadik,
Under-Secretary-General.

Responses to Questions Raised by U.S. Government on the UNFPA Programme
of Assistance to the Government of the People's Republic of China
(1998-2000)

1. which counties will be included in the program? what is their
population and how do they compare to national averages in ICPD
threshold indicators? how did unfpa ascertain the commitment of local
authorities to icpd goals and principles?

Below is a list of the counties to be included under the
program. The UNFPA field office in Beijing is in the process
of preparing a detailed profile of all 32 counties. The most
important input into these profiles, however, will be a
baseline study which will be carried out in February 1998
with the technical assistance of an expert from Tulane
University, USA. Unfortunately, it was not possible to carry
out this baseline survey ahead of time owing to the fact that
no UNFPA funding was available to be spent in China in 1996
and 1997. This survey will provide a clear picture of the RH
situation prevailing in selected counties.
ICPD indicators, while available nationally are not broken
down to the county level. This is because the sources of data
are sample surveys which may not be representative at the
county level. The counties were selected based on criteria
agreed to with the Government: the commitment of local
authorities to the projects and to the principles of the ICPD
and the availability and commitment to a minimum of
counterpart funding toward project activities; the existence
of a good working relationship between State Family Planning
Commission and the Ministry of Health at the county level;
counties were selected where we are optimistic that results
can be obtained within the three year time frame. Hence
counties that are too poor, too remote, or too lacking in
counterpart funding and enlightened leadership were not
chosen. For the same reason the selection process also tried
to include a cross section of counties from different regions
of the country.
UNFPA worked with the national Government to ensure that
local authorities possessed a commitment to the ICPD,
political will and the availability of counterpart resources.
County and province
Fengnin--Hebei.
Luanxian--Hebei.
Wenshui--Shanxi.
Aohanqi--Inner Mongolia.
Guichi--Ahui.
Xuanzho--Ahui.
Jianou--Fujian.
Yushui--Jiangxi.
Dongmi--Shandong.
Xinyang--Henan.
Mengzh--Henan.
Yingsha--Hubei.
Qianjian--Hubei.
Linwu--Hunan.
Youxian--Hunan.
Sihui--Guangdong.
Lipu--Guangxi.
Longan--Guangxi.
Wencha--Hainan.
Bazhong--Sichuan.
Yilong--Sichuan.
Pingba--Guizhou.
Zhenfen--Guizhou.
Xinping--Yunnan.
Xiangyu--Yunnan.
Luonan--Shaanxi.
Xixiang--Shaanxi.
Yuzhong--Gansu.
Datong--Qinghai.
Pingluo--Ningxia.
Kuerle--Xinjiang.
Rongcha--Chongqing.

2. will birth quotas remain in effect in these counties, and will women
face sanctions if they become pregnant or bear a child outside the
quota?

No birth quotas or targets will be applied in the counties
participating in the project. Funds will be released only
after the UNFPA field office has received official written
commitment from the provincial authorities that quotas and
targets have been removed in each of the participating
counties.
In the project counties couples will be allowed to have as
many children as they want, whenever they want, without
requiring birth permits or being subject to quotas; however,
they may still be subject to a ``social compensation fee'' if
they decide to have more children than recommended by the
policy. State Family Planning Commission has indicated that
it is the Government's intention to gradually eliminate
incentives and disincentives from the family planning
programme.

3. Will foreign observers, including NGO's and diplomatic personnel,
have access to project counties and to relevant county officials?

It has been agreed with the Chinese Government that the
project will follow all UNFPA procedures for monitoring an
evaluation. In addition, the government has agreed that the
project counties will be open to monitoring and evaluation
visits by foreigners and that county officials would be
available to talk to foreign delegations.
As evidence to this openess it should be noted that
recently (28 November-3 December 1997) a delegation of
foreign diplomats representing 17 countries on the UNFPA
Executive Board participated in a field visit to project
counties to gain a better understanding of the prevailing
situation in the field and of the proposed project
activities. The delegation which included 6 ambassadors was
composed of representatives from Argentina, Brazil, Canada,
the Czech Republic, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, the
Republic of Korea, Libya, Malaysia, Norway, Romania,
Tanzania, Thailand, Ukraine and the U.S.A.

4. What procedures will be in place to see that there are no coercive
practices in the counties assisted by UNFPA?

Frequent and rigorous monitoring visits and activities will
be undertaken by UNFPA and independent consultants as part of
the project work plan, which includes inter-alia, surveying
client satisfaction, surveying FP service provider skills,
and qualitative and quantitative assessment of progress made
under the project.
The first important crucial step is the written commitment
of the local Government authorities to the principles of
ICPD, and specifically to ensuring that no coercion takes
place in the selected counties. As mentioned earlier, no
funds will be released until written commitment has been
received from each of the local authorities of all the
participating Provinces.

5. What will be the role of the Chinese government? What will be the
role of UNFPA?

The Chinese Government at the central and provincial levels
will be in charge of coordination, internal monitoring,
guidance and evaluation, all of which will be conducted in
accordance to ICPD principles. The local government will be
in charge of the actual implementation of project activities
at the county level.
UNFPA's role will include monitoring and evaluation at the
county level (as discussed above).
The projects will be executed by UN agencies and
international NGOs.

6. What procedures would UNFPA follow and what recourse is available if
physical, psychological or economic coercion is reported in project
areas? Under what circumstances would UNFPA consider termination of all
or part of its program?

If UNFPA finds that there have been violations of the
project guidelines in any county UNFPA will suspend
operations of the project activities until the situation has
been corrected.
If the situation is not corrected it will be reported to
the Executive Board.
The State Family Planning

Commission of China,

Beijing, June 30, 1998.
Dr. Nafis Sadik,
Executive Director, United Nations Population Fund, New York,
USA.
Dear Dr. Sadik: It has been a great pleasure to meet with
you last March during the

[[Page 16604]]

High Level Meeting in Bangkok convened by ICOMP in
cooperation with UNFPA. As you have been informed the
orientation meeting for the project on RH/FP was held in
April of this year. The more than 160 participants to the
meeting include government officials from the State Family
Planning Commission (SFPC), the Ministry of Foreign Trade and
Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), Ministry of Health (MOH),
relevant provinces, prefectures and counties as well as
project managers, consultants and representatives from NGOs.
Mr. Sven Burmester, UNFPA representative in Beijing also
addressed the meeting.
Agenda items of the meeting comprise the principles of
ICPD-POA, project objectives and activities, strengths and
challenges in achieving the project objectives as well as
project implementation plan. An outcome of the meeting is the
consensus on how to implement the project. Following the
meeting, the project counties have made considerable
preparatory work for the project: the setting up of project
leading groups headed by county governors or their deputies,
drafting of tentative work plans and even county-level
project orientation meetings in some cases.
Following the ICPD, in the light of ICPD-POA, and China's
national reality and drawing on both China and other
countries' experiences, the Chinese government has made some
new decisions and initiatives in implementing its population
and family planning program. In 1995, SFPC announced that the
approach and practice of the family planning program will
undergo two transformations. In the same year, China's State
Council organized a national meeting to promote the
integrated approach for the family planning program. With a
view to meeting the need of the public on reproductive health
and family planning, a pilot project on quality service was
initiated by SFPC in 11 counties, and approaches of informed
choice of contraceptive methods are widely promoted across
the country. With still 50 million impoverished population in
the country, SFPC, in cooperation with other ministries and
departments, conducted activities which integrate family
planning with poverty alleviation, aiming at helping rural
women in income generation and thus improving their status.
Welcomed by the local people, these efforts have also created
favorable conditions and beneficial experiences for the
implementation of the project.
After the orientation meeting, the project counties
reaffirmed their commitment to implementing the project in
the light of ICPD-POA, their local characteristics and with a
view of drawing on both domestic and foreign experiences. The
project counties promise to adopt an integrated approach: one
that will combine the promotion of family planning with
economic development, universal education, improvement of
women's status and provision of quality FP/RH services, and
ensure that implementation of the project is not in the form
of imposing birth quotas and acceptor targets on FP
providers. While the counties are fully aware that they will
be facing various challenges in the implementation of the
project, they have expressed their confidence in the
project's success, believing that the project objectives are
in conformity with that of China's reproductive health and
family planning program. Besides, China's post-ICPD
experiences in its reproductive health and family planning
program have also laid the required foundation for the
implementation of the project.
I am very pleased to learn that the project document has
been finalized between the Government and UNFPA Beijing
Office and sent to the headquarters for approval. In the
meantime, we very much hope that the headquarters will speed
up the process to review and approve the project document so
as to ensure the achievement of the project objectives within
the limited project period. It is my belief that a good
implementation of the project will greatly facilitate the
fulfillment of the objectives set in ICPD-POA in China--a
country which is home to nearly a quarter of the world's
population and step up China's reproductive health and family
planning program. It is also the hope of both myself and my
colleagues that you yourself could come and visit some of the
project counties after the project starts.
With my best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Li Honggui,
Vice Minister.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the bipartisan Campbell-Maloney-Gilman amendment to restore funding
to the United Nations Population Fund and in opposition to the Smith
amendment. And in response to the most recent speaker on the other
side, I think it is important to underscore once again the Campbell
amendment provides no family planning money to China, it provides no
family planning money for abortions. International family planning
assistance is essential though in addressing two of the greatest
challenges that face the developing world, providing better health care
to women and reducing the rate of child mortality.
That is what we ought to be focusing on here tonight. Over 585,000
women a year die from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth.
UNFPA extends prenatal and postnatal care and counseling, increasing
the chance for survival for Third World children and their mothers. By
simply teaching women to space their children 2 years apart, the UNFPA
helps increase the survival rate for these children by almost 30
percent.
U.S. contributions to UNFPA also help prevent abortions, and we seem
in some danger of losing sight of that tonight. I presume we all share
that goal. Continuing to withhold U.S. funding for UNFPA will
contribute to an estimated 500,000 unplanned pregnancies. That means
abortions, perhaps 200,000 more abortions it has been estimated, as
well as 1,200 maternal deaths, and 22,500 infant deaths. Studies show a
clear link between the introduction of family planning services in
Mexico, Columbia, Hungary, Russia, central Asian republics and a
decline in the number of abortions.
With this one vote, Mr. Chairman, we can help improve women's health,
we can decrease child mortality, we can dramatically reduce the number
of abortions worldwide. The United States cannot fail to meet these
responsibilities. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Gilman-Campbell-Maloney
amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and allowing me to participate in this debate. And I continue to
wonder, if my colleagues do not support abortions, why would they
oppose family planning? And when they oppose family planning, what it
says to me is they want more abortions, because that is the direct
outcome.
And I also wonder why so many men stand up and do not want women to
have knowledge about family planning, particularly in poor countries
where they need it the most. I wonder what is humane about that? What
is loving, what is kind about that? I am embarrassed by the opposition
of so many to allow women to have family planning information. I
support the measly $25 million that we would provide to the United
Nations Population Fund, and I regretfully support the Campbell-
Maloney-Gilman-Crowley amendment of which I am cosponsor, which says
that any money for family planning that goes to China would be
deducted, so the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) cannot continue
to make these false charges. There is no U.S. money going to China
because we deduct it, and that is the bottom line.
I support family planning because I am concerned about the projected
growth of 800 million new people from 1990 to 2000, and projections of
another 800 million new people from 2000 to 2010, and I wonder what
this world is going to be like with so much poverty and death.

{time} 2000

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney-
Campbell-Gilman amendment and in opposition to the Smith amendment. I
think it is very important that we get back to the facts here.
As has been pointed out, the funding that we are talking about
tonight goes into maternal and child health services and devices. This
includes family planning; it includes birth control devices. These are
exactly the types of tools that we need to put in the hands of men and
women, particularly in our developing countries, who are seeking to
improve the lives of themselves and their families and to better their
own countries. There are many men and women in these countries who are
struggling to support their families, and we should be encouraging them
to engage in responsible family planning.
Now, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has expressed a
multitude

[[Page 16605]]

of concerns about practices in China. I think it is fair to say here
that every Member of Congress standing here tonight deplores those
activities. But it is also very clear and should be beyond dispute that
there is not a single dollar proposed to go to China and to endorse any
of those practices and, instead, will go to other countries.
I urge adoption of the Campbell-Gilman-Maloney amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I respect the previous speaker very much, and when he says every
Member deplores what is going on in China, I believe that. The problem
is the UNFPA does not deplore it. They have been fronting and
whitewashing crimes against women for 20 years and they continue to do
so. It speaks volumes of an organization when it says there is no
coercion, when every human rights group and every Member of Congress
says that there is.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Smith amendment and in very strong support of the bipartisan Gilman -
Campbell - Greenwood - Porter - Horn - Johnson - Kelly - Morella -
Shays - Boehlert amendment, and I thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for his leadership.
Our amendment has deep and strong bipartisan support. What it says is
that we want to do something to help women and the 149 countries
receive maternal health care and child health care. Over 500,000 women
die in childbirth each year. That is equivalent to one or two jumbo
jets crashing every day. When there is just one crash, it is headline
news for weeks; but the slow toll on women around the world is hardly
on our radar screen.
It is about giving out safe delivery kits as were handed out to the
women refugees in Kosovo. These are handed out to poor women and
children, and it saves lives. It is health care.
Mr. Chairman, 179 countries support UNFPA. Let me tell my colleagues
what it is not about. It is not about China; no money goes to China.
And it is not about abortions, because no family planning money can be
spent for abortions. If we continue the UNFPA cutoff, it will not hurt
China. What it will hurt are women and children and lead to more
abortions in the other 149 countries in which UNFPA works. It is about
saving lives; it is about health care.
There is a solution to the suffering, and that is family planning
support. Support the Gilman-Campbell amendment, cosponsored by many,
many others of our colleagues. I thank the deep, bipartisan coalition
that has worked to correct the action of our country cutting off funds
when 179 other countries have supported that effort.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at this time documentation in
support of my position.

[From the New York Times, July 15, 1999]

Vote Today To Support Maternal and Child Health--Family Planning Under
Fire

support the gilman-campbell-maloney-crowley amendment to state
department reauthorization

(Submitted by Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress)

Last year Congress disgracefully cut off funding to the
United Nations Population Fund, an agency that supports
voluntary family planning services, maternal and child health
initiatives, and AIDS and sexually transmitted disease
prevention programs in 150 countries. In April the House
International Relations Committee wisely voted to restore $25
million for the program in 2000. A House vote on the State
Department authorization bill containing that contribution is
expected today.
Once again, however, this worthy program is under attack by
anti-abortion forces. The Population Fund does not provide or
pay for abortion services in any country, and can actually
reduce the need for abortions. Yet Representative Christopher
Smith, a fervent abortion opponent, is expected to offer an
amendment to block funds for the program. He and others have
argued that the United States should contribute no money to
the agency unless it ceases all family planning activities in
China.
This is senseless, because the fund's pilot project in
China is actually designed to end coercive population
policies. Under the program, the Chinese authorities have
agreed to abandon quotas like the one-child policy in 32
areas covered by the pilot project, and adopt instead new
strategies to slow birth rates, such as better contraception,
health care and expanded economic opportunities for women.
Even so, as a tactical move, the program's supporters have
agreed to deduct any amount the Population Fund spends in
China, which is expected to be $5 million a year, from the
$25 million United States contributions. The House now has no
excuse for not financing family planning efforts that can
improve the lives of women all over the world.
____

[From the Des Moines Register, May 28, 1999]

Defusing the Population Bomb--Balance is Within Global Reach With
Enough Unselfish Help

It took 1,900 years from the birth of Christ to the dawning
of the 20th century for the world's human population to reach
2 billion. In a single century since, it will have tripled.
The 6-billion mark will be reached this October. An
additional billion should be on hand by about 2014.
The good news is that life expectancy at birth has
increased by two-thirds in this century, as more infants
survive their first year. Further, while the population boom
continues, it has been slowed by family-planning efforts. Not
one industrialized country has a fertility rate higher than
the replacement level, according to the Population Reference
Bureau. The bad news is that, in the underdeveloped areas,
the slowing of population growth is due to a rising death
rate. Overtaxing the environment increases scarcities of
basic necessities, and could accelerate that increase.
The world is running out of water to drink or use to grow
crops. Eight percent of the world's population faces chronic
water shortages, according to the United States Agency for
International Development, and by 2025, more than one-third
will face that danger. Hunger now kills 6 million a year.
Water shortages could reduce the grain harvest in India,
where already more than half of all children are
malnourished.
The developed world, meanwhile, is reproducing responsibly.
Americans have achieved stability with a 2.0 fertility rate
(two children per woman). Our swelling population results
from immigration. Europe's fertility rate stands at 1.4. Asia
and Latin America show remarkable declines in the past 50
years, from 5.9 to 2.8 in Asia, 5.9 to 3.0 in Latin America.
But in Africa, the rate has fallen only from 6.6 to 5.6. And
where efforts to control population fail, starvation and
disease move in. World Watch Institute says the HIV virus is
reversing gains made in life expectancy in Africa. Since
1990, life expectancy in Botswana has dropped from 62 years
to 44.
It means we have a very long way to go to find a healthy
population balance.
The most hopeful note in the population statistics is that
50 percent of the world's married women of childbearing age
now practice family planning, compared to fewer than 10
percent just 30 years ago. The tragedy is that the percentage
isn't far higher than 50 percent.
As the Population Reference Bureau notes, the decline in
childbearing was ``brought about by investments in family
planning and other health programs, in education, and in
greater social and economic opportunities, especially for
women.'' Control of their childbearing means greater health
and opportunity for both them and their children.
The greatest accomplishment mankind could muster in the
coming century would be a guarantee that all of its newborns,
everywhere on the globe, enter the world with a decent chance
at a decent life. With unselfish help from the industrialized
nations, it is within our reach.
____

[From the Houston Chronicle, July 7, 1999]

Population Funding Will Help To Prevent Abortions

As the century prepares to close, the world's population is
shooting inexorably toward the 6 billion mark and will
surpass it later this year. One billion will be teenagers
moving into their reproductive years, and the population
explosion can reasonably be expected to continue increasing
exponentially.
This means a number of problems around the world, including
simply meeting the needs of education and jobs and the need
for family planning. World population has doubled since 1950.
What effect will it have on the environment, waste disposal
and immigration when it reaches 15 billion or more?
The United Nations Population Fund, which plays a critical
role for millions of women and their families, has been made
a scapegoat in this country in recent years, with U.S.
funding for the UNPF caught up in a clash of ideologies that
is more about political grandstanding than about dealing with
the real issues and solutions to explosive population growth.
In 1994 a program of action was adopted at the
International Conference on Population and Development, of
which the United States was a major architect. Five years
after its inception, significant progress can be cited in
nations where the plan is in place. But the

[[Page 16606]]

greatest obstacles, say supporters, have been a lack of
financial resources and the unfulfilled commitment of donor
nations such as the United States. Congress, under the false
impression that tax money would be paying for abortions,
defunded the U.S. commitment last September.
Earlier this year, the U.S. House International Relations
Committee took the first step in reversing this mistake when
it voted to restore funding. In the coming days, the full
House is expected to vote on that measure contained in the
State Department Authorization (HR 1211). Some in the House,
however, are threatening to strip this provision from the
funding legislation. That would be a very shortsighted and
misguided move.
The sad irony is that the population program would actually
do far more in the way of family planning and the prevention
of unwanted pregnancies and abortions than its critics are
willing to admit. If the motivation for opposition to this
measure is truly to halt abortions, then those who would kill
it are actually doing the legislative equivalent of throwing
gasoline onto a fire.
Members of the Texas congressional delegation will shortly
have an opportunity to do the right thing by leaving the
funding intact. Or they may opt to take the low road and
exacerbate the problem they claim they are trying to solve.
We hope they choose the former over the cynical political
grandstanding and rhetorical sleight of hand.
____

[From the Star, June 16, 1999]

World Population

The House of Representatives soon should consider renewal
of funding for the United Nations Fund for Population
Activities. That is always a difficult issue in Congress,
where last fall the House voted against this program as part
of the omnibus budget resolution.
Family-planning assistance through the United Nations fund
is one of the most important foreign assistance programs
Congress considers because it contributes to universal access
to family planning, prenatal care and reproductive disease
services around the globe.
Support for the $17 billion per year commitment to
population spending has been dwindling, particularly in this
country that formerly was a leader in international family
planning.
Partly because of questions over paying for abortions in
China, Congress has capped spending for international family
planning at 70 percent of its 1995 level. However, the
legislation to be considered by the House would authorize $25
million in each of the next two fiscal years to the United
Nations fund as long as certain conditions are met. Among
them: None of the U.S. money would go to China and U.S. funds
would not be mixed with other United Nations funds.
Further, the United Nations would have to meet other
restrictions in regards to its spending in China or the
United States could reduce its contributions. These
conditions should satisfy critics.
World population growth is slowing, but it is problematic
in developing nations. This year the world reaches 6 billion
people. In another 14 years, the number is expected to rise
to 7 billion, a total that could be reached faster depending
on regional birth rates, the effect of AIDS, longer life
expectancies and family-planning programs.
The United States plays a pivotal role, particularly in
leading other developed nations, in slowing population
growth. Congress should reauthorize effective programs
through the United Nations fund.
____

[From the Courier-Journal, July 5, 1999]

UN Population Efforts Need Our House Members' Votes

Five years after the United Nations Population Fund's
historic Cairo conference, there's still no consensus on
issues such as abortion, family planning and sex education.
As a result, final agreement on an action plan was still
being blocked at the UN last week by a group of small nations
mostly Catholic and Muslim and including the likes of Libya
and Sudan.
The good news is that population growth has, in fact,
slowed in many places, thanks in part to the UN's efforts.
But one big obstacle to more progress has been money. In a
week or so, the U.S. House of Representatives will be able to
do something about that, by restoring funds for the UN
population program to the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act.
Supporters fear that, if past attitudes are indicative, GOP
members from this area will say no. But they hope that two
new Democrats--Ken Lucas of Kentucky and Baron Hill of
Southern Indiana--will say yes. We hope so, too.
The Cairo conference produced surprising agreement among
disparate people: the Pope, Vice President Al Gore, leaders
of Christian and Islamic countries, feminists, greens,
scientists, prophets of doom, and condom salesmen. The
abortion issue stymied unanimity, but there was broad
commitment to more family planning, more education, and more
effort to improve women's and children's health.
Sometime this fall, the world's population will reach 6
billion, one-sixth of them teenagers entering their
reproductive years. But, thanks to efforts by governments,
charities and the UN, there's still a chance to hold the
total to something like 9.8 billion by 2050. Mexico is
showing how it can be done.
Earlier this month, New York Times reporter Sam Dillon
described the spectacular drop in Mexico's birth rate, from
seven children per woman in 1965 to 2.5 today. That decline
has produced what population experts call a demographic
bonus--what Dillon described as ``the opportunity to generate
higher savings rates and domestic investments that can bring
rapid development, if the bonus is managed shrewdly.''
Such progress is crucial for a country that already can't
supply jobs for the 1.3 million new workers who enter the job
market each year. It's also important north of the border.
Economic troubles have pushed the yearly total of workers
leaving Mexico for the United States from 27,000 in the 1960s
to more than 277,000 now.
Mexico's record is being duplicated, sometimes exceeded,
around the world, especially in Latin America. But more could
have been accomplished had it not been for the hundreds of
millions in cuts imposed on overseas family planning by the
GOP Congress, which defunded the U.N. effort last September.
Democratic Reps. Lucas and Hill may have conservatives in
their districts pushing for a ``no'' vote, but they won't be
under the same pressure as their GOP colleagues to oppose
renewal of appropriations for the United Nations Population
Fund.
They can do the right thing. And their GOP colleagues
always have the option of surprising everyone by casting
sensible, humane votes.
____

[From the San Francisco Examiner, July 9, 1999]

Reproduction Error--Congressional Conservatives Persist in Their
Mistaken Notion That Global Family Planning Efforts Don't Deserve U.S.
Money

Ample reasons exist to continue the worldwide fight to
control population. Survival is the first, but quality of
life is an important byproduct. Still, the battle expected
this summer in the U.S. Congress will be over whether
managing the Earth's population is a goal worthy to pursue.
Capitol Hill, unfortunately, is where domestic politics and
notions of morality get mixed up with sound public policy and
good science. The Hill also is where this country will soon
decide whether to support the United Nations Population Fund.
Congress' action will occur shortly before the world's
population is predicted to top 6 billion (as soon as late
July). Last year, Congress nixed $25 million for the U.N.
office.
The controversy is created by a misperception. Some
congressional conservatives are confused about international
family planning efforts. By law, the United States cannot
provide funds for abortions overseas, but the religious right
carries the debate further. It argues that the U.S. should
not give funds for other family planning activities to an
organization that also provides abortions or even just
abortion counseling. Its bizarre reasoning is that U.S.
support will allow those organizations to shift money into
promoting abortion.
There's no evidence of that. But there's plenty of evidence
that denying women birth control information creates more
abortions, more unwanted babies and more misery. Where's the
compassion in these Capitol Hill conservatives?
Experts say the world adds 78 million people a year, or the
equivalent of San Francisco's population every three days.
The prospect of overpopulation ought to worry everyone. As
the Earth's resources become more and more strained, the
misery won't be confined to Third World women denied facts or
contraception. Hardship will intrude into middle class
neighborhoods, country clubs and even onto the floor of the
House of Representatives.
Full funding of U.N. population efforts constitutes common
sense.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to announce the remaining time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 6 minutes remaining;
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has 2 minutes remaining;
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) will have the
right to close.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is what the bill says. The bill gives $25 million
to the United Nations Family Planning Agency and it says, no money for
abortions. This is what the bill does. It says money from the U.S.
taxpayer cannot go for abortion. It also says money from the U.S.
taxpayer cannot go to China. That is what the bill says, the underlying
bill. No money for abortion; no money for China.
Our good friend from New Jersey says, but this is not enough, because
the United Nations might give some

[[Page 16607]]

money of its own, some other people's money to China. So what the
gentleman from New Jersey does is punish every other country on earth
that might receive help from the United Nations Family Planning Agency.
I have been to sub-Saharan Africa almost every break that I can over
the last 5 years. Zimbabwe is facing 1 million orphans from AIDS. My
colleagues heard about Uganda and its female genital mutilation. These
are deep and important problems that are helped by U.N. family
planning.
Why can we not help some other way? Because the Brook amendment bars
the United States assisting a country if that country has defaulted on
its debts, and the truth is sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have
largely defaulted on their debts, so there is no other way that we can
assist people in need in Africa, in India, in Bangladesh, in South
America. Why would we punish them to make a statement, just to make a
statement?
We are not seeing any assistance to China under the bill. My
amendment says if the U.N. gives one dollar to China, we take a dollar
back from what the United States gives to the U.N. My amendment does
not add a dime; it takes away money in order to be sure that the China
issue does not control this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I have been at pains to explain this. If colleagues
think it is the same vote as last year, it is not. The Mexico City
issue is not in this. What is in this bill is compassion for the people
of Africa, South America, and Asia. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the
Maloney-Campbell amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder
of my time.
First of all, I believe and I hope the House will believe and vote
that the Campbell amendment trivializes forced abortion and coercive
population control. The Amnesty International report made it very clear
that birth control, and I quote again, ``has been compulsory since
1979.'' Get this, this is right out of the report: ``Women must have
official permission to bear children.'' The government has to tell them
when and if, by issuing, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) pointed out earlier, these coupons, these certificates that say
that you can have a child. Who is the Chinese government to say that?
And then the UNFPA comes in and says it is a voluntary program. It is
anything but a voluntary program.
Let me also point out, again from Amnesty International's reporting,
that what happens in China constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading
treatment of detainees and restricted persons by government officials.
They hold women. They put them into cells until they have their
abortions. This is outrageous, and the UNFPA has given its good
housekeeping stamp of approval year in and year out to this egregious
practice.
Mr. Chairman, the supporters of the Campbell amendment, which is
really a killer amendment, have made some arguments tonight. I would
respectfully submit they are wrong, and most of them are internally
contradictory. First, they argue that the UNFPA program in China is a
force for good, that it helps the women and children in China and not
the brutal PRC program of population control.
But here is what Wei Jingsheng, the great Chinese democracy advocate,
had to say about that argument, and I quote: ``When the United Nations
gave the Chinese government its population control award, the Chinese
people were flabbergasted. UNFPA,'' he goes on to say, ``extended
extensive help to the Chinese Communist Government. By doing that, it
has set itself on the opposite side of the Chinese people.''
That is Wei Jingsheng talking, not Chris Smith or the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Barcia) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). That
is the leading democracy activist who spent years in the laogai because
of his beliefs. UNFPA's argument that they are not involved in the
coercive aspects of the Chinese program, that just by being there they
might make it more free and voluntary, is exactly what they argued in
1986 when the UNFPA supporters sued the Reagan administration for
finding that the UNFPA, and I quote, ``supports or participates in the
management of a program of coercive abortion.''
Here is what Judge Abner Mikva, who later became President Clinton's
White House counsel, had to say. He and two other judges found that
AID's, and I quote, ``careful explanation of how the UNFPA's activities
in China aid the aspects of China's program that Congress condemned
amply supports his conclusion that funding UNFPA is prohibited.''
In other words, Judge Mikva, again he was the counsel for the White
House and he was a judge, upheld the determination that UNFPA supports
or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion.
The second argument made by supporters is that UNFPA is not about
forced abortion. It is about opposing female genital mutilation and
other violations of rights of women and children.
Mr. Chairman, this is an argument born of desperation. UNFPA is
trying to reinvent itself in order to deflect attention from the real
issue of UNFPA's complicity in the Chinese forced abortion program.
Mr. Chairman, when this argument started to surface, I asked my staff
to find out how much the UNFPA spends on female genital mutilation. But
despite repeated inquiries by my staff and other congressional staff,
they absolutely refuse to give us any statistics on what, if anything,
it has spent on anti-FGM projects.
The only mention of FGM in UNFPA's 1998 annual report is a single
sentence describing the efforts of a super model who serves as a
volunteer public relations worker for the UNFPA. The budget document
that accompanied the report contained not a single mention of FGM.
Dozens, I would point out to my colleagues, of international
organizations and NGOs do work on female genital mutilation and other
good works as well. We must help those organizations, but we do not
need to fight this evil by giving millions of dollars to an
organization that collaborates with an equally egregious evil.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, look at what the Campbell amendment would
actually do. Contrary to the claims of some of its supporters, it is
not really a cutting amendment. Let us dispense with that. It starts
out by increasing UNFPA's funding from zero, which is what is in the
fiscal year 1999 budget, to $25 million; then it reduces the increase
by $5 million. So the net effect is that if their amendment passes, it
would give the UNFPA $20 million more next year. It cries crocodile
tears over the victims of Chinese forced abortion, but its net effect
is to give a $20 million reward to the principal international
collaborator with that program.
Mr. Chairman, if someone proposed that we give millions of dollars to
an organization that actively assisted in the management of a prison
program in which prisoners were routinely tortured, what would we do?
Would we say fine, you can have $25 million, but first we are going to
subtract $5 million because that is what you actually contributed to
the torture program? No, Mr. Chairman.
I believe we would cut off that organization without a dime. We would
want to disassociate ourselves completely from the torturers and their
accomplices. But even more important, we would want to impose a severe
punishment, and more importantly, a deterrent against possible
collaboration in a program that included torture, because we want to
put an end to torture. And the way to stop a bad practice, I would
submit, whether it be torture or genocide or, in this case, forced
abortion, is not to give $20 million to its collaborators. Vote ``no''
on the Campbell amendment and ``yes'' on Smith-Barcia.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized
for 1\1/4\ minutes.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
I rise in strong support of the United Nations Population Fund and in
firm opposition to the Smith amendment.

[[Page 16608]]

The United Nations Population Fund provides basic information on
family planning. It is just that simple. It targets families in
developing countries who otherwise would have to go without basic
services such as prenatal and postnatal care. This United Nations
program is also leading the charge in confronting the AIDS epidemic in
Africa by working to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS
virus. These types of infections account for roughly a third of new HIV
infections.
This program should be commended and not burdened with the irrelevant
restrictions on China as found in the Smith amendment which will
deprive women in dire economic and personal circumstances from
receiving the essential family planning that this program provides. A
vote for the Smith amendment is a vote against the thousands of
refugees who are women in the Balkans who have received kits which help
to prevent the infections and diseases associated with giving birth and
in unsanitary conditions.

{time} 2015

Furthermore, we should not accept the fact that an estimated 1,200
additional women and 22,500 infants are projected to die if this House
refuses to support the Nation's Population Fund. That would be immoral.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Smith amendment and for the
Campbell - Maloney - Gilman - Crowley - Greenwood amendment for
responsible family planning
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about
reducing the number of abortions and improving the health and welfare
of women and children around the world, then the U.S. must continue to
contribute to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
UNFPA works in more than 150 countries in the poorest regions of the
world providing family planning services, maternal and child heath
care, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted
diseases. Cutting off the U.S. contribution to UNFPA only penalizes the
more than 870,000 women who depend on this program for quality, safe,
preventive and voluntary family planning services. Instead of
preventing abortions, the loss of $25 million in funds will actually
cause 500,000 additional unplanned pregnancies, more than 200,000
abortions, 1,200 more maternal deaths, and 22,500 infant deaths. When
women are unable to control the number and timing of births, they may
have no choice but to seek an unsafe and illegal abortion. Each year,
75,000 women in developing countries die from such abortions, many of
which are self-induced. By denying women birth control information, we
only create more abortions and more unwanted babies.
Contrary to popular myth, UNFPA does not support or promote abortion
as a method of family planning. It does not support or promote China's
population. In fact, the UNFPA program in China explicitly prohibits
coercive practices and forced abortions. What UNFPA does do is support
the right of women and families everywhere to make free and responsible
decisions about the number and spacing of their children. It does
assist women and men to deliver healthy babies in safe and sterile
conditions and to protect and promote their health.
This debate is not about China. This debate is about empowering
people across the globe so that they can plan both their families and
their lives instead of forcing them to accept illness and poverty as a
way of life. If we are to be a compassionate nation, then the U.S. must
work to improve the lives and health of women all over the world and
contribute to UNFPA.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about protecting the
health of women and children, not only in the United States, but around
the world. No one in this chamber wants to see more abortions performed
or more women forced into sterilization. Unfortunately, there are cases
around the world, including China, where these kinds of actions take
place. And, unfortunately, the United Nations Populations Fund is doing
little to end these abuses. We need to send a strong message to the
UNFPA that until they stop supporting China and its brutal one-child
abortion policy, we will not support their efforts.
At first glance, the Campbell substitute appears to be very similar
to ours and even appears to achieve the same goal. We all agree that
China is still involved in forced abortion and involuntary
sterilization and we all agree that the UNFPA is doing nothing to
discontinue this policy. We all agree that their actions and treatment
of their citizens are horrific. That is why the Campbell Amendment
decreases funding for the UNFPA, but our amendment goes a step further
and will prohibit funding unless the President certifies that the UNFPA
has either ceased its activities in the People's Republic of China or
China stops using coerced abortion in the enforcement of its population
control program.
Mr. Chairman, the China policy is a violation of a most basic right,
the right to life. The Campbell amendment is a simple slap on the wrist
and does not address the underlying problem of a violation of basic
human rights. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith/Barcia
amendment and oppose the Campbell amendment.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Gilman/Maloney/
Crowley amendment to HR 2415. We shouldn't jeopardize international
family planning efforts because of legitimate concerns about China's
family planning policies. We are all against forced abortion. It is
wrong, and must be unequivocally condemned. But that is not the issue
here today.
The issue here is: do we empower women and families across the globe
with the ability to plan for the number of children they can have, or
do we pull the rug out under these important efforts. For me, the
choice is clear. We must continue to work to give every woman the right
and educated choices necessary to plan the size of her own family, free
of any coercion.
I believe that opponents of international family planning efforts are
using the issue of forced abortion as a stalking horse for an attack on
our support of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA
funding has nothing to do with Chinese government policy on abortion.
First of all, none of the funds that we give to the UNFPA are used in
China. Not one cent of US contributions can be used in China. Secondly,
the UNFPA does not support abortion in any of its work in China or
anywhere else. Its program is specifically based on the premise that
abortion is not a method of family planning. And thirdly, the UNFPA
program is fully voluntary. Women choose to participate in the program
without coercion.
Family planning is the best tool to eliminate unplanned pregnancies
across the world. Better family planning means fewer abortions--
something that pro-choice and pro-life groups can all support. The
UNFPA works in 149 countries. Cutting off US funds will lead to more
abortions, not less.
Let's work together to reduce the number of abortions. Let's join to
support this amendment to help ensure that all women across the globe
can receive access to voluntary family planning and allow them to
control their own destiny.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for
the vital work of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and to
urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith/Barcia amendment and support the
Campbell/Maloney/Gilman/Crowley amendment.
The UNFPA provides essential primary health services to women in 150
developing countries. It supports the right of couples and individuals
to decide freely and responsibility the number and spacing of their
children and to have the information and means to do so free of
discrimination, coercion, or violence. UNFPA relies on voluntary
contributions of member states to provide women and men with access to
safe, effective, affordable, and voluntary contraceptive methods of
their choice, as well as access to health care for safe pregnancy and
childbirth. UNFPA does not support or fund abortion; rather it works to
prevent abortion by providing effective family planning services.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the
Campbell/Gilman amendment to restore funding to the United Nations
Population Fund.
H.R. 2415 provides $25 million for UNFPA, the world's largest
organization providing family planning services to 150 countries in the
poorest regions of the world. Restoring U.S. funding will help hundreds
of thousands of women around the world gain access to family planning
services.
Five years ago, the U.N. set out a new approach to the complex
problem of population control. This new approach emphasized improving
the lives of women, improving the economic well-being of communities
and women, and safeguarding the environment. This effort is called the
United Nations Funding Program of Action (UNFPA) and is coordinated
through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP). The United States
and other western nations pledged to share the annual $17 billion cost,
but the Action Plan has struggled to secure those funds since the
beginning.
UNFPA provides reproductive health services, education of women and
girls, involvement of men in family planning, education on HIV and
AIDS, help with community-based

[[Page 16609]]

sustainable development, and environmental awareness programs. In Latin
America, the program is credited with dramatically reducing fertility
rates.
The provision in H.R. 2415 balances the critical public health need
for U.S. support for UNFPA and the human rights need to address
concerns about coercive reproductive health practices in China.
Although there are legitimate concerns about China's family planning
program, the UNFPA program in China explicitly prohibits coercion and
works to promote voluntary family planning.
Withholding UNFPA funds has serious consequences: it increases the
worldwide unmet need for family planning services; deprives
approximately 870,000 women of access to effective modern
contraception; results in 500,000 unintended pregnancies; results in
234,000 births; results in 200,000 abortions; and results in thousands
of preventable maternal and child deaths. In brief, it endangers the
health and welfare of women and children and their families.
I urge my colleagues to support the Campbell/Gilman amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment offered by Mr. Smith. This amendment prohibits a contribution
to the United Nations Population Fund (``UNFPA'') unless it ceases all
activity in China. This amendment unfairly prohibits funding for
reproductive health care and family planning services in developing
countries.
While we all condemn the human rights practices in the People's
Republic of China, we should not penalize the rest of the world by
withholding this funding.
The UNFPA provides essential family planning and reproductive health
care services to women in developing countries. All women should have
access to quality reproductive health care. Family planning services
are an important part of reproductive health care.
Each year an estimated 600,000 women die as a result of pregnancy and
childbirth in developing countries. In these countries, pregnancy and
childbirth are among the leading causes of death for women of
childbearing age.
Women in these countries must have access to information that will
allow them to make informed reproductive health decisions. These
decisions can mean the difference between life and death. UNFPA funding
puts this information in those communities.
The choice between saving millions of women around the world and
punishing the government of China is clear. No one condones the
coercive practices of the Chinese government in terms of family
planning. But, none of us can condone keeping women around the world in
the dark about their reproductive health needs.
I urge my Colleagues to vote against this amendment. Women around the
world must have access to information that will ensure that their
children will be born into a loving and stable environment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Smith amendment as written and in strong support of the Campbell,
Maloney, Gilman, Crowley, Greenwood amendment. The Campbell, Maloney,
Gilman, Crowley, Greenwood amendment clarifies once and for all, the
purpose of the United Nations Population Fund which is not to provide
abortion services for women in foreign lands, but rather to provide
basic reproductive health care to women which reduces the number of
abortions and provide pediatric health care for infants. It also
clarifies that no U.S. funds will be used in China.
The UNFPA has been portrayed by its opponents as a vestige of
American imperialism bearing down on countries that are struggling to
keep their nations free of the evils of abortion and aiding countries
like China with a proven record of coerced abortion. The Smith
amendment supports this portrayal by cutting all funding in the bill
for UNFPA unless it complies with impossible demands.
What this position fails so poorly to report is that international
family planning programs supported and originally intimated by the
United States have nothing to do with abortion except that they have
the potential to reduce the number of abortions performed legally or
illegally internationally. They do so by preventing unplanned pregnancy
and educating women and men about the importance of planned and timed
pregnancy. Sadly, what should be a common ground for debaters on both
sides of the polar abortion issue has become a battleground for
maternal and child health advocates on either side of the debate.
The fact is that productive health programs represent a continuum of
care for mothers and children that provide prenatal and pediatric care
for children. Equally importantly, these programs provide lessons in
how to effectively space pregnancies to prevent maternal and infant
mortality. Planning and timing pregnancy is not just a theory that
makes it easier for parents to manage their children. Children who are
born less than two years apart are twice as likely to die as an infant.
This nation has the resources to provide those less fortunate with the
ability to control their own lives. With proper education, those in
developing countries can plan their families just as we in the United
States do. It is unconscionable, as leaders of the most prosperous
nation on Earth, that we would deny these vital resources to the least
prosperous on Earth.
The Smith amendment claims to fund UNFPA after certifying the
program's withdrawal from China, or certification that there are no
forced abortions associated with China's population control program.
This amendment shows a lack of understanding of the way UNFPA works.
China has requested UNFPA assistance in 32 countries. When assistance
is requested UNFPA goes to work. It cannot withdraw unless the country
asks them to withdraw. Accordingly, the President cannot certify all of
China's population control program because UNFPA does not operate in
all China. They could, however, certify the countries in which they are
engaged.
The clarifying amendment offered by Representatives Campbell and
Maloney, and others would simply prevent U.S. funds from being used in
China by reducing our contribution to the fund by the amount UNFPA
spends in China. In addition, the amendment would withhold the entire
U.S. contribution if any UNFPA funds are being used for abortion
services.
I would ask my colleagues, if we can affirmatively certify that this
money is not being used for abortions, and that no U.S. funds are being
used in China, why would we not support maternal and child health
programs? I urge my colleagues to support Representative Campbell's
clarifying amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell)
as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will be postponed.
It is the understanding of the Chair that amendment No. 4 will not be
offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in part B of
House Report 106-235.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanford

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Sanford:
Page 14, line 23, strike ``$17,500,000'' and insert
``$12,000,000''.
Page 15, strike lines 19 and 20, and insert ``$1,500,000
for the fiscal year 2000.''.
Page 21, line 25, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert
``$8,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply set at 1998 funding, the
funding for the Asia Foundation, the Center for Cultural Exchange East-
West, and the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center. It would save $13.5
million each year, which though not viewed as a large amount of money
in Washington, with many folks back home it is still, I think, a great
sum of money.
Finally, this is an amendment that is supported by Citizens for a
Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National
Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform. I think they support this
amendment for a number of reasons, and I think it has a number of great
things standing behind it.

[[Page 16610]]

The first thing that I think stands out in terms of why this
amendment would make sense would be, whether a Republican or whether a
Democrat, whether a liberal or whether a conservative, I think all of
us would agree on the simple idea that we would not want a foundation
out there receiving in essence disproportionate care. In other words,
we would not want the care for these foundations to be above or,
frankly, below that of which a foundation in one's home district
receives. In other words, we would want it to be on par.
Yet, that is not at all the case, because these three foundations,
which are each in university settings, receive disproportionate care
and feeding from the Federal Government, because, unlike a foundation
in any one of the 435 congressional districts across this country that
have to go out and compete for grants, these three foundations receive
not only a Federal guaranteed flow of money but then they can also pick
up private grants as well.
The Congress recognized that back in 1995, and as a result, cut
funding for these three foundations by $25 million.
Well, what has happened since then is that the funding has crept back
up basically to the level prior to the cut. I do not think this is fair
to foundations we might have in any of our respective congressional
districts. I will give an example of just a few of the outside funding
sources I saw here.
For instance, East-West Center received $100,000 from the Taipei
Economic and Cultural Office. The William H. Gates Foundation provided
$2.3 million for population and health research to East-West Center.
The government of Japan contributed $363,000 to the East-West Center,
and I could go down a long list, again, of grants in the marketplace
that have been received by these foundations when they are also
receiving Federal Government money.
Second, I would say there is a lot of duplication in each of these
foundations. We could look up these topics, whether it is with the
U.N., whether it is the World Health Organization, the Department of
State, the Department of Commerce, there are a long list of agencies
that also handle these type studies.
Third, I would say maybe they deserved disproportionate funding
during the Cold War, but the Cold War is over. As an instrument of
national policy, that policy is now gone. I mean, Asia Foundation has
been around for 44 years. East-West Center has been around for over 30
years, and I think it ought to be brought back to par, again, which is
what we did as a Congress in 1995.
Finally, I would just mention the fact that a number of these grants
are just plain bogus. I mean, I looked here at a number of the grants,
methods of multiple stakeholding management of community forest,
management in community-based forestry. Given the free enterprise
system that we know works so well, if one really wants to manage a
forest, put one person in charge of it and give them reason to be in
charge of it, as opposed to community-based forestry whatever that
means.
I see a second grant here on young adult sexuality. This
collaborative project involving institutions in the Philippines,
Thailand, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Nepal, Taiwan, and the United States
will assess the extent, nature, determinants and reproductive
consequences of premarital sex.
Call me old fashioned on this, but determinants I think simply to be
attraction. Reproductive consequences I think are fairly simple. Sperm
meets egg; somebody is going to get pregnant. I do not know that we
need another study to tell us this.
I see with the Asia Foundation, a study on nuclear weapons in North
Korea. The study went on to argue that the media reports of the
construction of an alleged underground nuclear facility in North Korea
are the results of deliberate leaks by the U.S. intelligence community.
Now how in the world is that in the best interest of the American
taxpayer? How is that a benefit to U.S. overall interest?
So I would just say that there are a number of these studies that are
funded with American tax dollars that do not make a whole lot of sense.
I would again remind folks of the fact that it is supported by Citizens
for a Sound Economy, supported by Citizens Against Government Waste,
the Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union. I would
urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Although this Member shares his colleague's interest in reducing
wasteful spending, the institutions targeted by his amendment certainly
do not fall in that category. On the contrary, on closer examination,
the Asia Foundation, the East-West Center, the Dante B. Fascell North-
South Center, and other successful programs will confirm their cost
effective contributions to American interests around the world.
Indeed, our modest investment in these institutions is money well
spent.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member
would like to focus briefly on just one of the affected institutions:
the Asia Foundation. The foundation has a 45-year proven track record.
Programs and investments in reform-minded individuals in Korea, Taiwan,
and the Philippines directly supported the incredible democratic and
economic transformations there. The Asia Foundation remains on the
front lines doing the same today in Asia's new, emerging democracies
like Indonesia and Bangladesh and helping lay the foundation for
positive change in authoritarian countries like China and Vietnam.
Fundamental changes are happening in Asia as a result of the recent
economic crisis. Now is the time to take advantage of this climate of
change and expand programs advancing democracy, the rule of law, human
rights, economic reform and sustainable recovery. That is why the
International Relations Committee restored full funding for the Asia
Foundation. Over \1/2\ of the world's population is within the Asia
Foundation's operating area. The Sanford amendment would cut the
foundation back to its FY1998 appropriated level--a level $7 million or
46 percent below this authorization and also below last year's
appropriation. The authorization in the pending bill merely returns the
Asia Foundation to its FY1995 funding level.
Helping Asia develop into a stable, market-oriented and democratic
region is an important American national security objective. The
programs of the Asia Foundation and others like the East-West Center
support this national security objective. The Sanford amendment would
severely cut these NGOs' programs and further restrict our ability to
influence positive change. The long term cost of this amendment to U.S.
feign policy objectives certainly outweighs any short-term savings it
may have.
For example, the developing countries in Asia are in desperate need
of legal reforms. American commerce and local human rights are early
beneficiaries of such Rule of Law programming. By defeating the Sanford
amendment, we are supporting new legal reform initiatives for
Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and China.
All three institutions targeted by the Sanford amendment are small,
very cost effective private institutions that play very important
complementary roles in advancing U.S. foreign policy interests around
the world. We need their effort. This Member urges his colleagues to
support the authorization levels reported by the International
Relations Committee and oppose the Sanford amendment.

Oppose the Sanford Amendment

Asia Foundation, East-West Center and Dante Fascell North-
South Center are small, but cost effective private
organizations that play very important complementary roles in
advancing US foeign policy interests around the world. We
need this effort.
Asia Foundation: 45-year proven track record. Over \1/2\ of
the world's population is within its programming
jurisdiction. Following on its previous successes in Korea,
Taiwan and the Philippines, the Asia Foundation is now
focusing on emerging democracies like Indonesia and
Bangladesh and promoting reform in China and Vietnam.
International Relations Committee authorized $15 million
(the Administration-requested level of funding). This
restores Asia Foundation funding to its FY'95 (and pre-FY'95)
funding levels. The Sanford Amendment would ``freeze'' the
Asia Foundation at the FY'98 appropriation level of $8
million. This is a $7 million or 46 percent cut and even a
reduction from the FY'99 level ($8.5 million).
Fundamental changes are happening in Asia as a result of
the economic crisis. Now, is the time to take advantage of
this climate

[[Page 16611]]

of change and expand programs advancing democracy, the rule
of law, human rights, economic reform and sustainable
recovery. The Sanford Amendment would severely hamper Asia
Foundation efforts supporting these U.S. national security
objectives.
Now programming supporting much-need legal reform in
Indonesia would be jeopardized by the Sanford Amendment cuts.
With the ouster of Suharto and the recent elections,
Indonesia is in a very precarious transition. Asia Foundation
programs supporting democracy, human rights, rule of law and
economic restructuring will help steer this transition in the
right direction. This is new programming that would be lost
if the Sanford Amendment is adopted.
The long term costs of the Sanford Amendment to U.S.
foreign policy objectives certainly outweigh any purported
short-term savings.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanford amendment that
would reduce the funding for one portion of his bill, the Dante Fascell
North-South Center. The Dante Fascell North-South Center is an
independent policy research and educational center strategically
located in Miami, which is the gateway to Latin America and the gateway
to the Caribbean.
The center is dedicated to economic and integration efforts, economic
stabilization and growth, and furthering democracy and managing
immigration. The center is a key player in the anticipated free trade
area of the Americas. United States exports to Latin America climbed
from $31 billion in 1986 to over $130 billion in 1997, comprising 20
percent of United States global exports.
The Commerce Department estimates that exports to Latin America will
surpass exports to Europe in 2000 and surpass exports to Europe and
Japan combined by 2010. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman perhaps
has merit to his amendment. However, his net is far too wide and it
should be defeated. I would urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sanford amendment,
which would reduce funding to the Dante Fascell North-South Center.
The Dante Fascell North-South Center is an independent policy
research and educational center, strategically located in Miami, the
gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. The center is dedicated to
economic integration efforts, economic stabilization and growth,
furthering democracy, and managing immigration.
The center is a key player in the anticipated Free Trade Area of the
Americas. U.S. exports to Latin America climbed from $31 billion in
1986 to over $130 billion in 1997, comprising 20 percent of U.S. global
exports. The Commerce Department estimates that exports to Latin
America will surpass exports to Europe in 2000, and surpass exports to
Europe and Japan combined in 2010. Clearly, trade and investment
relations with Latin American countries are a vital interest to the
United States.
Global financial volatility has highlighted the fact that stability
and growth abroad has a direct impact on the U.S. economy. An Asia-type
meltdown in Latin America would result not just in further economic
crises, but would also manifest itself by increased drug trafficking,
illegal immigration, civil unrest, and challenges to democratic rule.
The North-South Center plays a crucial role in finding solutions for
stability and prosperity in the region.
The North-South Center is an extraordinarily active force in
education and discussion of U.S.-Latin American issues such as effects
of the Castro regime, drug trafficking from Colombia, social causes of
migration, food safety, and the role of the military in democratic
society. The North-South Center is fueled by an internationally
recognized staff which is dedicated to engaging diverse groups in
inter-American issues from the perspective of the public good.
At the beginning of this century, the focal point of United States
foreign policy was in Europe. During the mid-1900's, the United States
focus shifted toward Asia as a source of commerce and trade. In the
21st century, the United States may very well be looking to Latin
America as the center of economic cooperation and growth. We must be
prepared for this shift, and we need the North-South Center to continue
paving our way.
The Dante Fascell North-South Center's proven track record in
facilitating international dialog among governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and business interests makes it a vital asset for the
United States in this new era of inter-American relations.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize the
importance of the Dante Fascell North-South Center and oppose the
Sanford amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in unambiguous and unequivocal
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking minority member
of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think all of us here are concerned
about government expenditures, but when we take a look at what these
institutions do in helping develop Democratic institutions in countries
throughout the world, resolve disputes, to have the kind of dialogue,
think about what just happened in Kosovo. One helicopter, $16 million.
We lost two of them; $32 million. One F-117 stealth fighter, in excess
of $100 million. One F-16, $25 million. The money we spend here in
these centers helps dialogue, helps democracy and helps defend and
protect America's interests.
I urge we defeat this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I do have the greatest respect and
trust in the integrity of my good friend from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford) for introducing this amendment but I have to respectfully
object to the amendment and I urge my colleagues not to pass this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in 1960 the Congress established the East-West Center
in America's pacific to further the foreign policy interests of the
United States by promoting better relations and understanding the
peoples of the United States in the Asian Pacific region.
Mr. Chairman, because of the essence of time, given the dynamic
changes and the enhanced importance of the Asian Pacific region, where
two-thirds of the world's population and one-third of the current trade
that we conduct in that region of the world, Mr. Chairman, the mission
of the East-West Center is more relevant and vital to U.S. interests
than ever before.
I urge my colleagues not to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the
aisle in strong opposition to the Sandford Amendment to H.R. 2415, the
American Embassy Security Bill of 1999.
Mr. Chairman, the Sanford Amendment seeks to reduce the funding level
approved by the House International Relations Committee for the Asia
Foundation, the East-West Center and the North-South Center. The
amendment should be defeated, as each of these important institutions
clearly pursues vital foreign policy objectives on behalf of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, in 1960 the Congress established the East-West Center
(EWC) in America's Pacific to further the foreign policy interests of
the United States by promoting better relations and understanding
between the peoples of the United States and the Asia-Pacific region.
The East-West Center accomplishes this vital mission by attracting
present and future leaders throughout the region who participate, along
with America's leaders and experts in the Center's programs of
cooperative study, training, and research of the issues most crucial to
the region and to our nation.
Since the East-West Center's inception, over 45,000 individuals have
participated in the Center's collaborative programs, providing the
United States with an invaluable network of highly-placed alumni--an
important link between the U.S. and the nations of the Asia-Pacific.
Mr. Chairman, in recent years as the Asia-Pacific region has
undergone profound changes, it has also grown in fundamental importance
to the United States for many reasons. With China and Japan, the region
contains more than half the world's population and provides almost a
third of the world's trade markets. The Asia-Pacific region is now the
largest market for US exports, an economic trend that will
significantly grow in the new millennium, and the establishment of the
East-West Center by the Congress almost forty years ago could not be
more critical now--and what could be a better place to

[[Page 16612]]

house this internationally acclaimed institution and forum than our
fiftieth state of the Union--the State of Hawaii.
Mr. Chairman, over 100,000 U.S. military personnel are located in the
Asia-Pacific, primarily in South Korea and Japan, underscoring the U.S.
stake in and commitment to regional peace and security. With the recent
disturbing developments in the Taiwan Strait, Mr. Chairman, this is a
peace that is threatened as we debate today.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, no global problem--from nuclear and ballistic
missile proliferation, to the prevention of AIDS, to damage control of
regional financial meltdowns, to the reduction in greenhouse gases--can
be effectively addressed without the participation of the major nations
of Asia and the Pacific.
Given the dynamic changes in and the enhanced importance of the Asia-
Pacific region, Mr. Chairman, the mission of the East-West Center is
more relevant and vital to U.S. interests than ever before.
Mr. Chairman, as a Pacific nation, America cannot afford not to take
her rightful place of leadership in the affairs of the Asia-Pacific
region. We must recognize the important work of the East-West Center in
support of this vital mission.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot more strongly urge our colleagues to defeat
the Sanford Amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps one of the most,
I would say, harmful amendments I have heard in quite awhile on the
floor. I respect the writer of the amendment but I am sure he does not
understand the broad scope of the North-South Center named after Dante
Fascell.
First of all, our intent is to spread democracy throughout the world.
No one or no center has done any better job of this than the North-
South Center. It is perhaps the only policy and research and social
service kind of organization in this country. On the amount of money
that it operates on, it is very, very good. It has a hemispheric agenda
and it directly helps the American people in forms of jobs, prosperity,
the drug program, the AIDS program.
Mr. Chairman, I think this particular amendment by the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), though well designed, should be defeated.
I rise in strong opposition to the Sanford amendment which will cap
funding in this bill for the North South Center at its FY 1998 level of
$1.5 million. The current bill authorizes ``such sums as may be
necessary.'' The Administration requested $2.5 million for the North
South Center for FY 2000 for a reason. Additional funding beyond this
amendment's cap is sorely needed.
The Dante Fascell North South Center is the only research, public
policy studies, and information center of its type, exclusively
dedicated to finding practical solutions to problems and policy issues
facing the Americas.
This public policy and research center promotes better relations
between the U.S. and nations of Latin America, the Carribean and
Canada, and is dedicated to developing practical responses to regional
challenges.
In carrying out its congressional mandate to promote better relations
among the United States and the nations of Canada, Latin America, and
the Caribbean, the center combines programs of public policy,
cooperative study, research, and training.
The center responds to the hemispheric agenda that directly impacts
the American people in the form of jobs and prosperity, drugs,
migration, export opportunities, environmental quality, and the
promotion of shared democratic values. Programs foster national and
international linkages and partnerships through fellowships and
collaborative efforts in both research and training.
Every Member of Congress who was here before 1992 remembers Rep.
Dante Fascell. Throughout his decades of service in this body, Rep.
Fascell worked fearlessly for an American foreign policy based on
cultural, educational, trade and person to person exchanges between
nations, in addition to normal government-to-government contacts. His
vision became reality via the North South Center.
The Dante Fascell North South Center has been the foremost
institution in bringing together the private sector, NGO's, and
government representatives to monitor and evaluate the implementation
of democratic governance in the Americas.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this misplaced amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong opposition to the
amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii
(Mr. Abercrombie).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
Hawaii is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I can fully understand why people
would want to try and save money but this kind of approach is, I think,
unpardonable. I wish the gentleman had discussed the issue perhaps with
myself, with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), with some others
who are familiar with these programs. They perform an invaluable
service, and to simply take the position that we are going to hack them
in half or chop dollars out and let them try to fend afterwards as best
they may is such a cavalier approach to cost cutting that it
undermines, I think, entirely the thrust of any attempt to try and save
money genuinely.
These institutions are providing an intellectual foundation that
gives us the opportunity, as Mr. Gejdenson indicated, to formulate
policy in an intelligent way that saves the taxpayer dollars and allows
us to carry foreign policy, in particular, forward in a manner that
befits the strategic interests of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is ill-timed. It is ill-founded and
should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment to H.R. 2415,
the State Department authorization for FY2000. The amendment makes an
ill advised 31 percent reduction in the bill's funding for the Center
for Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West, more
commonly known as the East-West Center.
The East-West Center has already suffered severe budget cuts during
this decade. Further cuts would seriously compromise the national
interests of the United States by weakening our full and constructive
engagement in the Asia-Pacific area, which is emerging as the most
dynamic region of the globe.
The East-West Center was established by the Congress in 1960 to
improve mutual understanding and cooperation among the governments and
peoples of the Asia-Pacific region, including the United States. The
Center helps prepare the United States for constructive involvement in
Asia and the Pacific through education, dialogue, research and
outreach. The Congress and Executive Branch agencies turn to the Center
for advice and information.
During the Center's 39 years of existence, more than 50,000
Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders from over 60 nations and
territories have participated in the East-West Center's educational,
research and conference programs. Presidents, prime ministers,
diplomats and distinguished scholars and statesmen from all parts of
the region have used the Center as a forum to advance international
cooperation. The Center has become one of the most highly respected
institutions in the region.
The friendly relations which exist today between the United States
and countries of Asia and the Pacific are attributable in large measure
to the work of the East-West Center.
The 21st century will be the Pacific Century. Our relations with the
nations of the region will determine America's role in the Pacific
Century. Will we retain our position of leadership, or will we be
relegated to the margins of the Pacific Century? The answer depends to
a large extent on our commitment to understanding the region,
demonstrating our involvement with its future, and nurturing our ties
to its leaders of today and tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and send a clear
signal that U.S. interest in and commitment to the Asia-Pacific region
remain undiminished.
Ms. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against the cuts called
for in the Sanford Amendment and I urge my colleagues to join me in
defeating this amendment.
Those of us on the International Relations Committee have been here
before. These proposals were all offered to us at our markup, and they
lost--badly. On both sides of the aisle, the conclusion then was that
the East-West Center, the North-South Center, and the Asia Foundation
deserved a substantial level of support. We were right then, and this
amendment is wrong now.
These organizations do a lot of good for a small investment. The
East-West Center is one of the best methods we have to build long-term
relationships with the nations of the Pacific Ocean--places we neglect
all too much. Part of the funding we proposed for the

[[Page 16613]]

East-West Center is intended to establish an Ocean Resources Institute
to figure out the best way to use the great marine wealth in the
Pacific in a way that is economically and environmentally sound. And
the Asia Foundation, which has been in Indonesia for almost half a
century, was one of the most important groups doing civic education
before the Indonesian elections. They are also heavily involved in
helping small to medium-sized businesses, especially those owned by
women, get on their feet and keep going, even during Indonesia's
economic crisis.
The money that would be provided here is well justified and will be
well used. Join me in demonstrating your support for a responsible
investment with a long-term payoff. Vote against these cuts.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to
the Sanford amendment to HR 2415, which seeks to delete $5.5 million in
funding from the East-West Center, $1 million from the North-South
Center, and $7 million from the Asia Foundation.
These institutions are small but very cost-effective. They complement
the foreign policy objectives of the United States by providing another
dimension of engagement with leaders in Asia, the Pacific, and Latin
America and help to increase the mutual understanding and cooperation
that is essential for constructive relationships among the nations of
these important regions.
The East-West Center is the only national program that has a
strategic mission of developing a consensus on key policy issues in
U.S.-Asia Pacific relations through intensive cooperative research and
training. Many who initially came to the Center as students or
researchers have risen to positions of power and influence in
government, academia, business, and the media in countries throughout
Asia and the Pacific. These opinion leaders formed deep ties with the
Center and understand first-hand the value of democracy, an open
society, and a free press.
The Center has earned the trust and respect of the nations of this
region and enjoys a prestige disproportionate to its small size. We
cannot afford to continue to starve this unique and valuable
institution.
I urge all my colleagues to defeat the Sanford amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford) will be postponed.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Calvert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Miller of Florida, Chairman pro
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel
overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for
fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 995, TEACHER
EMPOWERMENT ACT

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-240) on the resolution (H. Res. 253) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student
achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers,
reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes, which
was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

{time} 2030

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and
personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of
State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Miller of
Florida (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed
in part B of House Report 106-235 had been postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of
House Report 106-235.

Amendment No. 8 Offered By Mr. Paul

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Paul:
Page 16, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 17
on page 21, and insert the following: None of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a) are
authorized to be appropriated for a United States
contribution to the United Nations, any organ of the United
Nations, or any entity affiliated with the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) and ask unanimous consent that
she be allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney)
will be recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the authorizations in section 106
for all U.N.-related operations. We have a bill here tonight dealing
with embassy security, U.S. embassy security, and we are all very
concerned about it.
But in typical fashion, about all we have been offered so far has
been just to put more money into our embassies and never raising the
question about why our embassies might be more vulnerable. My amendment
deals with that, because I would like to deal with the foreign policy
involved with our commitment to the United Nations.
There are many in this Congress who readily admit they are
internationalists. I readily admit that I am not an internationalist
when it comes to political action and warmongering. Therefore, I think
much of what we do in foreign policy makes ourselves more vulnerable.
If we look at the two most recent bombings in Africa, these were
brought about by our own foreign policy.
Those supporters of internationalism generally accuse those of us who
are opposed to it by saying that we are isolationists. This is not
true. I am not an isolationist. But I do believe in national
sovereignty. I happen to sincerely believe that one cannot become an
endorser of some form of internationalism without some sacrifice of our
own sovereignty. I think this is the subject that we must address.
I believe in free trade. I do not believe in protectionism. I am not
a protectionist. I think people, goods, and services and ideas should
flow across

[[Page 16614]]

borders freely. But when it comes to our armaments, under the guise of
the U.N. orders or NATO orders, I do not believe this should be called
something favorably as internationalism and those who oppose that as
being isolationists.
I object to imposing our will on other people. I believe this is what
we so often do. When we do that, we build hatreds around the world.
That is why our embassies are less secure than many other nations. This
is why we are bombed. We bomb Iraq endlessly. No wonder they hate us.
Iran right now, they have dissidents in the street; but they are
blaming America, because there was a time when we put our dictator in
charge of Iran as we have done so often around the world. Yet they only
can come back by making our embassies vulnerable. It might be wiser for
those countries that we cannot protect our embassies to put in a
computerized operation because, in this day and age, we do not have to
have embassies in the countries that are so dangerous.
But it is not the lack of security that is the problem, it is our
type of policy that prompts the hatred toward America. I suggest we
should look at some of this U.N. activity.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul). I know that many of us are often frustrated with the
U.N. and especially some of its activities. But I do believe that the
amendment does risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The amendment would effectively take us out of the U.N., while it has
its blemishes, and the previous amendments certainly underscored my
concern that the UNFPA, for example, has been absolutely complicit in
the forced abortion program in the People's Republic of China; and I do
believe a calibrated focused approach like that is the way to make our
point. But look at some of the good things that the U.N. has done again
with blemishes and all.
I will never forget, back in the early 1980s, I was in El Salvador
when the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, under Jim Grant,
working with the Catholic church, working with the Duarte government,
and working with the FMLN, the Communist insurgency, headed days of
tranquility. Hundreds of thousands of children were immunized against
the world's leading killers of children and those that extract or
impose a great morbidity on young lives. Pertussis, tetanus, all of
these diseases were wiped away from these kids, and because of these
immunizations. The U.N. played a very, very important role in that.
Look at the world food program which provides necessary foods to
children and families, the victims of torture. Our subcommittee, and I
offered the bill, it became law, provided an additional amount of money
to the U.N. voluntary fund for torture to help the people who suffer
from torture. There are 400,000 former torture victims living in the
U.S. with posttraumatic stress and all kinds of other problems. Many
hundreds of thousands abroad, they need our help.
Then when it comes to such things as peacekeeping, yes, it is flawed.
The UNPROFOR was a very flawed deployment, but there are many that had
been successful.
I would just remind Members that, when we had the Gulf War, the U.N.
played a pivotal position in mobilizing, especially through the
Security Council, our efforts to try to mitigate the abuses of Saddam
Hussein.
While I deeply respect the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I do
think it overreaches, and I would hope that Members would vote it down.
But remembering that it does have its problems, the U.N. certainly is
not a perfect organization, it is far from it, but it does have some
agencies and things that do some very, very good things. I missed it,
but on refugees, the UNHCR is vital to proceeding refugee protection
and assistance.
So I do ask Members to vote ``no''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney)
will have the right to close.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing the imperfections of the United
Nations. I am addressing the imperfection of our policy with the United
Nations, which is a lot different.
We ignore the rule of law; we ignore international law when it
pleases us. We did not accept the United Nations role when it came to
Kosovo. We did not even accept NATO when it came to Kosovo. What we
did, we just totally ignored it.
We invaded a sovereign nation. We did not abide by the rules of the
United Nations. Then when we needed rescue from our policy, then we go
limping to the United Nations to come in and please save our policy in
Kosovo.
That is what I object to. I think that we should not renege and turn
over our sovereignty to these international bodies. I believe there is
motivation for this. When our commercial interests and financial
interests are at stake, yes, we do get involved in the Persian Gulf;
yes, we do get involved in Eastern Europe. But do we get involved in
Rwanda? No, we do not. We ignore it.
So I say that we should have a policy that is designed for the
sovereignty of this Nation; that we should not have troops serving
under the United Nations; that we should not pretend to be a member of
the United Nations and pretend to be a member of NATO and then not even
follow the rules that have been laid down and that we have agreed to.
Generally, we always make our problems worse. Our wars are endless,
and our occupations are endless. Someday we are going to have to wake
up and design a new policy because this will not stop as long as we
capitulate to the use of the United Nations and try to sacrifice our
sovereignty to these international parties.
Now, this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in
that direction, obviously. But it is a step in the right direction
because I think it is the proper use of our military if we do not
capitulate and put it under NATO and put it in the United Nations. We
need to use our military strictly in the defense of U.S. sovereignty.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that bad diplomacy does make us more
vulnerable. But this amendment represents the height of bad diplomacy.
We should be trying to pay our more than $1 billion debt that we owe to
the United Nations. Great nations should pay their bills.
Unfortunately, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) compounds our
shame by introducing an amendment to eliminate all funds for the United
Nations, an action that would effectively end U.S. participation in the
U.N. Make no mistake, this would spell the demise of the world's most
universal forum.
Why would anyone want to kill an organization that has brought food
to the starving, help to the homeless, pure water to the thirsty,
health to the diseased, stability to peoples in conflict, and free
elections to the oppressed?
But this is not just about altruism. Withholding funds from the U.N.
would harm collective efforts to deal with threats that cut across
borders, from terrorists to organized crime, and from drug traffickers
to environmental damage.
Poll after poll has shown that Americans want to participate in
solving global problems, but they do not want to do it alone. Americans
want to share the burden of responsibility with the peoples of other
nations, and we can best do that through the United Nations.
Mr. Chairman, the very introduction of this amendment sends a message
to the world that there are Americans who live in fear, fear of others
and fear of the loss of control. I believe that this fear is a greater
threat than that posed by the United Nations.
The children of the 21st century deserve a world of peace, stability,
and prosperity across the globe. The United States cannot achieve this
dream alone. However, with an effective

[[Page 16615]]

United Nations, the dream can become a reality.
I suggest that my colleagues should not kill this dream, but kill
this amendment.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Paul amendment which will prohibit all authorizations for
appropriations from the United States to the United Nations or any
entity affiliated with the United Nations. This is an irresponsible
amendment which, if passed, would do severe damage to the United States
ability to conduct foreign policy, and to humanitarian efforts around
the world.
The United Nations, while not perfect, is a forum where member states
can come together to work for peaceful solutions to international
problems. Currently, the U.N. is operating 16 peacekeeping missions in
different countries which are upholding cease-fires, ensuring free and
fair elections, monitoring troop withdrawals, deterring violence, and
creating free countries. These endeavors deserve our support, not our
condemnation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do damage to U.N.
humanitarian efforts around the world which I have seen in such places
like Sudan, North Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo. I have seen first hand the
U.N.'s humanitarian work through organizations like the World Food
Program, U.N. Development Program, the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees, and UNICEF. The U.N. is a leader in humanitarian and
development work. It has helped to eradicate smallpox, provide safe
drinking water for over one billion people, deliver aid to millions of
refugees, and generate a worldwide commitment to the needs of children.
Mr. Chairman, the Paul amendment should be defeated soundly because
if it is passed, it would show that the United States simply does not
care about the U.N.'s humanitarian work around the world or its efforts
to find peaceful solutions to international problems.
Ms. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 211. LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.

Whenever the Department of State enters into lease-purchase
agreements involving property in foreign countries pursuant
to section 1 of the Foreign Service Buildings Act (22 U.S.C.
292), budget authority shall be scored on an annual basis
over the period of the lease in an amount equal to the annual
lease payments.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to raise a point of
order on the amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this Member offers this amendment for one simple
reason, a glitch in the current interpretation, or the
misinterpretation, of the Budget Act has resulted in a situation where
Americans overseas are needlessly being placed at risk.
There is no question that many of America's diplomatic facilities are
at risk from terrorist attack. Recommendations were made in 1985 by the
Inman Commission to significantly upgrade security and replace outdated
facilities. But a decade and a half later, only 15 percent of the U.S.
embassies meet Inman standards.
The reason is that it takes decades to go through the labyrinth of
bureaucracy associated with the U.S. government constructing a new
embassy. The addition to the Moscow embassy took almost two decades.
The State Department has been considering additions to the terribly
outdated Beijing chancery for almost a decade, and construction has yet
to begin.
There are many, many facilities that do not receive much-needed
attention because the few contractors the State Department relies upon
are overwhelmed.
In desperation, our U.S. ambassadors are taking it upon themselves to
cut through the red tape, contacting private engineering firms to
develop plans for necessary embassy upgrades. The notion is that
private firms are able to construct diplomatic facilities that meet the
Inman standards, and then lease the facilities to the United States.

{time} 2045

Such lease-purchase arrangements for facilities built by the private
sector would eliminate the likely delays caused by the tortuous, slow
State Department bureaucracy, where decisions on embassy construction
literally require decades.
According to the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration,
``The bottom line is I can get more embassies built faster if the
private sector was doing the construction with its own money.''
This Member's amendment would permit budgetary scoring of leased
properties on an annual basis. This amendment permits the speedy
construction of more secure diplomatic facilities.
I would tell my colleagues this has, in fact, long been the intent of
this body. Section 134 of the Foreign Relations Act for fiscal years
1994 and 1995 spoke directly to this problem. According to that
legislation, ``Whenever the Department of State enters into lease-
purchase agreements involving property in foreign countries, the
Department shall account for such transactions in accordance with
fiscal year obligations.''
Regrettably, the administration has written an opinion stating that
this provision of law does not alter Office of Management and Budget
scoring rules. OMB is steadfastly opposed to lease-purchase scoring on
an annual basis. Rather, they insist the entire value of the lease be
scored on the first year of the lease. As a result, there is no
incentive to engage in lease-purchases and we lose a highly creative
approach to addressing our security concerns.
This Member's amendment simply would permit scoring of lease-purchase
properties on an annual basis. If this amendment is offered, we will
have secure embassy facilities years earlier. Thus, the security of
U.S. diplomatic personnel overseas will be dramatically increased.
The bottom line is this: The current OMB interpretation of lease-
purchase scoring regulations needlessly endangers American lives
overseas. This Member would ask his colleagues to work to address this
situation by allowing lease-purchase scoring on an annual basis. And I
urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment on embassy
construction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman
of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on
International Relations for a very, very fine amendment. I would hope
the Committee on the Budget would not object, but it looks like they
may.
We need safe embassies now, Mr. Chairman, and our diplomatic
personnel overseas need and deserve that security. Moreover, the image
of the U.S. should not be one of easy vulnerability. Where our posts
are not secure and cannot be made secure, we need to build safe posts
as soon as we can.
The fastest way to build them is for the private sector to put up the
money and build them. We then lease-purchase

[[Page 16616]]

over the years. The current rule requires us to score the whole multi-
year lease-purchase in the first year. This amendment, instead, allows
us to score only the annual expenditure. This change will expedite the
necessary and urgent construction of safe posts without increasing any
costs.
The scoring of lease-purchase properties on an annual basis was
already included in the Foreign Relations Act for fiscal years 1994 and
1995, yet the administration has opined otherwise.
So I support this amendment of my colleague from Nebraska. It is a
good amendment, it is common sense, and we should support it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to simply state that the previous act I mentioned, PL 103-236, made it
very clear that the Congress intended that we were going to overrule
the Budget Act that will be cited here in a few seconds, and the
President's signing statement simply flew in the face of that clear
legislative intent. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McKINNEY. Although I am not in opposition to this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Without objection,
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment on embassy
construction proposed by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter),
and I urge the House to adopt it.
This amendment goes perfectly with the Embassy Security Act. The goal
of the act is to provide serious money to improve embassy security.
This amendment allows that money to be spent in a serious and
intelligent way.
Instead of having to charge off the entire cost of leasing buildings
to own the first year, the Department of State could have these costs
scored annually based on the amount of the leased payments. That is not
a radical idea. It is how we all buy houses here.
If people in the United States had to have enough money up front to
pay for their houses in the year they bought them, hardly anyone would
own a house. The State Department is in the same situation. That needs
to change if we are going to get moving fast on security. And if we do
not get moving fast, more people will get hurt.
To be serious on embassy security, we need this amendment, and I urge
my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) insist on his point of order?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
I object to the amendment under section 306 of the Congressional
Budget Act.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. Section 306 prohibits the consideration of any
amendment that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Budget and which is offered to a bill that was neither reported or
discharged from the Committee on the Budget.
The amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska modifies the budgetary
treatment of certain leases entered into by the State Department. The
budgetary treatment of such leases prescribed in the Balanced Budget
Act and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which is, pursuant to
clause 1 of House Rule X, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Budget.
Under current law and existing scoring procedures, the Federal
Government is required to appropriate the full cost of any multi-year
lease of office space in the fiscal year in which it enters into the
lease agreement. This amendment permits the State Department to commit
the Federal Government to a long-term lease agreement with an
appropriation for only the first year of the cost of the lease.
However, once the lease is agreed to, the Federal Government is saddled
with a long-term financial commitment.
So I do object to the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my intention to attempt to
amend the Budget Act to permit for lease-purchasing by the State
Department for embassies and consulates and related facilities, but I
do reluctantly, with great regret, acknowledge that a point of order
does pertain against the amendment under the rule.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that
we look forward to working with him to reconcile any concern he has.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is sustained.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 11 is not offered at this
point.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in Part B of
House Report 106-235.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 211. REPORT CONCERNING THE DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES IN
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.

No later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees assessing the diplomatic
initiatives of the United States and other interested parties
in the period leading up to and during the war in Kosovo. The
report shall be written by an independent panel of experts
(from the National Academy of Sciences). The report shall
give particular consideration to the Rambouilliet
negotiations, diplomatic initiatives undertaken by
representatives of Russia, Cyprus, Finland, United States
congressional members, other United States citizens, and
other parties. The report analysis will evaluate the role of
diplomacy in ending the war and compare the final agreement
with various proposed agreements dating from before the
commencement of the bombing campaign.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, and I know
of no opposition to this, but I would ask to claim the 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) will control the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment is a simple amendment. It is not a controversial
amendment. It would commission the Secretary of State, after 1 year, to
submit an independent study of the diplomatic initiatives undertaken by
the United States and other parties involved in the Balkans. It would
carefully examine the role of diplomacy in the Kosovo conflict in the
Balkans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has done
yeoman's work on diplomacy related to this with the Duma.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to rise to applaud the distinguished
member for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we look back at the
Kosovo crisis and see what steps were taken, those that we are not
aware of, in an effort to find a diplomatic solution.

[[Page 16617]]

As I am well aware, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) spent
countless hours himself trying to find a diplomatic way to end this
crisis. I saw his efforts firsthand. I know of his contacts, I have
applauded him for that publicly.
I think it is important that we ask the administration to go back and
look at what lessons can be learned from this situation, what kinds of,
perhaps, opportunities we may have missed, what kinds of things worked
well. Because there were successes and, perhaps, failures in both
regards in terms of this crisis, and it is important to look back to
see what we can do differently if a similar crisis occurs in the
future.
The gentleman and I were both involved, with nine of our colleagues,
in trying to find a diplomatic solution. The Members on the gentleman's
side of the aisle were as aggressively involved as were Members on my
side to trying to find an alternative to the bombing that occurred as a
way of solving the crisis.
So I think the amendment is well worded, it is well intended, and I
think it will be an overall help to future administrations. I applaud
the gentleman for the effort he has undertaken, and hope that my
colleagues on this side of the aisle would accept the amendment and
work with the gentleman to see that his ultimate report is, in fact,
issued so this body can learn lessons from the Kosovo crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), my distinguished chairman, who has also been a tireless
advocate for finding peaceful solutions to international crises, and I
look forward to adding my support to the vote on this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to first say that my work on this amendment was inspired by the
leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who saw a
very important moment in the history of the Kosovo conflict and rallied
Members from both sides of the aisle to a higher level of
participation, and I want to publicly thank him not only for supporting
the amendment but also for his almost singular leadership in this House
on behalf of peace. So I thank him for his support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms.
McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in commending the
gentleman from Ohio for his amendment and for the wonderful work that
was done during this period of crisis that we have recently faced. I
want to lend my voice of support for the work that the gentleman does,
his efforts on behalf of peace and on this amendment, and I thank him
for introducing it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, but
also want to thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for her support and for
her participation and her efforts over the past year.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to
how much time remains.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich), who has sponsored this amendment calling for a study of
the role of diplomacy regarding the Kosovo conflict, and I want to
thank him for his very thoughtful amendment. Everything he does is
thoughtful, and this is just another example.
I personally voted against military action, Mr. Chairman, and history
will someday give us a clue and perhaps some real answers as to whether
or not diplomacy before the conflict was working and whether diplomacy
during the conflict was responsible for ending the conflict.
I support the notion of an independent panel to examine this. We have
ample reason for concern that a report by the administration about its
own policies would simply be a defense or an apology for those policies
and little more. This administration certainly has a record of paying,
at best, lip service to congressional initiatives in foreign policy.
I would also like to say that the report must, in addition to
considering the question of diplomacy versus military intervention,
assess the situation on the ground in Kosovo to which the international
community was seeking to respond. The ideas of conflict resolution,
preventive diplomacy, and negotiated settlements are theoretical
concepts, and they do not incorporate the notion that one side might
not have had one ounce of good will and instead had a clear willingness
and desire to commit genocide instead.
Finally, diplomatic initiatives are supposed to be motivated by good
intentions, and most are, but the report should consider that not all
motivations are good. Having just returned from St. Petersburg session
of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, many of us were subject to a heavy
dose of Russian propaganda which, among other things, alleged that
there was no dissent here to the administration's policies. That is
obviously false, and I must say I would not want to see Russian
initiatives to have been considered well intentioned just because they
were diplomatic.
As a critic of the NATO action, I do not want to see a report which
would simply vindicate my own beliefs. It must also assess whether
diplomatic alternatives in dealing with a regime with a track record
like that of Slobodan Milosevic might have made a just solution to the
Kosovo crisis all the more elusive. Otherwise, the report would be no
different than the latest administration proclamation of the wisdom of
its ways.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's
thoughtful amendment and I recommend the full House adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I wish to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his thoughtful
and analytical approach to this important question. I also want to
thank him for his leadership on human rights, which has animated his
support not only for this amendment but for his work in so many vital
areas in this Congress.

{time} 2100

I am very pleased to have the support on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bereuter) having resumed the chair, Mr. Miller of Florida, Chairman pro
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel
overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for
fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________

ELECTION OF MEMBER TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H.Res. 225) and I ask
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 255

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is
hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the
House of Representatives:
Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?

There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

[[Page 16618]]

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

____________________

HONORING ASTRONAUT PETE CONRAD

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the sad occasion of the
recent loss of a great American hero. Pete Conrad truly embodied our
Nation's preeminence in space exploration and the progress of our
Nation's space program.
As a lifetime fan of space exploration, I have been inspired by
Captain Conrad's achievements in space and devotion to building
America's space program.
I recently had the honor of meeting this great man, a brief meeting
that I will never forget. In the short amount of time we spent
together, I sensed the passion and dedication he held for our Nation's
space program. As I shook his hand to say goodbye, I knew that I had
just met a true American hero.
Captain Conrad's memorable career as an astronaut is very well
documented. He was the third man to walk on the Moon. He was aboard
four missions to space. He set numerous records for space travel,
including the endurance record for an individual in space and the world
space altitude record. His achievements helped pave the way for our
Nation's success in space exploration, which have recently included the
early stages of the International Space Station and the successful
mission to Mars.
For these heroic efforts, he received the Congressional Space Medal
of Honor among his other distinguished career awards and medals.
Not so well known, however, were his activities following his
retirement from NASA and the Navy. Pete Conrad continued his dedication
to our Nation's space program by promoting America's commercial
activities in space.
Throughout his 20-year career at McDonnell Douglas, Captain Conrad
led many efforts to advance our Nation's emergence in space
exploration. During this time, he earned the reputation as a leader in
private space industry. More recently, through his establishment of a
group of companies called the Universal Space Lines, Captain Conrad
continued his activities to ensure that America would remain the
preeminent Nation in space.
The continued development of commercial activities in space will be
the lasting memory of Captain Conrad.
I believe Pete Conrad was intricately responsible for our Nation's
long-standing posture as a leader in space. As we develop commercial
space activities and benefit from them, we should remember that without
the leadership, dedication, bravery, and ingenuity of Captain Pete
Conrad, these would not have been possible.
I send my condolences to Pete's family, friends, associates.
Pete, thank you for inspiring me and our entire Nation.
When I think of Pete's lifetime achievements, I get inspired to
gleefully exclaim the first word he spoke as he took his first step on
the Moon: ``Whoopee'' .
Godspeed, Pete. I will remember you always.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this moment to
submit for the Record a testimony that Pete Conrad gave before my
subcommittee, and I chair the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics in
this House Committee on Science, on October 1, 1998, which was his
testimony at the 40th anniversary of NASA. The title of his testimony
was ``Life Begins at Forty.''
It is a terrific, terrific vision for the future that Pete outlined
his goals for America's space program in the next millennium.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert), for being here tonight. I will have 5 minutes a little bit
later on to say my piece, as well.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) is just one of many
people like myself who have been inspired by Pete Conrad, a man who is
not just a great pilot and a great technician but a beautiful human
being, a person with an incredible sense of humor.
And of course, let me just say to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert) that when he quoted Pete and his first word when he stepped
onto the Moon, I think he had to give a little bit more umph to it. It
was ``whoopee!'' And not just ``whoopee,'' because Pete Conrad had a
zest for life and was just a fantastic human being. He was a naval
pilot who was a very successful naval pilot.
Today we buried Pete Conrad in Arlington Cemetery. And as we stood
there and as his body was about to be lowered down, a team of naval
pilots flew over that site and one pilot peeled off and headed straight
for the heavens. And that is Pete heading straight for the heavens. It
was a glorious sight.
We just thank God for men and women in our military and in the
service of our country as astronauts and the rest like Pete Conrad,
leading the way for America.

NASA 1998: Life Begins at Forty

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aviation of the House
Committee on Science, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman

Charles ``Pete'' Conrad, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Universal Space Line, Inc., Newport Beach, CA, October 1, 1998

Good afternoon Chairman Rohrabacher, Congressman Gordon,
and other honored members of the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee. I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak
to the Subcommittee about the future, and the role NASA can
play to develop that future. Having been a long time NASA
team member on Gemini, Apollo and Skylab, I rode the wave of
public support and popularity the U.S. space program
engendered through the 1960s and early 1970s.
I enjoyed the rare opportunity of being an astronaut for
this great country, but the bigger legacy I hope to leave
behind is a robust commercial space industry making money for
America in the 21st Century. I can't speak for the entire
industry, but I would like to speak for my part of it,
Universal Space Lines (USL). USL is a small business just
over two years old, but already with over fifty employees.
Our long-term company goal is to position ourselves as the
world's premier provider of affordable commercial space
transportation services, including purchase and operation of
both expendable and reusable launch vehicles. Our current
products range from the commercial tracking and commanding of
satellites, to a near term, low cost expendable launch
vehicle for small to medium payloads. And Mr. Goldin will be
interested to hear we've begun planning for the eventual
transition to reusable launch vehicles as their technology
matures.
Our success will primarily be driven by the growing
commercial space sector. Commercial space revenues will
exceed $100 billion annually at the turn of this Century, a
figure far greater than today's combined NASA and Air Force
space budgets. And remember: this new millennium is only 15
months away!
As many as a thousand or more new commercial communications
satellites will be placed in orbit during the next decade,
extending the World Wide Web into the sky. Iridium,
Globalstar, Teledesic and others are literally betting tens
of billion dollars on the opportunity to cash in on an annual
trillion-dollar global communications market.
My company and others are gambling we will be a part of the
emerging commercial space industry. However, we should not
become too sanguine about the power of the word
``commercial.'' Both NASA and the Defense Department will
also play a major role, for good or for bad, in the ultimate
environment that emerges. In the years ahead my hope is that
this Congress will help guide our nation to establish a free
and competitive market in which all companies can participate
fairly. NASA, if it so chooses, can be a major player helping
the transition to a commercially focused profitable space
industry.
As an example of how our country dealt with a similar issue
from our past, I'd like to draw your attention to the early
history of commercial aviation. Between the late 1940s and
early 1960s, during a post war era of declining budgets, NASA
(and its predecessor agency, the NACA) and the Air Force
invested in a host of experimental aircraft that

[[Page 16619]]

opened America's skies to military and commercial aviation.
In particular, experimental and military jet aircraft spawned
the thriving commercial aviation industry we have inherited
today.
During those early pivotal years after World War II,
visionary leaders in the Air Force and NACA pursued a
technology policy of building and flying demonstration
hardware; hardware that was build quickly and flown often.
These early investments pushed aviation into a thriving,
commercially focused and profitable industry. Our challenge
today is to ensure the same opportunity is afforded our
budding commercial space industry. Just as the success of our
aviation industry hinged on the introduction of affordable
and reliable aircraft, the commercial space industry can't
truly take off without affordable and reliable launch
vehicles.

Forty Years Hence: Through A Glass Darkly

Mr. Chairman, history is a funny thing, full of unexpected
discontinuities. So before I try to look forward into the
middle of the next Century, I'd like to briefly look back to
the middle of this Century.
Forty years after the Wright Brothers first flew at Kill
Devil Hills, B-17s and B-24s were bombing Germany, and the B-
29 was in initial full scale production. In Germany, the Me-
262, a jet fighter (and probably the finest airplane in the
war) was also just entering initial full scale production.
So, too, was the A.4 (the V-2)--an honest-to-God war rocket.
But we haven't seen the same sort of progress in the forty
years since the founding of NASA in 1958. Why? In 1903,
people aboard an airplane were called ``aeronauts.'' Forty
years later, they were called ``passengers.'' Where are the
passenger tickets to space available for purchase today?
A second cautionary analogy. USL is a business being run
virtually. We depend upon the interconnectivity of the
Internet. I have no idea how I would do my job without access
to the information resources of the World Wide Web.
But the Web only came into existence around 1992--just six
years ago!
And we're not at all unique--scores of other businesses are
also now totally dependent upon the Web's existence.
How do you predict the coming of something like the Web?
It's roughly equivalent to being able to predict, in 1900,
that the coming of the automobile is going to lead to the
suburb, or to drive-through fast food stands. . . .
I'm a bit reluctant, then, about trying to predict or
describe what 2038 might look like. But I can describe what
I'd like it to look like.

Strategic U.S. Goals In Space For the Next 40 Years

The committee has asked, ``What should be the strategic
goals of the U.S. in space for the next forty years?'' I
think that there are four overarching goals. (1) Foster a
commercial space industry. (2) Explore the Solar System. (3)
Settle the Solar System. (4) Explore the Universe.
For the first time, there now exists a nascent commercial
launch services industry. It came slowly into existence
during the last part of the 1990s, and it came into existence
primarily because, for the first time, NASA didn't try to
strangle this new industry in its cradle. The foremost thing
a medical doctor learns is ``First, do no harm.'' This prime
principle of medicine should also become the foremost policy
of the Federal Government with respect to the newborn
commercial launch industry.
Exploration of the Solar System will be done by robots and
by humans. In the case of robots, these missions will be
primarily scientific, and could be pursued by the Government,
or by academia, or both. Commercial data purchase is one
method that either or both could pursue as a means to achieve
their exploration goals, and at the same time save money, and
again at the same time help to foster a commercial space
sector.
Exploration by humans will probably be confined to the
inner Solar System over the next forty years--i.e., Luna,
Mars, and the small bodies (asteroids). These explorations
will also be primarily scientific, certainly so in the case
of Mars, but in the case of Luna and the asteroids, one can
easily see economic rationales. There are thus business cases
that can be made and that will be pursued.
Settlement of the Solar System may begin with Luna. There's
lunar water ice at both poles, making settlements and
outposts on Luna tremendously easier to accomplish than might
have been otherwise. Lunar water ice, in a phrase, changes
everything. One might even speak of a lunar ``Cold Rush. . .
.''
The exploration of the Universe is primarily a scientific
one, using space-based astronomy facilities. Such work, of
course, is done to ``do'' science, but a lot of this science
will begin to lay the ground work for the first robotic
missions to the near stars, possibly in the 22nd Century.

the Single Issue That Must Be addressed

But before any of the above can be attempted, much less
accomplished, there must be Cheap Access to Space. You need
to be able to get to low Earth orbit (``LEO'') easily,
frequently, reliably, and cheaply. There is no inherent
technical barrier to the creation of such a capability--
``only'' engineering development need occur for cheap, easy
to operate, robust access to low Earth orbit to become
available.
And as has been pointed out, once you're in LEO, in terms
of energy, you're halfway to anywhere else in the Solar
System.

roles of the federal government

The second issue the Subcommittee wished addressed is
``What are the appropriate roles of the federal government in
pursuing those goals?'' I would argue that there are four
roles for the Federal Government. The first appropriate role
is to support and encourage science, both directly funding it
as well as helping to encourage and underwrite its
accomplishment by the private sector and academia. This also
applies to exploration activity, both human and robot. The
Government ought to help academia and the private sector
explore, through underwriting, partnerships, tax credits, and
other such mechanisms. In some rare cases, the Government
itself might also mount its own explorations. These were the
patterns and methods of exploration employed by Spain and
England in the 1500s and 1600s, as well as by the United
States in the 1800s.
The second appropriate role of the Federal Government in my
opinion is to foster long-term, high-risk technology
development. The Federal Government should strongly invest in
next generation technology, including experimental reusable
launch vehicles and military demonstration hardware.
The third activity that I feel is appropriate for the
Federal Government to pursue is that of the use of space for
the defense of the United States.
Finally, the Federal Government has, I believe, an
important, if not critical, role in the encouragement and
incentivization of the growth of the nascent entrepreneurial
commercial launch industry.

short term policies to accomplish these goals

``What policies and priorities should Congress and the
Administration be putting in place in the near term to begin
the transition to the future?''
Here are a few of the possible options I think would go a
long way in the short term for encouraging and incentivizing
the growth of our emerging commercial launch industry.
NASA and the Air Force should procure all launch services
via competitive bids that are truly open to all companies,
not just the largest defense contractors. These ``fly before
buy'' launch service contracts must not develop new launch
vehicles; instead, they should be structured like the Air
Mail ``service'' contracts of the 1930s to encourage private
investment. During the next forty years NASA should
transition totally out of operating space launch vehicles, or
of on-orbit support infrastructure.
Space science data should be purchased by NASA in order to
help to support science and the development of a commercial
space sector. Resupply and support of the International Space
Station should be provided commercially by the private
sector, so as to also help support the development of a
commercial space sector. The International Space Station
should also be commercially operated.
In parallel, Congress can also pass legislation providing
incentives to the commercial space transportation sector. One
possibility is investment tax credits to incentivize the
creation of launch service providers. Such credits ought to
be able to be traded. Other possibilities include interest
write-offs, legislated market incentives like ``air-mail,''
and regulatory improvements. All of these incentives can help
give birth to a thriving commercial launch industry modeled
after today's aviation industry. The one thing we must not do
is create a monopoly where a single company controls the
ability to launch critical commercial and military assets
into space. Guaranteeing government loans or market share for
a single company would be catastrophic to the emerging
commercial industry.
In the future tax credits may also be an appropriate
mechanism for helping to encourage long term goals, such as
Lunar missions and settlement.
A third policy thrust should be to robustly invest in the
experimental technology and military demonstration hardware
that supports truly low cost space launch vehicles. No
technology investment is required for expendable launch
vehicles, as the commercial sector is well positioned to
develop such vehicles today. Instead, the government should
be investing in the longer term, higher risk reusable launch
vehicle technologies that promise to reduce launch costs by
two orders of magnitude.
Mr. Goldin at NASA has already done a good job with his
early investments in experimental vehicles, but it's just the
first step. NASA's early, but underfunded plan to fly many
``Future-X'' experimental vehicles is an excellent blueprint
for the future. In the past, Mr. Goldin has shared his vision
of ``blackening the sky with X-vehicles''--not prototypes or
commercial vehicles, but pure experimental demonstrators. If
we truly want low cost launch vehicles, it will require the
flight of many experimental vehicles built by many different
companies.

[[Page 16620]]

The policy goal of flying X-vehicles for technology
demonstrations should become the basic way that the
government (and NASA) should approach technology development.
Build 'em, fly 'em, and break 'em--both by intent and
accident, this approach has led to today's thriving
commercial aviation industry.
In coordination with NASA, DoD should also be investing in
their own experimental vehicles and early military
demonstration hardware. Either the Air Force or the Navy
should develop a Military Spaceplane capability that supports
global reach and the ability to defend U.S. interests
``anywhere, anytime,'' with dramatically smaller force
structures than exist today. Blue ribbon panel after blue
ribbon panel has advocated the need for such technology
investments starting with General Moorman's Space Launch
Modernization Panel in 1994. Most recently, the Defense
Science Board is recommending an ongoing investment in the
Space Maneuver Vehicle flight tested at Holloman AFB just
last month.
Finally, while institutional changes are not necessarily
required at NASA, the mindset must change. NASA should be the
leading advocate of change and the transition to a primarily
commercial space industry. Nonetheless, the real change is up
to Congress. NASA, the Administration, and Congress must
decide to place funding and budget priorities on the side of
change. The Government should be investing in technology,
experimental vehicles, and military hardware for the defense
of the country.

2038: free people in free space

The United States is at a seminal point in our transition
to a commercial space industry. If we choose to encourage and
incentivize the move towards a commercially based space
industry we can accelerate and fundamentally enable America's
move into space. We did this once before when America
invested in the technology of commercial aviation, and it
paid handsome dividends. Now it's time to build the same
bridge to the future of commercial space.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present
USL's views. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
or any other Members might have.

____________________

COMMON STATE PROPOSAL BETWEEN NAGORNO KARABAGH AND AZERBAIJAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend just a short amount of
time this evening talking about the optimism that many of us are seeing
as a result of the meeting that took place in Geneva last week between
President Kocharian of Armenia and President Aliyez of Azerbaijan.
I am sure that many people know, particularly those of us who have
been involved with the Armenia Caucus for many years, that we are very
hopeful that, as a result of this meeting and some other activities
that have taken place over the last few months, that we could see a
resolution of the conflict in Nagorno Karabagh, which has been
basically a bone of contention, if you will, between the two countries
for some time.
I think many people know that Nagorno Karabagh is an independent
republic that is Armenian speaking, ethnically Armenian, that fought a
war, if you will, about 10 years ago that at the time when the Soviet
Union broke up, and even though it has been independent and has been a
state for all practical purposes, for about 10 years it is not
recognized by the United States and there is a continued conflict,
albeit mostly peaceful conflict, between Armenia and Azerbaijan over
the future of Nagorno Karabagh.
It would certainly behoove anyone who is concerned about peace in the
Caucasus region to see if these two countries could come to an
agreement over the future of Nagorno Karabagh that, of course, involves
the people of Nagorno Karabagh, as well.
The Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met last week in Geneva for
talks that seek a political settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh
conflict. President Robert Kocharian of Armenia went to Geneva directly
from Warsaw, where he had been for other business, and while there he
told the news conference that he was optimistic about the meeting with
President Aliyev. He said that there had been serious progress since
active talks have begun with President Aliyev, most recently in April
during the NATO summit conference when both leaders were here in
Washington.
I must say also and give praise to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, who had written to both presidents after those Washington
talks urging further direct discussions between the two presidents.
The latest proposal of the OSCE Minsk Group, and the Minsk Group has
been set forth by the United States and other countries to try to come
to a settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, basically last fall
the Minsk Group put forth a proposal called the ``common state
proposal,'' which essentially sets up a sort of confederation, if you
will, between Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan where the two countries
would be part of a confederation or common state with equal status.
We know that Azerbaijan very quickly after that announcement last
fall by the Minsk Group rejected the common state proposal. But there
have been strong indications recently that if it was not for the actual
label ``common state'' that Baku and Azerbaijan essentially might be
willing to accept the idea of what the common state proposal is all
about.
In other words, they may not like the term ``common state,'' but if
another term like ``confederation'' or ``free association'' or
something like that was used that they might be willing to go along
with it.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that what I am hoping and I think the
atmosphere is ripe for it is that after this meeting of the two
presidents that it might be possible to engage in some kind of direct
negotiations between the three parties, between Armenia, Azerbaijan,
and Nagorno Karabagh, which is something that I and most members of the
Armenia Caucus have been talking about for some time, that we can see
the three sides, if you will, get together perhaps at some point nearby
and simply start negotiations using the common state proposal or
something like it and ultimately come up with a peaceful settlement.
I wanted to praise our own House of Representatives and particularly
the House Committee on Foreign Operations Appropriations because in the
bill that they reported out of the subcommittee last week and I think
will be considered by the full committee on appropriations tomorrow
that bill incorporated several constructive initiatives to help jump
start the Karabagh peace initiative.

{time} 2115

If I could just give some examples, in the report language for the
Foreign Ops bill, it specifically says that the primary national
interest of the United States in the Southern Caucasus is peace, and it
recommends continued support for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan,
and says that the extent and timing of United States assistance should
depend on whether or not the parties move towards a peaceful
settlement.
I want to commend our own Foreign Operations appropriations
subcommittee for what it did and that this leads in the long run to a
peaceful settlement of the conflict.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ASTRONAUT PETE CONRAD, AMERICAN HERO

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert) spoke about Pete Conrad whom we laid to rest today in
Arlington National Cemetery, an American hero and a member of the team
that walked on the Moon, in fact the third man to have walked on the
Moon. It was my honor to have represented Mr. Conrad in Congress. In
fact, he lived in Huntington Beach, California. I had many, many
meetings with Pete. I was very honored to not only know him but I was
very, very pleased to have had the guidance that he gave me over the
years in dealing with American space policy. Now as the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, that advice that he was giving
me was of real importance and of real value. Pete was

[[Page 16621]]

such a wonderful person. It was a sad day, but then again knowing Pete
and his spirit, it was a day that we know that the spirit of Pete
Conrad lives on.
Over the years, I have observed that real heroes do not look like the
ones in the movies. John Wayne never risked his life for his country,
but he was certainly tall and handsome. No, the real heroes that I have
met generally have been short and balding. Jimmy Dolittle was like
that. I met Jimmy Dolittle on one occasion. And so was Pete Conrad.
If Pete were here today, he would be really embarrassed to hear me
compare him to such a courageous and heroic man as Jimmy Dolittle. But
that trait of being humble was one of the traits that made Pete Conrad
himself such a great man.
When you think about it, great people, the great people of our
country, just what is Americanism, who are these great Americans that
people have thought about? In the past, the personification of the
American ideal, perhaps let us say back in the 19th century, one would
have to say that the personification of the American ideal was the
pioneer or the frontiersman, with perhaps a little bit of cowboy or
industrialist thrown in as well. Well, in this century, we need look no
further than Pete Conrad, the man whom we laid to rest in Arlington
today.
Pete Conrad was the quintessential 20th century American hero. It is
fitting, then, that Pete was buried today among America's most noble
champions in Arlington National Cemetery.
Pete's accomplishments in the space program, of course, speak for
themselves. He was the third human being to have walked on the Moon. He
did an incredible job in front of the whole world as it watched in
repairing Skylab. He piloted or commanded four different space flights.
Before that, he had a career as a naval officer and, yes, during some
of the other space missions, Pete was an intricate part of the team
that backed up those people who were flying the missions.
I would also like to pay tribute not only to his accomplishments but
to those personal qualities that made him much more than a space age
technician and a flight jockey. He was a man with enthusiasm for life
and adventure. He had wit and optimism. His vision, his humble
demeanor, his positive can-do spirit with which he approached every
task, every challenge, was something that inspired and energized
everyone with whom he worked. His spirit itself was an immeasurable
contribution to America's space program. And, yes, his persona became a
part of the personalities and the personality of America's space
effort. He took his job seriously but never took himself too seriously,
which was part of his charm and an example to others. He did not dwell
on the past which of course is a trap for both individuals and
institutions of great accomplishment.
Pete instead, yes, he looked back and he thought about that and he
talked about that when he was asked about it, but he was busy laying
the foundation for America's next exciting era in space, the era of
space commercialization, when space becomes the arena of
entrepreneurship, open to all with boundless opportunity rather than
the confines of bureaucratic management and government planning. This,
too, is the epitome of Americanism. We are a people who want to lead
the way, maintaining a fun-loving spirit as we do but making no
apologies about wanting to make a profit by doing what is right as
well.
I chaired the hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on
NASA's 40th birthday, its anniversary. Pete testified, his testimony
was superb, or should I say, as Pete would, super. He said, ``It was a
crazy time of excitement and adventure and new worlds to explore,'' of
the 1960s and 1970s. But Pete said, ``I would like to go on record as
saying those days are not half as exciting as the coming age of
commercial space.''
That was Pete Conrad, a man who was pointing the way to the future.
We laid him to rest today. We are all grateful for the things he did
for his country, for the world, and I am grateful tonight to have had
the opportunity to speak on his behalf.
God bless Pete Conrad and God bless the United States of America.

____________________

ON HATE CRIMES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this year the celebration of our
Nation's birthday, July the 4th, was shattered by a string of hate
crime attacks in the Chicago area, apparently the attacks of Benjamin-
Smith who had links to the World Church of the Creator.
The targets of his attacks included African Americans, Asian
Americans and Orthodox Jews. Northwestern University basketball coach
Ricky Byrdsong, and Indiana University student Won-Joon Yoon died as a
result of these attacks.
Followers of the church have been linked by police and civil rights
groups to numerous other incidents, including the 1991 murder of an
African American sailor in Neptune Beach, Florida; the 1993 fire
bombing of the NAACP office in Tacoma, Washington; the 1997 beating of
a black man and his son in Sunrise, Florida; and the 1998 beating and
robbery of a Jewish businessman in Hollywood, Florida.
Two brothers held on stolen property charges related to the slaying
of a gay couple are being investigated in arson attacks at three
synagogues. The brothers' relationship to the World Church is being
investigated. But hate crimes are not new or uncommon in the Chicago
region. Looking over newspaper headlines, we find that in May, a mosque
in DuPage County was desecrated, only the latest in a string of such
desecrations.
A group of white teenagers attacked a black police officer near the
Dan Ryan Woods.
A Gurnee man convicted and awaiting sentence for a hate crime against
a biracial couple was arrested and charged with illegal possession of
several weapons.
A 27-year-old was charged with a hate crime for intentionally running
down two African American teenagers as they rode their bikes along a
Kenosha sidewalk.
A Crystal Lake man was charged with shooting and killing a Japanese
store owner just because of his ethnicity.
A Federal jury convicted a Blue Island man of cross burnings before
the home of black neighbors in an effort to drive them from the
neighborhood.
A Pakistani gas station attendant was attacked by a customer because
of his ethnicity.
A retired Chicago firefighter settled a racial harassment suit,
admitting his guilt of hate crimes against his Hispanic neighbors and
apologizing for his acts.
Pizza Hut in Godfrey, Illinois settled a suit brought by an African
American family which they refused to serve and threatened in the
parking lot after they left the restaurant.
An Hispanic couple was subjected to repeated incidents of racial hate
crimes, including the painting of their homes and garages with racist
graffiti.
Three men who beat 13-year-old Lenard Clark into a coma because they
did not like African Americans cycling through their neighborhood were
convicted.
A Chicago Heights man was convicted of attacking a biracial couple in
Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood.
Four teenagers, professed skinheads, were arrested for spray-painting
anti-Semitic slogans on roads, signs and overpasses.
An African American man in Mokena was the victim of repeated hate
crimes after receiving newspaper clippings covered with racial slurs.
A Waukegan man was convicted of kicking a Mexican-American teenager
who lay dying in the street after a traffic accident.
Three white teenagers in Belleville admitted to dragging a black teen
beside their sport utility vehicle.
A Rolling Meadows man was convicted of hate crimes after shouting
racial slurs and attacking an African American in a bowling alley.
The list is much longer. Though the Justice Department is required to
publish a report of hate crimes, police

[[Page 16622]]

agencies are not required to report crimes to the Department of
Justice. Hundreds of agencies do not report hate crimes. Many
individuals are afraid to report hate crimes.
In Illinois, 114 departments reported one or more hate crimes
totaling 333 for 1996. The remaining 787 agencies reported no hate
crimes. It is obvious that hate crimes are running rampant throughout
not only Illinois but throughout our country. They cannot, should not
and must not be tolerated.
I urge America to come into the 21st century as one Nation with
enough room for everybody to live.
Hate crimes are an attack on individuals or groups of individuals.
But they are also an attack on our communities and our nation. The
strength of our nation flows directly from the powerful notion that
democracy and equality form the inseparable, interlinked foundation for
our economic, social and cultural progress.
Our democracy succeeds because the notions of democracy and equality
and the constant struggle to expand and deepen democracy and equality
have grown and spread and taken root in the psyche of our people.
The struggle for equality for African Americans, Latinos, Asian
Americans, Native Americans and women have not been easy or painless.
These struggles are far from complete.
I believe the historical record is clear: every American has
benefitted, our Nation has been enriched, by breaking down the barriers
which prevent some Americans from fully participating in, contributing
to and benefitting from all that America has to share.
Hate crimes, and those who perpetrate such crimes, crimes which
target victims based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation,
tear at the heart of America, at the ideal that people all over the
world look to for inspiration. Hate crimes are twice as likely to cause
injury and four times as likely to result in hospitalization as
assaults in general.
Our Nation fought a bloody civil war to determine whether a nation
conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men (and
women) are created equal can long endure. The resounding answer to that
question, written in the blood of so many Americans, was nothing less
than a second American Revolution.
It is no accident that our Department of Justice was born in 1871
following the Civil War as a response to the wave of hate crime terror
instituted by the Ku Klux Klan. And, within the space of a few years
the DOJ brought more than 500 prosecutions under the Enforcement Acts
which broke the back of the Klan. It is unfortunate that the second and
third incarnations of the Klan were not met with similarly forceful
responses.
We need additional legislation on the Federal level to reinforce and
upgrade the tools, both criminal and civil which give law enforcement
the ability to prevent and punish hate crimes. Now is the time for
state and local government to review their hate crime laws and upgrade
the training of law enforcement officials to respond to hate crimes.
Most important, we must rally every American, every man, woman and
child to join in defending our democracy. The best defense against hate
crime is mass revulsion and rejection of racism, sexism and homophobia.
To paraphrase the remarks of Frederick Douglass, of July 4, 1852
condemning slavery and racism:

* * * It is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not
the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the
whirlwind and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation which
is insensitive to such crimes must be quickened; the
conscience of the nation which tolerates such crimes must be
roused; the propriety of the nation which ignores such crimes
must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation which tolerates
such crimes must be exposed; and these crimes against God and
community, men and women must be proclaimed and denounced and
fought against with every fiber of our national will.

Hate crimes must not be tolerated at any level in our society.

____________________

AN ACCURATE READING OF THE COX COMMITTEE REPORT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, following the public release of the Final
Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/
Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, more commonly
referred to as the Cox Committee report, there have been attempts to
discredit the work of the select committee.
As one of the nine members of the select committee, this Member would
like to reemphasize the truly bipartisan nature of the select committee
and underscore that every finding made by the Cox committee in its
report is fully corroborated with evidence detailed either in the
public report itself or in the classified version.
The Cox committee report is not and has never claimed to be a
comprehensive report, nor was it ever meant to be one. When rumors
first arose that sensitive military technology was being illegally
transferred to the People's Republic of China, the House of
Representatives created a select committee to investigate such
allegations with emphasis on the launch failure investigations of the
failures of two Chinese rockets carrying commercial satellites produced
by American companies and an investigation of the sale of high
performance computers to China.
In the course of our investigation, far more disturbing information
came to light that took us into unanticipated directions. Even as we
were trying to close the select committee's operations, new revelations
kept being brought to our attention by whistleblowers. It became clear
that a very deep institutional problem had existed for some time in
some of our Federal agencies and particularly the Department of Energy
and its national laboratories, there at least since the late 1970s. I
believe that these lapses of security at the DOE weapons laboratories
taken together resulted in the most serious espionage loss and
counterintelligence failure in American history. Moreover, these lapses
facilitated the most serious theft ever of sensitive U.S. technology
and information.
Clearly, what the select committee revealed is very disturbing.
Americans should be angry that their own government's lax security,
indifference, naivete and incompetence resulted in such serious damage
to our national security. The loss of sensitive nuclear weapons
information to China is a national embarrassment and an incredibly
important loss.
The bipartisan Cox committee report should be used as the starting
point in our efforts to fix the serious problems the select committee
identified. Rather, some have focused on discrediting the report by
improperly interpreting the very clear language we used and questioning
the construction of the report. Instead, they should just focus their
attention on the actual meaning of straightforward, plain English
meanings of the words we used. We were very careful in what we said and
how we said it.
The most recent distortion circulated in Washington and in the
national media is a document written by Dr. James Gordon Prather
entitled ``A Technical Reassessment of the Conclusions and Implications
of the Cox Committee Report.'' It was released personally by the
Honorable Jack Kemp after Empower America, the organization to which
Mr. Kemp belongs and which sponsored Dr. Prather's research, refused to
endorse the final document. The Prather document was also the subject
of a Wall Street Journal article and one of Robert Novak's columns last
week.

{time} 2130

Dr. Prather claims that our select committee erred in finding that
Chinese espionage penetrated U.S. weapons labs. Indeed he claims there
was no evidence of Chinese espionage, that the real culprit is the
Clinton administration's policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and
opening up the Nation's nuclear secrets to the world.
That is pure nonsense. Of course there was espionage. After careful
review of the Prather document, this Member concludes that it was
written with an underlying political agenda in mind; that is, to focus
attention and blame on the Clinton administration, particularly its
policy of engagement with China and its declassification of nuclear
secrets. There is plenty of blame that might be headed that direction,
but that should not discredit the Cox Committee Report.
If partisan politics is the purpose of the report, then we should
recognize it as such, but it is a disservice to the Nation to discredit
the work of the Cox

[[Page 16623]]

committee if the result is that their recommendations are not
implemented.
The cover letter to the Prather document clearly states, quote, ``the
White House is using the espionage angle to mask the real security risk
which comes not from foreign spies, but rather from the Clinton
administration's own ill-conceived strategy,'' end of quote. Of course
the United States is a target of foreign espionage, including Chinese
espionage. To ignore or fail to act on such evidence is an
embarrassment to the Clinton administration, and it is dangerous.
Without the Cox Committee, we would still not know of this massive
failure or be seeing corrective action. There is a significant
difference between analyzing the motive behind whatever partisan spin
and public relations angle the White House has given to the Cox
Committee Report and the Prather analysis of the contents and
conclusions of the report itself.
It appears to this Member that the Prather document mixes up these
distinctions for its partisan purposes. In order to better support and
prove its conclusions, the Clinton administration policy alone, and not
any Chinese espionage, is responsible for American national security
losses. The Prather analysis necessarily had to redefine the Cox
committee report in a critical way. Unfortunately the overall
credibility of the Prather document is suspect, given its numerous
flaws and its noticeable selective cherry picking of the Cox committee
report.
For example, the Prather document essentially dismisses the charge
that China stole design information for the neutron bomb with the help
of Taiwan-born Peter Lee.
This dismissal is based on a deliberately selective reading of our
report, faulty assumptions and a disregard for other information which
is still classified. The Prather document called this theft charge
(quote) ``ridiculous'' (unquote) and opined that the Cox Committee, in
its zeal to be bipartisan, claimed the Chinese stole neutron bomb
information (quote), ``because the alleged spying happened on Reagan's
watch, not Clinton's watch.'' (unquote). Notwithstanding Dr. Prather's
interpretations, Peter Lee pled guilty to willfully passing classified
U.S. defense information to PRC scientists and to providing false
statements to a U.S. government agency.
The Prather document also introduces the case of Wen Ho Lee, another
scientist at Los Alamos. In fairness, the Prather document states that
``Wen Ho Lee is not mentioned by name in the Cox Report . . .'' He is
not. However, aside from the caveat, Prather treats the Wen Ho Lee case
as if it was the lynchpin of our investigation. It was not and
furthermore the allegations against Wen Ho Lee are, at this time, still
just that--allegations.
This Member does not disagree with Dr. Prather that through our open
system, smart people can gather significant amounts of information
other countries would consider very sensitive. Mr. Speaker, our
colleagues may recall the publicity that was given to the book
``Mushroom'' which was written back in 1978 by John Phillips, then an
undergraduate student at Princeton University. Mr. Phillips wrote about
how he was able to design an atomic bomb using only the open-source
information available in the university's library. Experts confirmed
the design was valid. This Member is sure that the Chinese and others
have similarly used our open system, as Dr. Prather states. However,
the detailed design plans and other extremely sensitive information
relating to the neutron bomb and other thermonuclear warheads have not
been declassified and are not in Princeton's library or on the Los
Alamos public website.
There are numerous other instances in the Prather document of
inaccurate interpretations and distortions of the Cox Committee Report
for which there is not enough time this evening to detail. However,
given the apparent political objectives of the Prather document and the
questionable selectivity of its analysis, it should be seen for what it
really is: a partisan attack or a partisan counterattack to a Clinton
Administration selective leak and spin operation against the findings
of the Cox Committee, and it therefore does not warrant any further
attention.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress has just begun the job of implementing many
of the 38 recommendations made in the Cox Committee Report. Most can be
implemented by the executive branch without legislation. Some
recommendations, such as increasing the penalties for export control
violations, are relatively easy to legislate. Others such as
reauthorizing the Export Administration Act, are not so simple and will
take time and effort. This Member strongly urges his colleagues to
concentrate on implementing these recommendations and not be distracted
and dissuaded from this duty by those critics like the author of the
Prather Report who all too apparently has a different agenda.

____________________

LT. COL. EILEEN COLLINS, FIRST FEMALE PILOT OF A SPACE SHUTTLE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a first
that is, in my opinion, long overdue. Early tomorrow morning, shortly
after midnight, Lieutenant Colonel Eileen Collins, the first woman in
the history of NASA, will command a 5-day Columbia space shuttle
mission to launch NASA's most powerful space telescope, the Chandra X-
ray Observatory.
Lieutenant Collins, who also can boast that she is the first female
pilot of a space shuttle, is a good example of how far our space
program has come since the first lunar landing 30 years ago tomorrow.
In these days of economic progress and budget surpluses, I urge all
of my colleagues to support continued funding of the manned space
program so that today's little girls can grow up knowing that they may
be one of the first to walk on Mars or to conduct research in the
international space station right alongside scientists from Italy,
Russia, Japan, or wherever else in the world.
As a member of the House Committee on Science, and I guess a
confirmed space nut, it makes me proud that I represent Johnson Space
Center and its efforts to put more women into manned or, perhaps I
should say, womaned space program.
Lieutenant Colonel Collins, I wish her Godspeed, a most successful
mission, and a safe return for her and her crew.

____________________

HMO REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Another week has gone by,
and the House of Representatives, United States of America, has done
nothing to address HMO abuses in this country.
Of course we had, Mr. Speaker, a big debate on the other side of the
capital last week, and I want to talk a little bit about that, that
bill that passed, because I think that my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle will need to educate themselves on some of the details of
that bill that passed the Senate last week.
I think we may be looking at that bill in the near future. I hope at
least we will be looking at some bill on the floor in the near future.
After all, it was about 2 weeks ago that the Speaker of the House told
me personally that it was his intent to have HMO reform legislation on
the floor by the middle of July.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at my dates here, and here we are, it
is past the middle of July; and furthermore, we are going to find time
this week to debate a tax bill and other bills, and there is nothing in
sight to even be having a committee markup in the Committee on
Education and the Work Force or in the Committee on Commerce on HMO
reform.
It is not exactly, Mr. Speaker, like we have not been dealing with
this issue for the last 3 or 4 years in Congress. It is not exactly as
if earlier this year we were overworked here on the floor when we were
naming post offices. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that we get this
issue to the floor. There are people that are losing their lives and
losing their limbs and their health is being injured because HMOs are
making medical decisions that are not in the best interests of their
clients, their patients.

[[Page 16624]]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk specifically about some of the provisions
that are in Senate bill S. 1344, which passed last week in the Senate,
because, Mr. Speaker, I have the bill here, and I have been reading
through this bill, and you know, there is an old saying here in
Congress: the devil is in the details. You can have awfully good
headings, Mr. Speaker, but once you start looking at the language, you
can find out that it comes up rather empty.
So let me just go over a few problems and deficiencies with the bill
that passed the Senate last week.
Now a couple years ago we here in the House, the other body, passed a
bill for Medicare and Medicaid recipients that was signed into law by
President Clinton. It said that if you were having a chest pain, severe
chest pain in the middle of the night such that a prudent lay person
would say, hey, that could be a heart attack, you could go to the
nearest emergency room and be treated, and your health plan would be
responsible for covering the cost because we know from the American
Heart Association that if you delay prompt treatment, diagnosis and
treatment of a heart attack, you could be dead before you get your
treatment; and unfortunately many HMOs have said, as my colleagues
know, you could go to that emergency room, but if they find out that
instead of having a heart attack that you just had a severe case of
inflammation of your esophagus, for instance, well, that proves that
you did not have a heart attack and we are not going to pay for it.
The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that once that information
gets out, people are a little bit hesitant to go to the emergency room
when they have crushing chest pain because they think, oh, my goodness,
what if I am not having a heart attack? Then I could be left with
thousands of dollars of bills. So maybe I will just be a little extra
careful, and I will just stay at home here sweaty, really sick, until I
am really sure that I have a heart attack.
Mr. Speaker, we wanted to fix that. We did that in Medicare and
Medicaid. We passed what is called a lay person's definition of an
emergency, and we told the Medicare health plans that you have to cover
those services if a patient goes to the emergency room.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that it would not be too difficult to
get the language right in a patient bill of rights that would apply to
all Americans, the same as we have for those who are elderly in
Medicare or those who are poor in Medicaid. After all, people are
spending a lot of money for their health insurance, it ought to be
worth something if one did wake up with that case of crushing chest
pain in the middle of the night.
You would think it would not be too hard to simply take that language
that we did in Medicare and put it into a bill that would apply to all
Americans. That should not be difficult, should it? I mean, that is
actually not one of the more contentious issues. But no, no, S. 1334,
as reported, could not get that right either.
Let me give you an example. The bill fails to guarantee that health
plans will cover emergency care at the nearest hospital. That should
not be so difficult. If you do not take my word, just take my word for
it and read Page 7, Line 1 through 20. The bill that passed the other
body last week would allow plans to refuse to cover emergency services.
What are the details? Well, look at Page 8, Lines 3 through 7. The
plan's obligations to pay for cost of treatment for stabilization,
maintenance ends when the plan contacts the provider to arrange for
discharge or transfer even if in the opinion of the treating physician
the patient is not ready for transfer.
Or how about the provision that would allow plans to shift the cost
of refusing to pay for emergency care to the health providers? That is
Page 8, Lines 8 through 14. I mean, that should be a relatively
noncontentious issue, but they could not get it right. They could not
get it right. They had to write a bill that was an HMO protection bill
for emergency provisions.
How about gag rules that HMOs have had in their contracts that say
before you, the treating physician, can tell your patient all of his
treatment options, you first have to get an okay from us, the health
plan. Now think about that.
Now say a woman goes to her treating doctor, she has a lump in her
breast. The doctor takes the history, the physical exam, and then he
says, excuse me, leaves the room, has to get on the phone, phone the
HMO and says, You know, I have Mrs. So and So. She has a lump in her
breast, and she has three treatment options. I would like to tell her
about all three treatment options.
And the health plan says, well, you know, according to our definition
we only cover two of those, so we would rather not have you tell that
patient about the third one because she might want it, might be
appropriate for her.
Those are what are called gag clauses in contracts. Mr. Speaker, once
again a couple years ago we passed a Medicare, a Medicaid rule that
forbade those types of impediments to communications between their
health care providers and their patience, doctors and nurses and their
patients. We said you cannot do that in Medicare; you cannot do that in
Medicaid. Not a big deal. It has not added really anything significant
to the cost of premiums. But it is an important reassurance to patients
so that they know they are getting the whole story.
Well, why could we not just take that language and put it into a bill
that applies to all Americans? A bill that I have in the House here,
the Managed Care Reform Act of 1999, does that; a bill that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has, Patient Bill of Rights, does
that; a bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has does
that.
Could they get it right over in the other body? No, no. All they
needed to do was add a few little words, but they are important words.
They needed to add a provision that said all current contractual
language prohibiting health communications is null and void. Could not
do it. Could not force themselves to buck up to the HMOs on that.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what the two really big
problems were with the bill that passed the other body last week, and
that has to do with the definition of medical necessity and who gets to
define that and whether you have an enforcement provision to make all
of the other provisions in the bill mean anything.
Now, before I go into the language of S. 144, let me just set this up
for my colleagues a little bit and tell them about testimony that a
medical reviewer for an HMO gave before the Committee on Commerce.

{time} 2145

It was May 30, 1996. A small nervous woman testified before the House
Committee on Commerce. Her testimony came at the end of a long day of
testimony about the abuses of managed care. This woman's name was Linda
Peno. She had been a claims reviewer for several health care plans and
she told of the choices that plans are making every day when they
determine the medical necessity of treatment options.
Here is her story, quote: I wish to begin by making a public
confession. In the spring of 1987, I caused the death of a man.
Although this was known by my people, I have not been taken to any
court of law or called to account for this in any professional or
public forum. Just the opposite occurred. I was rewarded for this. It
brought me an improved reputation in my job and contributed to my
advancement afterwards. Not only did I demonstrate that I could do what
was expected of me, I exemplified the good company reviewer. I saved
the company a half a million dollars, unquote.
Well, it was clear to see her anguish over causing harm to patients
as she testified. Her voice got husky. She continued, and the audience
shifted uncomfortably and grew very quiet. The industry representatives
and lobbyists who were there started looking at the floor and shifting
their eyes.
She continued. Since that day, I have lived with this act and many
others

[[Page 16625]]

eating into my heart and soul. For me, a physician is a professional
charged with the care of healing of his or her fellow human beings. The
primary ethical norm is, do no harm. I did worse. I caused death.
She continued. Instead of using a clumsy, bloody weapon, I used the
simplest, cleanest of tools: My words. This man died because I denied
him a necessary operation to save his heart. I felt little pain or
remorse at the time. The man's faceless distance soothed my conscience.
Like a skilled soldier, I was trained for that moment. When any moral
qualms arose, I was to remember that I am not denying care, I am only
denying payment.
She continued. At the time, that helped me avoid any sense of
responsibility for my decisions. Now I am no longer willing to accept
the escapist reasoning that allowed me to rationalize that action. I
accept my responsibility now for this man's death, as well as for the
immeasurable pain and suffering many other decisions of mine caused.
At that point, Ms. Peno described many ways that health care plans
deny care, but she emphasized one in particular; the right to decide
which care is medically necessary. She said, quote, there is one last
activity that I think deserves a special place on this list, and this
is what I call the smart bomb of cost containment, and that is medical
necessities denials. Even when medical criteria is used by the health
plan, it is rarely developed in any kind of standard traditional
clinical process. It is rarely standardized across the field. The
criteria are rarely available for prior review, review by the
physicians or members of the plan, and we have had enough experience
from history to demonstrate the consequences of secretive unregulated
systems that go awry.
The room was stone cold quiet, and the chairman mumbled, thank you.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish that this were an isolated instance, but I
can say what health plans are doing around the country. Under Federal
law, under Federal law called the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, passed 25 years ago, employer health plans can define medical
necessity in any way they want to. Let me give you an example.
There is a health plan in Texas that has defined medical necessity as
the cheapest, least expensive care as determined by us, the health
plan. Think about that. The cheapest, least expensive care as
determined by us.
Well, Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress I was a reconstructive
surgeon. I took care of children who were born with birth defects,
birth defects like cleft lips and palates. This is an anomaly that
occurs in about one in 500 live births. The child is born with a big
hole right in the middle of their face. Their lip is separated. They
have a big hole in the roof of their mouth. It needs to be surgically
corrected. That is the standard treatment, surgical correction.
But, Mr. Speaker, under Federal law, instead of a surgical correction
of the roof of that child's mouth so that that child can learn to speak
normally, so that that child does not have food coming out of their
nose, that health plan, under their own contractual definition of the
cheapest, least expensive care, under Federal law, could say, well, we
are just going to provide a little piece of plastic, kind of like an
upper denture, that will keep some of the food from going up. After
all, that is the cheapest, least expensive care.
I do not think very many people in the public understand this. I do
not think many people understand that by Federal law we have told HMOs
that provide insurance under employer plans that they can determine any
type of medical necessity they want, whether it meets prevailing
standards of care, whether it has anything to do with the medical
literature, whether it follows NIH guidelines, standard care for
treatment, for cancer treatment. They do not have to follow it because
they can write a little definition in their own health plan and under
Federal law that is all they have to follow.
So I get back, Mr. Speaker, to the bill that passed the Senate last
week, after a lot of partisan debate, but the underlying problem with
that bill is this: I urge my colleagues to look at page 116 in the bill
that passed the Senate, where it is dealing with external review where
an independent panel could review denials of care.
What can that independent panel under that bill review? Items or
services that would have been covered under the terms of the plan or
coverage if provided by the plan or issuer. In other words, Mr.
Speaker, they are just reiterating what current law is. They are saying
that independent panel, which is looking at a denial of care that could
be lifesaving for a patient, at the end of the day the only thing one
can appeal is whether the plan has followed its own definition of
medical necessity. That is not reform. That is why that bill ought to
be called the HMO Protection Act.
I want to talk about something I have not talked about on the floor
as it relates to this issue. This Congress may deal with an issue of
physician-assisted suicide. There are people on both sides of that
issue, but we have to remember what that debate is going to be like if
we do not correct Federal law that says the HMO, in an employer plan,
can decide what is medically necessary.
Assisted suicide is now legal in Oregon, and there exists a natural
cost incentive for health plans to support assisted suicide over other
more expensive treatment options, according to Nelson Lund, professor
of law at George Mason University. He is an expert on assisted suicide.
Protecting patients from unscrupulous cost shifting is very
difficult, he says Quote, it is very hard to think of a law that could
make a distinction between legitimate cost cutting by an insurance
company in long-term care and cancer treatments and an illegitimate
cost reduction. Inevitably you have pressures develop. Unquote.
Insurance companies can exert an enormous amount of pressure on
health systems as a whole and on individual physicians, Professor Lund
says. Quote, once strong incentives are created through cost cutting,
through the managed care system, you naturally are going to get more of
the cheaper treatments and less of the expensive treatments. That has
to be true. That is why things are done, unquote.
Mr. Speaker, although there are protections written into the Oregon
law, I can guarantee that physicians will face subtle pressures to view
patients' options as more limited than they otherwise may consider
them. Lund says, quote, even though the law requires a diagnosis of
less than 6 months to live, that is an incentive for the physician to
say, this person only has 6 months to live.
Once eliminating the patient is considered a form of treatment, the
economic incentives are there that I think are unstoppable, quote/
unquote.
That is part of the reason why we have to change this Federal law.
Look, it may cost an HMO only $500 to get an opinion that this patient
should have a physician-assisted suicide. There is primary care
referral. There is a mental health evaluation and there are the drugs.
$500 is a lot less expensive than taking care of a patient with cancer
towards the end of their life.
That is part of the reason why it is very, very important that this
Congress, especially in the context of States looking at this issue of
physician-assisted suicide, and I do not care whether one is on one
side of the issue or the other side of the issue, nobody wants an HMO
pushing providers to get rid of patients who may be expensive. That is
why we need to have a definition of medical necessity, not determined
by the plan as the cheapest, least expensive care but as something that
would include looking at prevailing standards of care, looking at the
medical literature, looking at NIH cancer treatment statements,
consensus statements and, yes, looking at the health plan's own
guidelines as long as they are peer reviewed.
All of those things should be taken into consideration, but none of
them should be determinative and should not be determinative that the
health plan, as under current Federal law, can simply say this is it.
We do not care

[[Page 16626]]

whether someone can provide us with a table full of medical literature
that says that that treatment is the standard of care and efficacious,
because we did not define it that way.
Well, that is one of the main things that, unfortunately, the bill
that passed the Senate last week did not address. It simply allows
those health plans to go on even in the independent external appeals to
define medical care however they want to.
What is the other big issue? The other big issue is whether those
health plans should be responsible for those medical decisions that
they make.
Mr. Speaker, let me just give you one example of how an HMO made a
decision that resulted in a tragedy. A couple of years ago, a young
mother was taking care of her 6-month-old infant. A little baby boy at
3:30 in the morning was really sick. He was hot, sweaty, temperature of
104.
Moms and dads can tell when their kids are really sick. So mom and
dad thought he better go to the emergency room. So they phoned the 1-
800 number for the HMO. They get a voice a thousand miles away who
says, yes, I will let you go to the emergency room but I am only going
to authorize this one emergency room, and the mother said, well, where
is it? And the reviewing voice at the end of the line said, well, I do
not know. Find a map.
Well, it turns out that it was a long ways away, 60 some miles away.
Mom and dad wrap up little Jimmy, get in the car at 3:30 in the morning
and start out on their trek.
About halfway through the trip, Jimmy is looking sicker, but mom and
dad are not health care professionals. They do not know that they need
to stop right away, but they do know if they did stop at an
unauthorized hospital they are now stuck with potentially a very big
bill. This family does not have that kind of resources. Most families
do not have that kind of resources.
So they kept driving. They passed three emergency rooms that they
could have stopped at. But they did not have an okay from the company.
That company had made that medical decision, we are only going to allow
you to go to that one hospital.
Well, about 10 or 15 miles from that hospital little Jimmy's eyes
rolled back in his head and he stops breathing. Picture dad driving
like crazy to get to the hospital, mom trying to keep little Jimmy
alive.
They tear into the emergency room entrance. Mom leaps out of the car
with little Jimmy, screaming save my baby, save my baby. A nurse comes
out, gives him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. They bring the crash cart
out; they start the lines; they give him the medicines and somehow or
another they get him back to life. That nurse blew the breath of life
into little Jimmy again.
Well, he was a tough little guy and he managed to survive, but
because of that delay by that medical decision by that HMO and that
cardiac arrest with the loss of circulation, little Jimmy ends up with
gangrene in both hands and both feet and they all have to be amputated.
Little Jimmy today is learning how to put on his bilateral leg
prosthesis, with his arm stubs. His mom has to help him put on his
bilateral hooks. He is getting along pretty good for a kid who has lost
both hands and both feet, but he will never play basketball.

{time} 2200

I would tell the Speaker of the House that he will never wrestle. I
would say that someday, when he gets married, he will never be able to
caress the face of the woman that he loves with his hand.
I hear the opponents of this legislation say, ``Ah, but these are
just anecdotes. We do not legislate on the basis of anecdotes.'' I
would say to them, this anecdote, if it had a finger, and you pricked
it, it would bleed, if he had a hand.
Do my colleagues know what? Under Federal law, that health plan is
liable for nothing other than the cost of the amputations. Can my
colleagues believe that? It is the only industry in this country that
has blanket immunity of that nature.
A judge reviewed this case. He determined that the margin of safety
by that HMO for little Jimmy was, ``razor thin.'' I would add, as razor
thin as the scalpel that had to amputate his hands and feet.
Now, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many of us in
the past, we have talked a lot on this floor about responsibility. When
we were doing welfare reform, we said, ``Do you know what. If you are
able bodied, you can go out and get a job, and you can support your
family. That is responsibility. We will give you some education. But
then it is your responsibility to support your family.''
There have been a number of times on the floor, this floor right
here, where we have voted in a bipartisan fashion for the death penalty
for somebody who has killed or raped one of our fellow citizens because
we say that is responsibility.
I think people need to examine their hearts. Conjure up in your mind
the goddess of justice, Themis. She is holding the scales. She is
blindfolded. Under current Federal law, she has written across her
chiton ``HMOs do not need to follow justice.'' We need to fix that.
There needs to be an enforcement mechanism. I looked at the Senate
bill which passed last week, and do my colleagues know what the
enforcement mechanism is? A $10,000 fine if it is found that the health
plan followed its own definition of medical necessity. That is a joke.
That is a travesty. To my colleagues, I say we need to fix that.
This will not result in a huge number of lawsuits. Texas passed a
law, a good law. It had a strong external appeals process. It did make
the health plans responsible in the end. Do my colleagues know how many
lawsuits they have had? One. And one or two are pending in the 2 years,
not that explosion of lawsuits. It has not resulted in an explosion of
premiums. Texas premiums are below national average.
Before Texas legislature almost unanimously passed that law, the HMOs
were saying, ``The sky will fall. The sky will fall. It will kill
managed care in Texas.'' There were 30 HMOs in Texas at that time.
There are 51 in Texas today. The President of Aetna described Texas
today, after passing a strong patient protection law with liability
provisions, he described Texas as the filet mignon, the filet mignon of
States to have insurance in.
Mr. Speaker, I have given my colleagues a couple of examples tonight
of some of the abuses of managed care that have resulted in terrible
personal tragedies. Picture little Jimmy as your child or your
grandchild, and tell me, when you examine your heart, if you think HMOs
under Federal protection should be shielded from the consequences of
their negligence. I do not think so.
Should we not have a strong appeals process, something that really
means something so that an independent panel can determine medical
necessity, not on the basis of some contorted contractual language
definition that only serves the basis to increase the HMO's bottom line
and profits?
That is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with a
bill that, on the surface, if one looks at the surface headings, is
called a patient protection bill. But when one reads the fine print, it
is an HMO protection bill. It is worse than the status quo in many
ways.
I will be happy to share with my colleagues references, the page
numbers, the line numbers of any of the statements I have made tonight.
But I will tell my colleagues what, if this bill comes to the floor,
and we bypass our committee process, then I think every citizen in the
country should demand that their Representative know what they are
voting on and that their Representative be accountable for improving
the situation, not making it worse.

____________________

[[Page 16627]]

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS FOR ``PROJECTED'' SURPLUS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske) for that very interesting special order.
This is, I think, the first time I have asked for a special order in
the 10 years that I have been in Congress. So my colleagues can readily
see this is not something I do routinely or every night. My colleagues,
I hope, can understand why I feel so deeply about the matter about
which we are going to talk about here for a few minutes with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner).
There has been a lot of talk in this town around the country of a
surplus. There are projections of a huge surplus over the next decade,
and many people are running around with all sorts of ideas about how to
spend it.
But what really upset me last week was the mark-up that we had in the
Committee on Ways and Means on which I served and in which this
surplus, 87 percent of the nonSocial Security surplus for the next 10
years, was marked up in a tax cut bill.
Now, one of the reasons I ran for Congress in 1988 was because of my
concern for the financial integrity of the United States. I am going to
show this chart. I do not know if my colleagues can see it or not, but
this is the way the country spent money from 1980, when I was in the
Tennessee General Assembly, until now, and how we either paid or did
not pay for what we spent.
The yellow part here is the administration of President Nixon. The
green lines are President Ford. The yellow-red lines here are President
Carter. The orange looking lines are President Reagan. This aqua green
is President Bush. Then down here on the end, the dark blue lines is
the administration of President Clinton.
I saw through the 1980s, as my colleagues did, a Republican President
submit to, for 6 of the 8 years President Reagan was President, a
Republican Senate and a Democratic House budgets that were never within
$100 billion of being balanced. I saw the Congress, Republican Senate
and Democratic House, in collusion with the administration, borrow the
money necessary to fund those budgets.
When I came here in 1988, we were borrowing in the name of our
children and grandchildren over $250 billion a year to pay for the
consumption that people of my generation have enjoyed. I thought that
was wrong then, and I think it is wrong now.
This is what it looks like on a bar chart in terms of building the
national debt. In 1980, it was a little less than $1 trillion. Today,
it is over $5 trillion.
Now, my colleagues might ask, who owns this debt? Who do my
colleagues and I, we the people, who do we owe this 5 plus trillion
dollars? Well, we owe the Federal Reserve and government accounts; that
is, the Social Security Trust Fund and some other trust funds, about
$2.3 trillion. We owe other people in the country a little over $2
trillion. Foreigners hold over $1.2 trillion of this debt, foreign
interests.
So if we take away the money that we the Treasury, we the people owe
to ourselves, we come up with about $3.6 trillion in outside held debt
that we are paying interest on every day.
Put another way, we spend more on interest, or spent more on
interest, this is fiscal year 1998, we spent more on interest right
here, $364 billion, than we did on any other government program, save
Social Security. Social Security is $379 billion. But it has its own
funding stream, the FICA tax.
We spent more money on interest than we did on national defense,
which is right here in green. More than we did on medicine, and we
heard the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the previous speaker, talk
about medicine in this country, the orange right here. Agriculture, we
can barely see, the little green line. We spent more on interest than
we did education, than we did veterans.
In short, we spent more on interest last year, almost $1 billion a
day than we spent on anything that my colleagues and I can do for our
children's future today.
Now, part of this projected, and I want to underline the word
projected, none of this money is here yet that they say is going to
come into the Treasury from 2000 to 2009, this is the Social Security
surplus, the blue. This is what the Congress and the President have
agreed is off limits. We will not spend that. The red, $1 trillion is
what is projected to come into the Treasury as a surplus over the next
10 years.
Now, mind you, 6 months ago, part of this money did not exist. It is
only through reforcasting what we think the economy is going to be in
the next 10 years that this has grown to the extent that it has. The
money is not yet here. I do not know what the unknowns out there are.
We may have a war, tornados, hurricanes, other natural disasters. This
is only a projection that, as it changed 6 months ago, could change 6
months from now and this money never show up.
Now, here is why I was so upset last week. Here is the Social
Security money in blue. That is off limits. That is for the people in
this country who pay into the system and who expect to earn and draw
their Social Security benefits when they retire. That is off limits.
What is available, if one believes the projections, to spend or to
cut taxes with is this part right here. Do my colleagues know what
happened last week? Knowing of this horrendous suffocating debt that
our children and grandchildren have, the majority party in the
Committee on Ways and Means reported out a bill, I guess it will come
to the House this week or next, that spends 87 percent of this
projected surplus in terms of a tax cut.
Now, nobody is against tax cuts. Certainly not me. But I will tell my
colleagues, I think this is irresponsible from two standpoints. Number
one, the money is not yet here. If it does not materialize, if the
economy turns south, it may never get here. So to use 87 percent of it
in tax cuts today betting on what is going to happen tomorrow I think
puts our financial Treasury and our financial integrity as a Nation at
risk.

{time} 2215

But it is worse than that, and this is why. We have a suffocating
national debt. The interest that we pay every day is more than we pay
for defense, it is more than we pay for education, it is more than we
pay for anything save Social Security. By spending all the money now
that is projected as a surplus for the next 10 years, all we are doing
is shoving this note and all the interest due on every schoolchild in
this country that went to school today. They do not even know Congress
met today. They were in school somewhere; or, worse yet, they are not
even here yet. And all we are doing is shoving down all of these notes
and this debt for them to pay. I think that is wrong.
When we take 87 percent of the budget surplus that is projected and
use it now to satisfy our own immediate desires for a tax cut, what is
the message from this Congress to the kids of America? We took the
money and ran. That is the message.
Tom Brokaw, some of my colleagues know, has written a book called
``The Greatest Generation,'' and I have received some letters from some
of those folks and they say, ``John, if I must do without, so be it. I
don't want you to send this suffocating debt down on the heads of my
kids and grandkids. They deserve a better Nation. You are putting the
country at risk, you, the Congress, if you take all of this projected
surplus, do an almost $1 trillion tax cut today and do nothing about
the debt.''
I think it is not only selfish and wrong, but I think it could really
endanger the future of this country. Because if the world economy
collapses, if there is a downturn, if there is a recession, and if
interest rates go up as we have to roll these notes, what is going to
happen to the interest on them? It is going to have to go up, too. And
right now we are already paying almost $1 billion a day. How much more
can we stand before we have to say this country is in such bad shape we
can no longer pay our bills?
I think it is as serious a situation as we have faced or experienced.
Because I know that a country that is bankrupt

[[Page 16628]]

is unable to defend itself, it is unable to help its citizens, and it
is unable to be a force for peace in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I want to now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), because he has some comments he would like to make regarding
this projected surplus.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding to me, and I appreciate very much the presentation that the
gentleman has made. Each of us here tonight feel very strongly that we
must, in order to be fair to our children and our grandchildren, we
must take a fiscally conservative and responsible course of action with
regard to the projected surplus.
Those of us here tonight, Mr. Speaker, feel that we should, instead
of devoting the vast majority of the projected surplus to tax cuts, we
must devote the vast majority of the projected surplus to paying down
that horrendous $5.6 trillion national debt, which is taking interest
every year in every annual budget to the tune of about 15 percent of
all Federal spending. In fact, I am told that just to cover the
interest on that national debt we spend about 25 percent of the total
revenue from the Federal income tax just to pay that interest on that
debt every year.
Mr. Speaker, we know that really paying the national debt down can
give average working families more than any of these pie-in-the-sky
tax-reduction schemes, that are mostly designed to benefit the wealthy.
Because we know that paying down the debt, according to every economist
we know, would result in even lower interest rates than we have today.
And lower interest rates means for the American people lower house
payments, lower car payments, or lower payments on those student loans
they have taken out to send their children to college.
In fact, every 1 percent decrease in interest rates saves the
American people between $200 and $250 billion in mortgage costs. Paying
down the national debt is the smart way to help average working men and
women and their families have more in their pocket.
We also know, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, it is the
morally correct thing to do. Why should we, now that we have good
economic times, continue to jeopardize the future economic stability of
this Nation and cause the preschoolers of today to be the ones that
have to deal with the $5.6 trillion national debt that was accumulated
over all those years, as was pointed out on the chart, that shows all
those successive Democrat and Republican administrations that incurred
those annual deficits that have resulted in our $5.6 trillion national
debt?
There is one question I want to address here tonight that even is a
more fundamental question than the issue of what should we do with this
projected surplus; should we cut taxes or should we pay down the debt?
Let us look at the projected surplus itself. Because if the truth be
known, we may not even have a surplus over the next 10 years.
If we look at the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office
projections, what we see is that they have estimated annual numbers
over 10 years cumulatively totaling a $2.9 trillion surplus. That
starts off in this year with a projected $120 billion surplus for
fiscal year 1999. Those numbers go up steadily all the way up to the
year 2009, where the projected surplus is about $413 billion. All those
numbers together total the projected $2.9 surplus over 10 years.
But let us just look at the last year, 2009, that $413 billion
projected surplus. Those numbers are based on current law. Current law
has in place some budget caps that we are now struggling to live within
that were put in place in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. What if we
fail as a Congress to meet those budget caps? Those budget caps, in
fact, will require us to reduce spending over the next 3 years by 8
percent. Can we do that? I am not sure. If we cannot do that, we know
that these numbers are totally unrealistic in terms of the projected
surplus.
Let us just suppose that the caps that we have in place are reached,
and that discretionary spending, instead of staying within those caps
and going down 8 percent over the next 3 years, ends up going up with
inflation over the next decade. That would not be an unreasonable
expectation; that is for government programs and costs to go up with
inflation. That $413 billion surplus in the year 2009 would immediately
shrink to $331 billion. And, in fact, discretionary spending could rise
faster than that. Sooner or later it is likely to grow again at least
as fast as the population or the real economy.
Let us leave all that aside and let us see what would happen if, for
example, the projected surplus for 2009 did not only shrink to $331
billion because of inflation, but let us just say it stayed at the same
level as the percentage of the gross domestic product that it stayed at
for several years since 1970. We would then have only $151 billion in
actual surplus in 2009.
Today's surplus projections also assume that the growth in the health
benefit costs will be relatively slow over the next decade. Every one
of us know that hospitals in this country are under a great deal of
pressure. Some of the cuts in Medicare have put great strain on our
hospitals and other health care providers, and the CBO estimate says
that health care spending, Medicare spending, will rise at 4.2 percent.
That is a full percentage point below its long-term average since 1970.
So what happens if health care costs continue to go up, as they have
since 1970 every year? This would mean that the projected surplus for
the year 2009 would only be $95 billion.
Beyond those cost estimates that may be incorrect in the CBO
estimate, consider productivity in our Nation, which has grown at 1.1
percent since 1973. The CBO estimates of the surplus says productivity
will grow at an average of 1.8 percent over the next decade. Let us say
it does not quite make 1.8. Say it is only half that. So it is somewhat
closer to the 1.1 percent that we have had since 1973. That would mean
that the projected surplus for the year 2009 becomes only $27 billion
instead of the $413 billion that we started out with in the original
estimate.
Further, what if the number of workers grows just one quarter of a
percent, one quarter of a percent slower than the CBO projections
estimate, due perhaps to a combination of fewer people seeking jobs and
maybe fewer people finding them? In that case the deficit would grow to
$102 billion.
So, Mr. Speaker, looking at only five assumptions in the CBO
estimate, we can see there may not even be a surplus over the next 10
years. Fiscal conservatism requires that we recognize that the
projections upon which the surplus is made by the Congressional Budget
Office may not be worth the paper they are written on. We do not even
have to talk about, as many people often do, whether the stock market
may crash, because all the things I referred to are very minor changes
in the direction of the economy that completely erases the surplus of
$2.9 billion that we are using to base a major tax cut on, which could
result in our children and grandchildren having an even greater
national debt to pay off than they already have today.
Mr. TANNER. I want to thank the gentleman for those comments, Mr.
Speaker. I come from Tennessee, in a rural area, and if I just knew
what the price of cotton or soybeans or a bushel of corn is going to be
next week, I would be in pretty good shape. We do not know that, yet we
are talking about 10-year numbers here, which as the gentleman
suggested, may or may not materialize.
Let me say one other thing before I recognize the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and that is that the term personal responsibility
does not just apply to people on welfare. We have a responsibility here
to try as best we can to keep the financial integrity of this country
in at least as good as shape as it was when we got here.
I do not believe it is financially responsible, as the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner) said, to base a massive tax cut on nothing more than
a projected surplus. I do not think any prudent businessperson in
America would say that they think that is a financially conservative
doable thing and they wish we would do it.

[[Page 16629]]

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask my friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to say a few words. We have also been joined by
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge). This looks like a Blue Dog
gathering down here.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding me this time and for taking this time tonight, and I
appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), joining us. The gentleman is
right, this is a joining of the Blue Dogs tonight, and my colleagues
who are listening will hear us talking considerably about this very
ill-conceived proposal that we have facing us very soon.
I want to emphasize a few points that have not yet been made tonight.
But first, last week the largest newspaper in my district had an
editorial entitled ``GOP Tax Cuts Founded Upon Play Money.'' And this
is one point I want to emphasize. My colleague, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner), spoke very succinctly and very matter-of-factly
regarding the absolute fact that all of these numbers we are talking
about are projections, and for us to base the future, really, of our
country on projections is very dangerous.
And here I want to make a point, since we have mentioned the Blue
Dogs tonight. One of the things that we believe in, if we are going to
be critical of the other side's proposal, and we are very critical of
the proposed $864 billion tax cut with play money, we feel if we are
going to be critical of the other side, it is incumbent to say what are
we for; what it is that we propose.
And I have been asked by many of my colleagues and friends on the
other side of the aisle, ``Charlie, what would you have done? What
would you do?'' And we spelled this out very clearly in our budget
proposal earlier this year in which we said the conservative thing to
do is to be conservative. Do not spend the money until we have it. Let
us realize that if we are going to use 10- and 15-year projections, we
should use them for purposes of outlining what the effects are going to
be. But, for Heaven's sake, do not spend the money until we have it in
our hands.

{time} 2230

We suggested very strongly, let us fix Social Security and Medicare
first. The primary responsibility of this Congress should have been,
should be, and I hope will be, let us fix Social Security. Save Social
Security. Everyone now agrees, since all the rhetoric we have been
hearing around here is a lock box, we are going to save the money, we
are no longer going to spend the Social Security trust fund for
anything other than Social Security. We all agree to that, we thought.
But if we carefully analyze this $864 billion tax cut as proposed, we
will find I believe the numbers will show that we are spending Social
Security trust fund dollars in that 10-year plan. I believe those
numbers are there.
I have a new set of numbers tonight that we can use, but I think it
is going to be important that we use CBO numbers when they come out.
And if we are going to show that if we have this $864 billion tax cut
over the next 10 years, we will use Social Security trust fund dollars
in payment of that tax cut.
But here is the thing that I want to emphasize tonight, and it has to
do with Social Security also. And this is something that is being
overlooked thus far in this whole debate. What happens in the second 10
years? Once we put a tax cut in place, it goes on and on and on. And
since there are pressures in the first 10 years to do all of which the
Committee on Ways and Means majority has suggested, they have
interestingly done, as Congress so often does, they allow the major
part of the actions of the tax cut to occur in the second 10 years.
How much? It is now estimated $2.9 trillion will not make it to the
Federal Treasury in the second 10 years, to which a lot of people and a
lot of our colleagues will say, hooray, that is what we were sent here
for. Send the money back home.
The only problem with that is in 2014, only about 14 years from
today, that is when the baby-boomers begin to retire in earnest. That
is when the pressures on the current Social Security system will build
to the highest level that we have seen since Social Security was first
started.
Now, let us use a little bit of what I like to call west Texas
tractor seat common sense. It can be Tennessee common sense. It can be
Minnesota common sense. It can be any of our 50 States common sense.
If we have a program that has been clearly defined by most of us as
one of the best government programs ever created, Social Security, and
what it is doing for senior citizens today, and if we believe, as I do,
that we need to do the same thing for our children and grandchildren,
why would we pass a tax cut in 1999 that is going to guarantee that the
Congress in the year 2014 will have a very difficult if not impossible
hurdle to meet? Why would anyone suggest moving revenue of $2.9
trillion at exactly the same time that Social Security is going to have
a need for those moneys in order to pay the promises off to those young
men and women, all working men and women, who are working and paying in
today, why would anyone have the gall to come to the floor of the House
and suggest this is good policy, good economics, good anything?
But that is what we have been allowed to believe thus far by the
rhetoric thus far. But we hope that with actions and discussions like
tonight and the debate on the bill when it gets here and other
discussions about this proposed tax cut, as much as I would like to see
it, too, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said a moment ago he
is for it, we are all for it, that is not the question.
The question is what is the fiscally responsible thing for this
Congress to do? And again, I come back to this very simple statement to
my colleagues that are asking what would we do. What I wished we would
have done this year, I wish the Committee on Ways and Means would have
spent the last four or five months debating a Social Security plan, a
solvency plan, a proposal that would put Social Security on solid
ground.
We have many out there, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) on the
other side of the aisle and I, joined by about nine cosponsors, now a
partisan group, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), another
Republican, has come up with some ideas. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), another Republican, has come up with some
ideas. We have various bipartisan suggestions.
Why did not the Committee on Ways and Means deal with Social Security
first? That is what the Blue Dogs suggested. Take care of Social
Security first. Then let us deal with Medicare, as the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner) mentioned a moment ago.
Most of us who represent rural districts are hearing from our
hospitals saying, if you do not make some changes in the Balanced
Budget Agreement of 1997, if you do not make some changes, we are going
to be forced to close our doors.
Now, we heard an excellent presentation by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Ganske) in the previous special order just before us today in
talking about some of the problems associated with health care a moment
ago. But there is another problem with health care that is very
prevalent in rural America and that is whether we are going to have
health care available. If we do not address the very real priority of
medical spending, Medicare and Medicaid, and do it in a responsible,
conservative way but do it in a way in which we allow our hospitals to
stay open, for many of our rural communities there will be no money,
there will be no hospitals. And that is not just crying wolf. That is
something that is a very, very real fact.
There is one other area, then I will yield back and allow the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) to join us tonight. But we talk
about we do not send the money back to those that paid it, we are going
to spend it. One of the things that gets overlooked by this is the very
real fact of who owes this debt? The American people.
Who is paying the interest, the $300-plus billion that the gentleman
from

[[Page 16630]]

Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) showed on his chart a while ago? Who is paying
that? We are paying it.
It is consuming an increasing amount of the percentage of income tax
that we pay. We forget that when we pay down debt, as the Blue Dogs
have suggested, when we pay down debt we reduce the amount that we have
to pay on interest.
One of the very real choices we are going to have to make very soon
deals with military spending, defense spending of this country. And if
we did as the current game plan, if we spend 87 percent of the
projected available surplus for the next 10 years, there will be no
money there for defense. Immediately folks will say that I am wrong
about that, we propose to follow the President's suggestions on defense
and, therefore, we will meet those numbers. Fine, I will concede that
we will do that.
That means that we are going to have to cut 31 percent out of every
other function of the budget, 31 percent out of veterans' programs, 31
percent out of agriculture, 31 percent out of education in order to
meet the budget goal that has been set by the majority, who are saying
that we can afford this $864 billion tax cut.
My colleagues, we cannot do this. I appreciate the fact that many of
you are agreeing with us today privately. But we hope that we will find
a way. And to those that are asking what is that way, the Blue Dogs set
it out. Let us take any projected surplus and let us be conservative
with it, whatever it is, you pick the number and let us wait until they
are real.
First off, 100 percent of all Social Security surpluses go to pay
down the debt. Then half of any non-Social Security surplus, pay down
the debt with that also. And then the remaining, let us meet the
priorities of this Nation, military, agriculture, health care,
education, and veterans. And then let us deal with tax cuts targeted
towards keeping this longest peacetime economy that we have seen in the
history of our country.
That is a pretty good plan. We hope our colleagues will be joining
us.
I yield back now to the gentleman and look forward to participating
in a moment.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say this. Both of my colleagues
all have done an excellent job talking about this problem. But it does
not take a lot of sense. We talk here in Congress and our eyes glaze
over with all these projections and numbers. If we have a trillion-
dollar projected surplus, we cannot take 87 percent of it and cut taxes
today and then meet the needs of defense, education, health care,
veterans and so on. We cannot do that.
People know that. I think the American people are way ahead of us
quite frankly. If anybody believes they can save Social Security, that
we can do all the things we need to do with the military and veterans
and education and health care, then there is a bridge in Brooklyn that
is going to be sold pretty quick. They know better. They know we cannot
have it all.
And so, I hope that without regard to the numbers that make us glaze
over, people know that we cannot have it both ways.
So I would like to call on the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge)
who helps the Blue Dogs with our budget, and he is going to talk a
little bit I think about the budget priorities that the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) mentioned.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the
body this evening.
We really face a situation here in the United States at the end of
the decade that is intoxicating. We face the situation where we have
balanced or are close to having balanced the budget after decades of
deficit spending. It is historic. It is dramatic. It is exciting.
Everybody is seeking credit.
Those of us in Congress are often boastful, we have a balanced
budget. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House is
talking about having balanced the budget. Talk of surplus rolls from
the lips of all of us. But really we have not yet balanced the budget.
We are hopeful that in fiscal year 1999 there may be a surplus if we
disregard what we are making on the Social Security trust fund. But the
fact of the matter is in 1999 we are already appropriating funds for
so-called emergencies; and if I not correct, these emergency spending
measures are eating up any possible surplus that we might have had in
fiscal year 1999.
Mr. TANNER. Money is money. It does not matter where it comes from.
If it goes, it goes. My colleague is right.
Mr. MINGE. So 1999 there is no surplus. And we can talk about it, but
really what we are doing is relying upon the Social Security trust
fund. The baby-boom generation is at its peak earning years paying into
the Social Security trust fund at a very fast clip. And the trust fund
is not yet paying out on the benefits to that baby-boom generation. So
that is why we are accumulating some additional money.
There is always this temptation to roll the Social Security trust
fund into the rest of the budget and look at this temporary surplus
that is being accumulated in Social Security as it ought to be
accumulated but then act like this is a surplus in Federal operations
overall.
But the sad fact is we have been borrowing this money from the Social
Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund has been forced to
invest it in U.S. Government bonds, and then we are spending that money
that we borrow from Social Security for current consumption. We are not
putting it away as a long-term investment.
So I think one thing we have to be very clear on at the very outset
is that in 1999 there is no surplus; and chances are in Fiscal Year
2000 there will not be a surplus either because we face the prospect of
yet more so-called emergency spending for Kosovo, for agriculture, farm
crises, and other matters and that is going to eat up the hope for
surplus in fiscal 2000 if we put that Social Security trust fund to one
side.
So I think that first it is very important that all of us here in
Congress and the folks in the administration be straight with the
American people.
One thing that troubles me about this is that I notice the news media
is critical of those of us in Congress when we talk about surpluses and
we disregard Social Security but then the news media proceeds to report
news from the White House or news from the leadership here in Congress
and not point out that often the talk of a surplus disregards what we
are doing with Social Security.

{time} 2245

So let us make sure that we put the Social Security business to one
side.
Just to give all of us an idea of the magnitude of this and I think
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) have alluded to this, but I would like to repeat it. If
you are looking at the next 5 years, which is all that those of us in
the Blue Dog Coalition have tried to do, just look out the next 5
years, we would have about a $1 trillion surplus if we were rolling
Social Security in. But if you back Social Security out, even under the
most optimistic projections as to surplus, we would have around a $250
billion surplus in that 5-year period once we have disregarded Social
Security.
Now, the other thing I would like to emphasize with respect to this
so-called claim of a surplus is that the intoxicating effect of the
surplus is sort of overwhelming in the political process, that we are
all trying to find ways to both take credit for it and then to somehow
lavish benefits, supposed benefits on various constituencies in this
country with that surplus before we have realized it.
So here we sit in 1999 and we are talking about surpluses that
hopefully will occur in 2001, 2003, 2004 and on over the next 15 years.
What we would like to do here in 1999 is commit Congress, commit the
Federal Government, commit the American people to programs 5, 10, 15,
even 30 years down the road, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
emphasized, before we really have the surplus.
What it reminds me of, we all talk about going on a diet. Everybody,
even

[[Page 16631]]

those that are quite thin and trim talk about going on diets, but here
what we have is a situation where we have sort of fattened ourselves at
the trough with Federal money for all sorts of things, and many of them
very good programs. We are not talking about the money has been spent
on things that are necessarily inappropriate. There are constituencies
that ask for all these programs, but we have spent money on these
programs, and we are overweight. We are trying to do something about
it. So we are going to go on a diet. Now we see that we are shedding
these excess pounds so that in the future, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years
down the road, we are going to be shedding these excess pounds, so what
we want to do is start eating again before we have even shed the
weight. We are looking at shedding the weight 5, 10, 15 years down the
road but we want to start eating those rich chocolate and ice cream
desserts right now.
Mr. TANNER. What I think we have done is we have taken the Nation's
credit card and we have maxed it out. Now all we can do are make the
interest payments, and we are going to leave to our children, son or
daughter, ``I'm going to give you a credit card. What I'm telling you
though, is, it's going to take everything you're making just to pay the
interest on what I have already consumed. The suit I've bought and put
on the credit card is worn out. The meal that I had at one of these
fancy restaurants is eaten, it's gone.'' And so we have maxed out,
instead of taking the money that we see maybe as a surplus now and
doing what I think is a pretty good thing, that is paying what you owe,
where I come from, where you come from, that is considered poor form
really if you come into money and you owe a fellow and you do not pay
him. We owe our kids and grandkids. Instead of spending it now, I think
we ought to pay them.
Mr. MINGE. Another thing about this, we are all looking for political
advantage out here in Washington. All the Republicans would like to
say, ``We've delivered tax cuts,'' or we did this or we did that.
Democrats like to claim that we did this or that. The White House likes
to make claims. If we can take this surplus being hopefully accrued in
the future and say we are doing things with that surplus by making
decisions now when the surplus is not even in hand yet, we are building
points supposedly with the American public. But I do not think those
are points that we are entitled to earn. We ought to be, if you are
looking at your credit card situation or I was talking in terms of
food, I guess it depends on what you need more at the time, a good meal
or need to go out and do some binge spending, what we ought to be doing
is eating our vegetables here. We have got a few more years here where
we ought to be eating the vegetables and we should not be talking about
that rich dessert. Or as I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
has said many times, the sun is shining now, now is the time to fix the
roof, to fix the leak. What sense does it make to sort of languish
there and try to get a suntan instead of doing the work of fixing the
roof when the sun is shining?
What I would like to emphasize is that in this setting, we have come
up with a proposal which is really very simple, or humble in the Blue
Dog group, and the proposal is reflected by this chart. I would just
point out quickly, we would take 100 percent of the Social Security
surplus and devote it to Social Security. The surplus over and above
what is accumulating in Social Security we would split three ways: 50
percent to pay down on the debt, reduce that credit card bill as you
are talking about; 25 percent to invest in priority programs, and
everybody has their list of priorities but this is an example of some
things that many folks around the country recognize as priorities; and
25 percent and have certain targeted tax reductions. So it is a simple
formula, it is a simple approach and by showing this level of fiscal
responsibility, the economists who have looked at the American economy
and who have studied the impact of fiscal restraint on interest rates
and other things have said, we will have a dividend of $165 billion in
interest savings to the Federal Government over the next 5 years if we
show this type of fiscal restraint. That is, it will cost us that much
less, we will save that much in interest on the Federal debt which is
sort of an interest dividend.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is a point that I think needs to be reemphasized.
If you took the $864 billion and applied it to the debt instead of a
tax cut, we would reduce the interest cost over the next 10 years by
$155, $165 billion. But more importantly, this bill, in the second 10
years, that amount of money is $1.5 trillion that future generations
are going to have to pay in interest in the next 20 years, and I hope
we are still there part of that. But this is what is being overlooked
by this frenzy among some to say that the only way we can save this
money is to send it back to the people that paid it, forgetting that if
we do not deal with the debt, we are going to continue to have to pay
interest.
A moment ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) made the
observation, and it is a correct one, each one percentage point of
interest cost the American people between $200 and $250 billion in
increased mortgage cost, automobile cost, TV cost, daily living
expenses. It is a built-in expense. Therefore, we feel that the most
conservative thing we can do and the best tax cut we can give the
American people, the absolute best tax cut, would be to keep interest
rates where they are or lower. Remember what the Federal Reserve did a
couple of weeks ago, they increased interest rates a quarter of a
point. That cost, according to these numbers, about $60 billion, is
what consumers are going to have to pay. Look at what that would have
meant if that interest had not gone up. Why did the Federal Reserve
choose to raise interest rates? They were afraid the economy was
overheating.
Why do we have a tax cut, particularly the largest tax cut in modern
history? To stimulate the economy. If we stimulate the economy, what
might the Federal Reserve do? Increase the interest rates. Who is going
to be the winner? It is not going to be the American people.
Mr. MINGE. It comes back to the Federal budget again, because the
Federal Government is the largest single borrower in the U.S. economy.
It costs the Federal Government money when interest rates go up just
like it costs the homeowner and the business that has to go out and
borrow. So that we are not doing any of us a favor when we set in
motion the chain of events that provides the Fed with incentive to
raise interest rates.
Mr. TURNER. I think it is interesting to note what the Federal
Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said when he testified before the
Committee on Ways and Means that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner) serves on. He was addressing the subject of reducing the debt.
He said it is much better to use the surplus for debt reduction than
tax cuts, and he said it this way and I am quoting him. He said, ``The
advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this economy from a
significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public and its
virtuous cycle on the total budget process is a value which I think far
exceeds anything else we could do with the money.''
I think that this debate that we are having this week in the Congress
has redefined the party of fiscal conservatism, because just as the
gentleman said a minute ago, all of these projections of the surplus
that our friends in the other party want to base a huge blockbuster tax
cut on are merely projections. What would be the conservative approach
to take if it was at your house or mine? To do what is being proposed
with this major tax cut that takes up 87 percent of the projected
surplus is like a fellow sitting at his kitchen table with his wife and
they are talking over their budget situation and somebody walks in and
sits down over the kitchen table with them and says, ``Oh, by the way,
you're going to get raises over the next 15 years and every year, we
know you're going to be making more money.''
He says, ``Well, I guess I will. That sounds pretty good. I believe
I'll buy

[[Page 16632]]

me a new boat right now, I believe I'll go out and buy some new camping
gear and I believe I'll go out and see if I can't find us a new house
right now.''
Right then he would be making the wrong decision. He would be
spending money that he does not even have, because somebody told him
they think he is going to get a raise every year for the next 10 years.
This is the same thing that has happened in this Congress. We do not
need to be the Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. We do not need to
be the Congress that took away the chance that we have today to pay
down a $5.6 trillion national debt. We do not need to be the Congress
that passes on that debt to our children and our grandchildren. We need
to be the party of fiscal conservatism, the Congress of fiscal
conservatism.
I am glad to know that as a member of the Blue Dog Democrat
Coalition, we are standing up this week in this Congress for fiscal
conservatism and for the children and grandchildren that we want to
have a prosperous economy in the years ahead.
Mr. MINGE. I would like to emphasize another dimension, and, that is,
folks in this country who have the most modest income are the ones that
are hurt the most by higher interest rates. It is those folks who have
accumulated some savings that will benefit from the high interest
rates, at least theoretically, but it is the modest wage earner that is
going to get hit. I think one point that is very important to make is
that keeping interest rates low benefits those who are doing that
borrowing or have debts, and also having a strong economy like this
does a great deal to provide jobs and opportunity for the low-income
people in America. We reduce the unemployment rate, low-income folks in
our country are participating in our economy at a rate that they have
not for many, many years, many decades and so trying to maintain what
we have and not being irresponsible about it I think is one of the most
effective ways to try to address the needs of modest income Americans.
Mr. TANNER. We did some calculations in the committee and if we could
keep the United States Government out of the credit markets, keep the
government from borrowing money, operate on an even keel, it is
estimated that that would mean a two point difference on mortgage
rates. Now, on a $115,000 home with a mortgage, that translates
directly into the pockets of those homeowners almost $2,000, a little
over $1,900 a year that is money that they are not paying on their
mortgage, they are getting to keep. Not only that, it makes housing
more affordable, it makes automobiles more affordable. What does all
that do? It keeps the economy going. And so if we could keep the
government from borrowing money, and let me say this while we are
talking tonight. I think it is incumbent upon us to tell the people of
this country that we want to pay the debt that we all collectively owe,
that we have all consumed, we did not spend it, I was not here in the
1980s but we benefited from the increased consumption in some way and
did not pay for it. If we could just say to them, we want to pay what
we owe, we want to pay your children and mine and our grandchildren,
but we are going to also tell you we are not going to engage in a lot
of new, unnecessary spending, the Blue Dogs make that promise as well,
because that would not do anyone any good.
So for those who say, ``Well, we cannot keep it here, it has got to
be spent,'' I know of no compelling force to spend money around here.
You have to vote to spend it the last time I looked. You have a voting
card and you vote to spend it. Well, it goes both ways. And so we want
to keep the money here and pay it on the debt, not spend it. I think
that would be a message that all of us could embrace here tonight.
Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman will yield for one other point.

{time} 2300

As my colleagues know, a 1 percent increase in interest rates,
according to my arithmetic, costs the taxpayers $56 billion, 1 percent
on a $5.6 trillion debt that we have to pay interest on. That quarter
of a point costs us a little over $14 billion, the quarter of a point.
Look how difficult it is for us to find $14 billion of spending cuts
which went away just like that when interest rates went up.
Therefore, the whole message of the Blue Dogs tonight and earlier
this year and will for the remainder of this year in this Congress is
the fiscally-responsible, conservative thing for us to do is to pay
down the national debt while we have the opportunity to do so and use
this opportunity to fix Social Security for our children and
grandchildren. You cannot do it both ways.
If you take 87 percent of the projected surpluses and spend them
today in a program that literally explodes in the second 10 years, it
will make it fiscally impossible to meet the social security needs. It
is one of the most irresponsible fiscal actions.
In fact, I have termed this. I have been here now 20 years, going on
21. This bill is the most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before
the Congress in the 20\1/2\ years that I have been here, and I hope we
will be able to turn that around, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. TANNER. I called it a generational mugging in the committee the
other day, and I believe that is what it is. I believe it is a
generational mugging that we are taking money now and, as I said
earlier, taking the money and running instead of paying what we owe on
behalf of our kids and grandkids.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will yield for another
moment, finally I have a graph over here, a graphic display of what the
Blue Dog budget is like, if you just think about the bones and the
rewards that all of our dogs at home, they always like to have, and
just take that bone. That is not a phony bone. We are talking about
using half of a surplus that we hope will accrue to reduce the debt.
That has its rewards throughout the economy, as we have said. We are
talking about 25 percent for tax reductions.
All of us would like to have tax reductions. It goes without saying.
It is a bipartisan goal. But the question is: How do we do it
responsibly? And let us allocate a responsible amount to tax reduction
and not have, let us say, the White House and the congressional
leadership get in some sort of bidding war over spending and tax cuts.
That is terribly destructive. That eats into the debt reduction.
And finally, we have all acknowledged that we have program
priorities, and I agree with you. I have heard from the hospitals in
rural Minnesota and in the metropolitan areas in Minnesota of the
dramatic effect that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on health care and
what this is doing to our institutions; and probably what is most
dramatic and what is the saddest is what I see is happening with home
health care and with nursing homes.
As my colleagues know, we have loyal, dedicated, hard-working nursing
home employees in our country that could earn more by going to fast-
food restaurants. But they are committed to working with seniors who
are in nursing homes, and I think that it is just we ought to be
ashamed at what is happening in nursing homes in our country and the
wages that people that work there, and if we say that we cannot do
anything to make sure that we can keep the doors open in those
facilities and continue to provide home health care so that seniors can
live at home as long as possible; and, instead, we are going to,
whether it is launching into a new program or initiating tax cuts that
we cannot afford. I think that is irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner) for contacting us and urging that we get together this evening
to discuss this very important issue.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, most of us who
are members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition support tax
cuts, but I was just discussing with my friend from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) the tax cut bill that was on the floor of the House just a
year ago, a tax cut that I voted for. In fact, I have voted for each of
the two tax cut measures that have been before this Congress since I
have been a Member.

[[Page 16633]]

Last year's tax cut bill was in the neighborhood of $150 billion over
10 years. It was an $80 billion over 5-year tax cut. That bill passed
the House by a small margin, died in the Senate, never became law.
Here we are a year later, almost less than a year later, voting on a
tax cut 5\1/2\ times as large as the one this House voted on less than
a year ago.
Now you cannot tell me that the budget forecasts and the surplus
estimates have changed that much in 1 year. Common sense would tell us
that what we are talking about in this tax cut is fiscally
irresponsible, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner) for bringing this issue before the floor tonight and for his
leadership as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues very much, and I want
to thank you all for coming, and I want to thank the folks here for
staying around and listening to us, and I think maybe we might ought to
do this again sometime with some more charts, not to glaze people's
eyes over, but just to tell them we believe that we ought to pay our
debts first and then have a responsible tax cut as well as bolster our
military, our health care system, our education system through what we
said we would do for our veterans and for our agricultural sector that
is in real trouble.
Mr. Speaker, with that I want to thank my colleagues.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mrs. Thurman of Florida (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on
account of family illness.
Mr. Toomey of Pennsylvania (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on
account of family illness.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today
on account of medical reasons.
Mrs. Fowler of Florida (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on
account of medical reasons.
Mr. Tauzin of Louisiana (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on
account of personal reasons.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Pallone) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Hastings of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Underwood, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Lampson, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Calvert) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, July 20.
Mr. Metcalf, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Bereuter, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the
House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the
Speaker:

H.R. 2035. An act to correct errors in the authorizations
of certain programs administered by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 6 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
July 20, 1999, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

____________________

EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL

Reports and amended reports concerning the foreign currencies and
U.S. dollars utilized for official foreign travel during the first
quarter of 1999 by Committees of the House of Representatives, as well
as a consolidated report of foreign currencies and U.S. dollars
utilized for speaker-authorized official travel during the second
quarter of 1999, pursuant to Public Law 95-384, and for miscellaneous
groups in connection with official foreign travel during the calendar
year 1999 are as follows:

AMENDED REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1, AND MAR. 31, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Bill Archer....................... 1/9 1/13 Chile.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 4,516.55 ........... 4,516.55
1/13 1/16 Brazil................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,749.00 ........... 3,749.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 8,265.55 ........... 8,265.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
BILL ARCHER, Chairman, June 21, 1999.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, DELEGATION TO WARSAW, POLAND, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN MAY 27, AND JUNE 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Doug Bereuter..................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Tom Bliley........................ 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Herb Bateman...................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert................. 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Ralph Regula...................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Marge Roukema..................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Porter Goss....................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Floyd Spence...................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Joel Hefley....................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Vernon Ehlers..................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Scott McInnis..................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00

[[Page 16634]]

Hon. Roy Blunt......................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Robert Borski..................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Owen Pickett...................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. John Tanner....................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Hon. Nick Lampson...................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Susan Olson............................ 5/27 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,440.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,440.00
Jo Weber............................... 5/27 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,440.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,440.00
John Herzberg.......................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Jason Gross............................ 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,235.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,235.00
Evan Field............................. 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Robin Evans............................ 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Linda Pedigo........................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
David Goldston......................... 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
Ron Lasch.............................. 5/28 6/1 Poland................... ........... 1,385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,385.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 34,585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 34,585.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
DOUG BEREUTER, Chairman, June 29, 1999.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, DELEGATION TO UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN MAY 27, AND JUNE 2, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Amory Houghton, Jr................ 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. ........... ........... ........... (\3\) NA ........... ........... ...........
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) NA ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Ben Cardin........................ 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Michael McNulty................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Collin Peterson................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Jim Greenwood..................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Alcee Hastings.................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Eddie B. Johnson.................. 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Julia Carson...................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Hon. Jan Schakowsky.................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Rev. Dr. James Ford.................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Mr. Robert Van Wicklin................. 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Ms. Karen Donfried..................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.00 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
Mr. Chris Scheve....................... 5/28 5/30 United Kingdom........... 50.62 81.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 50.62 81.00
5/30 5/31 Ireland.................. IP172.17 229.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... IP172.17 229.00
5/31 6/2 United Kingdom........... 456.25 730.00 ........... (\3\) NA ........... 456.25 730.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 12,561.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 12,561.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
AMORY HOUGHTON, Chairman, June 17,
1999.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN APR. 1, AND JUNE 30, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Mr. Chadwick R. Gore................... ........ 5/25 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 5,297.32 ........... ........... ........... 5,297.32
5/26 6/1 Armenia.................. ........... 972.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 972.00
Mr. Robert Hand........................ ........ 4/25 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 1,891.02 ........... ........... ........... 1,891.02
4/26 4/30 Poland................... ........... 940.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 940.00
Ms. Janice Helwig...................... ........ 4/21 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 3,717.68 ........... ........... ........... 3,717.68
4/22 6/30 Austria.................. ........... 12,607.73 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 12,607.73
........ 5/5 Austria.................. ........... ........... ........... 4,597.00 ........... ........... ........... 4,597.00
5/5 5/8 Kyrgyzstan............... ........... 408.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 408.00
5/8 5/12 Kazakstan................ ........... 1,044.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,044.00
5/12 5/17 Uzbekistan............... ........... 1,354.25 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,354.25

[[Page 16635]]

5/17 5/18 Turkmenistan............. ........... 191.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 191.00
Ms. Marlene Kaufmann................... ........ 4/21 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 4,488.01 ........... ........... ........... 4,488.01
4/22 4/24 Denmark.................. ........... 618.25 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 618.25
........ 5/24 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 5,709.85 ........... ........... ........... 5,709.85
5/25 5/28 Czech Republic........... ........... 700.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 700.00
Mr. Michael Koby....................... ........ 3/1 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 4,807.79 ........... ........... ........... 4,807.79
3/2 3/6 Germany.................. ........... 850.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 850.00
Ms. Karen Lord......................... ........ 3/19 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 2,955.72 ........... ........... ........... 2,955.72
3/20 3/25 Austria.................. ........... 895.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 895.00
3/25 3/28 Belgium.................. ........... 928.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 928.00
3/29 3/31 Germany.................. ........... 408.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 408.00
3/31 4/7 France................... ........... 1,278.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,278.00
Mr. Michael Ochs....................... ........ 4/25 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 4,746.69 ........... ........... ........... 4,746.69
4/26 5/2 Poland................... ........... 1,190.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,190.00
........ 5/25 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 4,180.36 ........... ........... ........... 4,180.36
........ .......... Armenia.................. ........... 924.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 924.00
........ .......... Georgia.................. ........... 2,004.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,004.00
........ .......... Azerbaijan............... ........... 1,268.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,268.00
........ .......... Turkey................... ........... 211.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 211.00
Ms. Erika Schlager..................... ........ 6/8 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 4,447.13 ........... ........... ........... 4,447.13
6/9 6/13 Romania.................. ........... 412.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 412.50
6/13 6/18 Austria.................. ........... 865.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 865.00
Ms Dorothy Douglas Taft................ ........ 4/27 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 1,157.69 ........... ........... ........... 1,157.69
4/28 5/5 Romania.................. ........... 562.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 562.50
Ms Maureen Walsh....................... ........ 4/26 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 3,577.02 ........... ........... ........... 3,577.02
4/27 5/5 Romania.................. ........... 322.84 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 322.84
........ 6/12 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 4,309.13 ........... ........... ........... 4,309.13
6/13 6/18 Austria.................. ........... 764.51 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 764.51
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 31,718.58 ........... 55,882.41 ........... ........... ........... 87,600.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
CHRIS SMITH, Chairman, June 30, 1999.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

3092. A letter from the Manager, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Common Crop Insurance Regulations;
Onion Crop Insurance Provisions--received June 30, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
3093. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State
Implementation Plan Revision, Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District [CA079-149; FRL-6363-2] received
June 15, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
3094. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Technical Amendments to
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Oregon,
Correction of Effective Date under CRA [FRL-6363-6] received
June 15, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
3095. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Final Determination to
Extend Deadline for Promulgation of Action on Section 126
Petitions [FRL-6363-5] received June 15, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
3096. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Electronic Service of Documents--received June 8, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
3097. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Revisions of Existing Regulations Governing the Filing of
Applications for the Construction and Operation of Facilities
to Provide Service or to Abandon Facilities or Service under
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act--Docket No. RM98-9-000--
received June 8, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Commerce.
3098. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--Open
Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), Final Rule on
OASIS Issues (RM98-3-000, Order No. 605) received June 8,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
3099. A letter from the Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, transmitting the Administration's
report entitled ``Annual Report to Congress--Progress on
Superfund Implementation in Fiscal Year 1998,'' pursuant to
45 U.S.C. 9651; to the Committee on Commerce.
3100. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting notification concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA) to Israel for defense articles and services
(Transmittal No. 99-24), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to
the Committee on International Relations.
3101. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
sold commercially under a contract to Egypt [Transmittal No.
DTC 64-99], pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee
on International Relations.
3102. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed Manufacturing License Agreement with Portugal
[Transmittal No. DTC 16-99], pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(d);
to the Committee on International Relations.
3103. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for defense articles and defense services to
Japan [Transmittal No. DTC 56-99], pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2776(c); to the Committee on International Relations.
3104. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a supplemental report to ensure that the
Congress is kept fully informed on continued U.S.
contributions in support of peacekeeping efforts in the
former Yugoslavia; (H. Doc. No. 106-100); to the Committee on
International Relations and ordered to be printed.
3105. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report
concerning efforts made by the United Nations and the
Specialized Agencies to employ an adequate number of
Americans during 1998; to the Committee on International
Relations.
3106. A letter from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting the 38th Semiannual Report of the Inspector
General for the six-month period ending March 31, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to
the Committee on Government Reform.
3107. A letter from the Administrator, General Services
Administration, transmitting a semiannual report on Office of
Inspector General auditing activity, together with a report
providing management's perspective on the implementation
status of audit recommendations, pursuant to Public Law 100-
504, section 104(a) (102 Stat. 2525); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
3108. A letter from the Chairman, National Endowment for
the Arts, transmitting the Semiannual Report of the Inspector
General and the Chairman's Semiannual Report on Final Action
for the National Endowment for the Arts for the period of
October 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on
Government Reform.

[[Page 16636]]

3109. A letter from the Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission, transmitting the Inspector General's Semiannual
Report and the management response of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
3110. A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting
a report on the activities and progress made in protecting
and restoring the living resources and habitat of the
Chesapeake Bay; to the Committee on Resources.
3111. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice,
transmitting a report by the Attorney General regarding the
results of a survey of the States to determine the extent to
which prisoners have access to interactive computer services;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
3112. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulations
Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Veterans Education: Increase in
Educational Assistance Rates (RIN: 2900-AJ37) received June
14, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
3113. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds; Obligation of States and
Political Subdivisions [TD 8826] (RIN: 1545-AX23) received
June 30, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
3114. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Qualified Zone Academy Bond Credit Rate [Notice 99-35]
received June 30, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
3115. A letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary to the
Department, Health Care Financing Administration, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Hospital
Conditions of Participation: Patients' Rights [HCFA-3018-IFC]
(RIN: 0938-AJ56) received June 30, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and
Commerce.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. GILMAN: Committee on International Relations. H.R. 850.
A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to affirm the
rights of United States persons to use and sell encryption
and to relax export controls on encryption; with an amendment
(Rept. 106-117 Pt. 3). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. COMBEST: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 1402. A bill to
require the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Class I
milk price structure known as Option 1-A as part of the
implementation of the final rule to consolidate Federal milk
marketing orders; with an amendment (Rept. 106-239). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Committee on Rules. House Resolution
253. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through
high-quality professional development for teachers,
reauthorize the Reading Excellent Act, and for other purposes
(Rept. 106-240). Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mrs. Kelly, and Mr.
Filner):
H.R. 2548. A bill to suspend further implementation of the
Department of Defense anthrax vaccination program until the
vaccine is determined to be safe and effective and to provide
for a study by the National Institutes of Health of that
vaccine; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition
to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. GREENWOOD:
H.R. 2549. A bill to provide that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania be
held at Doylestown, Pennsylvania, in addition to those other
places currently provided by law; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. DeLAY:
H.R. 2550. A bill to compensate owners of private property
for the effect of certain regulatory restrictions; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Collins, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Coble, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island,
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cunningham, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Smith of
Texas, Mr. Frost, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Gilman, Mr. Stump, Mr. Barcia, Mr. McIntosh, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Souder, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Weygand, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Cubin, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Upton, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Camp, Mr. Klink,
Mr. Ewing, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Norwood, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Schaffer,
Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Ney, Mr. Royce, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Linder, Mr.
Shadegg, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
Hostettler, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Duncan):
H.R. 2551. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
require Federal Prision Industries to compete of its Federal
contracts to minimize unfair competition with private firms
(depriving law-abiding workers of job opportunities), to save
taxpayer dollars by empowering Federal contracting officers
to be able to acquire commercial products that better meet
agencies' needs, more quickly and at less cost without having
to obtain permission from Federal Prison Industries, to
further empower contracting officers to compel Federal Prison
Industries to fully perform its contract obligations to the
same extent as all other contractors, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gilman, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Meehan, Mrs.
Meek of Florida, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Weiner):
H.R. 2552. A bill to promote the health and safety of
children by requiring the posting of Consumer Product Safety
Commission child care center safety standards in child care
centers and by requiring that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services report to Congress with recommendations to
promote compliance with such standards; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee
on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Paul, Ms.
Lee, and Mrs. Christensen):
H.R. 2553. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow certain individuals a credit against income tax
for elective deferrals and IRA contributions; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey:
H.R. 2554. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the amount of the deduction allowed for
meals and entertainment expenses; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Canady of Florida, Mr. Cook, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Duncan,
Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Foley,
Mr. LoBiondo, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. McCollum, Mr.
Oxley, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Taylor of
North Carolina, Mrs. Thurman, and Mr. Upton):
H.R. 2555. A bill to establish limitations with respect to
the disclosure and use of genetic information in connection
with group health plans and health insurance coverage, to
provide for consistent standards applicable in connection
with hospital care and medical services provided under title
38 of the United States Code, to prohibit employment
discrimination on the basis of genetic information and
genetic testing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and
the Workforce, Veterans' Affairs, and Government Reform, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. WOLF:
H.R. 2556. A bill to require the Secretary of
Transportation through the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Program to make a grant to a nonprofit private entity
for the purpose of developing a design for a proposed pilot
program relating to the use of telecommuting as a means of
reducing emissions of air polluntants that are precursors to
ground level ozone; to the Committee on Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mrs. MEEK of Florida:
H.R. 2557. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a feasibility study on the inclusion in Biscayne
National Park, Florida, of the archaeological site know as
the Miami Circle; to the Committee on Resources.
By Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr.
Porter):

[[Page 16637]]

H. Res. 254. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives condemning recent hate crimes in Illinois
and Indiana; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CALVERT:
H. Res. 255. A resolution designating majority membership
to certain standing committees of the House; considered and
agreed to.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:

159. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the State of Montana, relative to House
Joint Resolution No. 8 memorializing Congress to oppose the
designation of any river in Montana as an American Heritage
River under the Federal American Heritage Rivers Initiative;
to the Committee on Resources.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS TO PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 21: Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 82: Mr. King, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota,
and Mr. Shaw.
H.R. 170: Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 202: Mr. Towns and Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 274: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, and
Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 275: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 316: Mr. Olver.
H.R. 363: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota and Mr. Mascara.
H.R. 488: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 583: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 637: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 710: Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. Moore, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 731: Mr. Wynn and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 750: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Davis of
Virginia.
H.R. 869: Mrs. Roukema.
H.R. 904: Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 915: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 976: Mr. Blagojevich.
H.R. 1046: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1063: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
and Mr. Moore.
H.R. 1070: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Talent, and Mr.
Shadegg.
H.R. 1071: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1083: Mr. Hill of Montana and Mr. Hillard.
H.R. 1180: Ms. Sanchez, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Davis of Florida.
H.R. 1271: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Eshoo,
Mr. Filner, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Carson, Mr.
Martinez, and Mr. Evans.
H.R. 1324: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Rahall,
Ms. Carson, and Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1325: Mr. Hinchey and Ford.
H.R. 1329: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr.
Graham.
H.R. 1336: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1355: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1356: Mr. McIntosh, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr.
Green of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1413: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 1433: Ms. Waters and Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 1494: Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 1515: Mr. Conyers, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr.
Ford, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Frost, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 1556: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1592: Mr. Blunt, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Hastings of
Washington.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Baird, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Davis of
Illinois.
H.R. 1657: Ms. Rivers.
H.R. 1747: Mr. English, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. LaHood, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Spence, and Mr. Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 1749: Mr. Burr of North Carolina.
H.R. 1776: Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.
Smith of Washington, and Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 1779: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Castle, and Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1850: Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Gekas.
H.R. 1863: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1883: Ms. DeLauro, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Dicks, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Burr of North
Carolina, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Gary
Miller of California, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Baker, Mr.
Green of Texas, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Bateman, Mr.
Mascara, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Linder, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Barton of
Texas, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Terry, Mr. Costello, Mr. Cook, Mr.
Bilbray, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Kildee,
Mr. Vitter, Ms. Lee, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Boehlert, Mr.
Strickland, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mrs. McCarthy of
New York, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Largent, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Towns, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Cubin,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Markey, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Kind, Mr. Matsui, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr.
DeMint.
H.R. 1885: Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Vento.
H.R. 1907: Mr. Portman and Mr. Davis of Florida.
H.R. 1932: Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Strickland, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Dunn.
H.R. 1937: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Underwood.
H.R. 1964: Mr. Green of Texas and Mr. Shays.
H.R. 1990: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 1999: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2028: Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 2172: Mr. Porter and Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 2243: Mr. Rahall and Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 2265: Mr. Kildee and Mr. Walsh.
H.R. 2267: Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. Cook.
H.R. 2395: Mr. Nethercutt, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Hill of
Montana, Mr. Ganske, and Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 2409: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 2414: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 2427: Mr. Condit, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr.
Cunningham, and Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 2436: Mr. Kingston, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. DeMint, Mr.
Green of Wisconsin, and Mr. Coburn.
H.R. 2441: Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Cunningham,
Mr. Gekas, and Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 2444: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 2446: Mr. Clay, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 2539: Ms. Waters, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Filner.
H.J. Res. 46: Mr. Forbes, Mr. Gilman, and Mr. Houghton.
H.J. Res. 48: Mr. Bishop, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Ewing, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Wamp, and Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
H. Con. Res. 80: Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Shows, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Holt, and Mr.
Aderholt.
H. Con. Res. 100: Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Ms. Sanchez,
Mr. Shows, Mr. Foley, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H. Con. Res. 124: Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs.
Lowey, and Mr. Wamp.
H. Con. Res. 129: Mr. Hilliard.
H. Con. Res. 147: Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Lantos, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Carson, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. McGovern, Mr. Bonior, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas,
Ms. McKinney, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Dixon.
H. Con. Res. 154: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Dixon.

____________________

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:

H.R. 1995

Offered By: Mr. Fattah

Amendment No. 2: Page 41, line 25, strike the closing
quotation marks and the final period and insert the
following:

``SEC. 2404. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, no State shall receive funds under this title
unless the State certifies annually to the Secretary that--
``(1) the per pupil expenditures in the local educational
agencies of the State are substantially equal, taking into
consideration the variation in cost of serving pupils with
special needs and the local variation in cost of providing
education services; or
``(2) the achievement levels of students on reading and
mathematics assessments, graduation rates, and rates of
college-bound students in the local educational agencies with
the lowest per pupil expenditures are substantially equal to
those of the local educational agencies with the highest per
pupil expenditures.
``(b) Guidelines.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
National Academy of Sciences, shall develop and publish
guidelines to define the terms `substantially equal' and `per
pupil expenditures'.''.

H.R. 1995

Offered By: Mr. Fattah

Amendment No. 3: Page 41, line 25, strike the closing
quotation marks and the final period and insert the
following:

``SEC. 2404. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, no State shall receive funds under this title
unless it annually certifies to the Secretary that--
``(A) the per pupil expenditures in the local educational
agencies of the State are substantially equal; or
``(B) the achievement levels of students on reading and
mathematics assessments, graduation rates, and rates of
college-bound students in the local educational agencies with
the lowest per pupil expenditures are substantially equal to
those of the local educational agencies with the highest per
pupil expenditures.

[[Page 16638]]

``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the State
shall determine if the expenditures of the local educational
agencies of the State are `substantially equal' by using the
same computation method set forth in section 8009(b)(2).

H.R. 1995

Offered By: Mr. Roemer

Amendment No. 4: Page 36, after line 15, insert the
following:

``SEC. 2043. TRANSITION TO TEACHING.

``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to address
the need of high-need local educational agencies for highly
qualified teachers in particular subject areas, such as
mathematics, science, foreign languages, bilingual education,
and special education, needed by those agencies, following
the model of the successful teachers placement program known
as the `Troops-to-Teachers program', by recruiting,
preparing, placing, and supporting career-changing
professionals who have knowledge and experience that will
help them become such teachers.
``(b) Program Authorized.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to use funds
appropriated under paragraph (2) for each fiscal year to
award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to
institutions of higher education and public and private
nonprofit agencies or organizations to carry out programs
authorized by this section.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
``(c) Application.--Each applicant that desires an award
under subsection (b)(1) shall submit an application to the
Secretary containing such information as the Secretary
requires, including--
``(1) a description of the target group of career-changing
professionals upon which the applicant will focus its
recruitment efforts in carrying out its program under this
section, including a description of the characteristics of
that target group that shows how the knowledge and experience
of its members are relevant to meeting the purpose of this
section;
``(2) a description of the training that program
participants will receive and how that training will relate
to their certification as teachers;
``(3) a description of how the applicant will collaborate,
as needed, with other institutions, agencies, or
organizations to recruit, train, place, support, and provide
teacher induction programs to program participants under this
section, including evidence of the commitment of those
institutions, agencies, or organizations to the applicant's
program;
``(4) a description of how the applicant will evaluate the
progress and effectiveness of its program, including--
``(A) the program's goals and objectives;
``(B) the performance indicators the applicant will use to
measure the program's progress; and
``(C) the outcome measures that will be used to determine
the program's effectiveness; and
``(5) such other information and assurances as the
Secretary may require.
``(d) Uses of Funds and Period of Service.--
``(1) Authorized activities.--Funds under this section may
be used for--
``(A) recruiting program participants, including informing
them of opportunities under the program and putting them in
contact with other institutions, agencies, or organizations
that would train, place, and support them;
``(B) training stipends and other financial incentives for
program participants, not to exceed $5,000 per participant;
``(C) assisting institutions of higher education or other
providers of teacher training to tailor their training to
meet the particular needs of professionals who are changing
their careers to teaching;
``(D) placement activities, including identifying high-need
local educational agencies with a need for the particular
skills and characteristics of the newly trained program
participants and assisting those participants to obtain
employment in those local educational agencies; and
``(E) post-placement induction or support activities for
program participants.
``(2) Period of service.--A program participant in a
program under this section who completes his or her training
shall serve in a high-need local educational agency for at
least 3 years.
``(3) Repayment.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate to
ensure that program participants who receive a training
stipend or other financial incentive under paragraph (1)(B),
but fail to complete their service obligation under paragraph
(2), repay all or a portion of such stipend or other
incentive.
``(e) Equitable Distribution.--To the extent practicable,
the Secretary shall make awards under this section that
support programs in different geographic regions of the
Nation.
``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `high-need local educational agency' has the
meaning given such term in section 2061.
``(2) The term `program participants' means career-changing
professionals who--
``(A) hold at least a baccalaureate degree;
``(B) demonstrate interest in, and commitment to, becoming
a teacher; and
``(C) have knowledge and experience that are relevant to
teaching a high-need subject area in a high-need local
educational agency.''.
Page 36, line 19, strike ``part,'' and insert ``part (other
than section 2043),''.
Page 36, line 21, strike ``4.'' and insert ``4 (other than
section 2043).''.
Page 36, line 23, strike ``part,'' and insert ``part (other
than section 2043),''.

[[Page 16639]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

July 19, 1999

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

OVERSIGHT: A KEY CONGRESSIONAL FUNCTION

______

HON. DAVID DREIER

of california

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, many of us are committed to improving and
emphasizing programmatic oversight, we jointly asked the Congressional
Research Service to conduct bipartisan oversight training for Members
and congressional staff. Two sessions have already been held and the
third will be held on July 26. So far they have been a great success,
and I would like to express my appreciation to the Congressional
Research Service, particularly Mort Rosenberg and Walter Oleszek, for
their extraordinary efforts to make this such a great success.
At our first oversight workshop, Lee Hamilton, former Democratic
Chairman of the International Relations Committee and the Iran-Contra
Committee, shared his thoughts and insights with the attendees. He
stated in part:

Oversight is designed to throw light on the activities of
government. It can protect the country from the imperial
presidency and from bureaucratic arrogance. It can expose and
prevent misconduct, and maintain a degree of constituency
influence in an administration. The responsibility of
oversight is to look into every nook and cranny of government
affairs. Overlook is designed to look at everything the
government does, expose it, and put the light of publicity to
it. It reviews, monitors, and supervises the execution and
implementation of public policy, to assure that ``the laws
are faithfully executed.''

I wholeheartedly agree with our distinguished former colleague. As
chairman of the Committee that is charged with the responsibility of
safeguarding the privileges and prerogatives of this esteemed
institution, I believe Congress should vigorously conduct oversight in
order to fulfill the legacy of our Founding Fathers--which is
ultimately to preserve and protect our fragile democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all members can benefit from the thoughtful
comments of Lee Hamilton, which are included as follows:

Oversight: A Key Congressional Function

Introduction

I very much appreciate the kind remarks by my friend and
former colleague David Dreier. As David mentioned, we devoted
considerable attention to ways of improving congressional
oversight during our work on the Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress in 1993-94. We held a number of
hearings and made several recommendations for structural
reforms, some of which have since been implemented.
Oversight of how effectively the Executive Branch is
carrying out congressional mandates is an enormously
important function of Congress. It is at the very core of
good government. Congress must do more than write the laws;
it must make sure that the administration is carrying out
those laws the way Congress intended. The purpose of
oversight is to determine what happens after a law is passed.
As Woodrow Wilson put it (and I find myself quoting Woodrow
Wilson more and more these days): ``Quite as important as
lawmaking is vigilant oversight of administration.'' As more
power is delegated to the executive and as more laws are
passed, the need for oversight grows.
That is why I have been particularly concerned about the
weakening of congressional oversight in recent years.
Congress has given too much focus to personal investigations
and possible scandals that will interest the media, rather
than programmatic review and a comprehensive assessment of
which federal programs work and which don't. For those of us
who care deeply about the institution of Congress, this has
been a disturbing trend. Thus I strongly support the efforts
of Speaker Hastert to have the House return to its more
traditional oversight functions. Congress needs to get back
to the basics on oversight. The Speaker's recent comments on
that have been right on the mark.
Under Dan Mulhollan's direction, Walter Oleszek and Mort
Rosenberg of CRS have assembled several excellent panels for
this series of oversight workshops. You will be hearing from
some people with real expertise in this area. In the few
minutes I have with you today I want to discuss briefly the
importance of good oversight and some of the lessons I
learned from my time in Congress about what makes oversight
successful.

I. Importance of Good Oversight

A. Nature of Congressional Oversight

I believe in tough, continuing oversight. Oversight has
many purposes: to evaluate program administration and
performance; to make sure programs conform to congressional
intent; to ferret out (in the oft-heard phrase) ``waste,
fraud, and abuse''; to see whether programs may have outlived
their usefulness; to compel an explanation or justification
of policy; and to ensure that programs and agencies are
administered in a cost-effective, efficient manner.
Oversight is designed to throw light on the activities of
government. It can protect the country from the imperial
presidency and from bureaucratic arrogance. It can expose and
prevent misconduct, and maintain a degree of constituency in
an administration. The responsibility of oversight is to look
into every nook and cranny of governmental affairs. Oversight
is designed to look at everything the government does, expose
it, and put the light of publicity to it. It reviews,
monitors, and supervises the execution and implementation of
public policy, to assure that ``the laws are faithfully
executed''.
Congress can use several tools to make federal agencies
accountable, including periodic reauthorization, personal
visits by members of staff, review by the General Accounting
Office or inspectors general, subpoenas, and reports from the
Executive Branch to Congress. Several types of committees--
authorization, appropriations, governmental affairs, and
special ad hoc committees--can all play important roles in
oversight.
Congress needs a large number of oversight methods to hold
agencies accountable because the various methods have their
own strengths and weaknesses. Oversight hearings, for
example, cannot be called every day, so committees may turn
to reports or on-site visits to agencies.
In many ways Congress underestimates and undervalues its
power in oversight. Agencies start to get a little nervous
whenever someone from Congress starts poking around, and that
is probably to the good overall. Federal bureaucracies do not
stay on their toes unless they expect review and oversight
from Congress.

B. History of Oversight

Oversight has been a key function of Congress since its
very beginning. It is an implied power, not an enumerated
power in the Constitution. It is based on the constitutional
powers given to Congress to pass laws that create agencies
and programs, to provide funding for these agencies and
programs, and to investigate the Executive Branch. The first
congressional oversight investigation took place in 1792, an
inquiry into the conduct of the government in the wars
against the Indians, and they have been taking place ever
since.
Congress overhauled its oversight responsibilities in 1946
with the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946. It reinforced the need for ``continuous watchfulness''
by Congress of the Executive Branch, and placed most of that
responsibility in the standing committees rather than in
specially created investigatory committees. The extent of
congressional oversight has fluctuated in recent decades,
with some Congresses taking it much more seriously than
others. In the 96th Congress, for example, Speaker Tip
O'Neill gave it very high priority and called the 96th the
``oversight Congress''. More recently, Speaker Gingrich
shifted the emphasis of oversight, seeing it not just as a
way to oversee but to shrink the size and reach of the
federal government. He also used it to aggressively
investigate the White House. Speaker Hastert, as I noted
earlier, is encouraging the committees to move away from
oversight as political micro management to oversight as
congressional review of agency performance and effectiveness.

C. Importance of Policy Oversight

The oversight responsibilities of Congress are critical to
good policy. Most important policy issues are complex, and
Congress is seldom able to specify fully all the details of a
governmental program in the original legislation. The Clean
Water Act, for instance, sets the goals and general
procedures for improving the quality of the nation's water
resources, but the specific rules and regulations for
achieving these aims are left to Executive Branch officials.
For several reasons, Congress needs to carefully monitor how
its broad intentions are translated into actual programs:
First, tough monitoring by Congress can encourage cost-
effective implementation of a legislative program. Every year
the President sends Congress specific funding requests for
thousands of federal programs. These requests can often be
cut back, as Members

[[Page 16640]]

seek to identify the minimum funding levels needs for a
program to be effectively implemented. Such oversight efforts
are an important means for reducing governmental waste and
making government work better.
Second, Congress must assure that the program, as
implemented, reflects the intent of Congress. In complex
issue areas such as environmental policy or health care,
agency officials may simply misinterpret a piece of
legislation or they may use the discretion they have been
given in the law to shift policy toward their views, the
President's views, or the views of special interest groups.
Third, Congress must continue to monitor programs to
determine whether unintended consequences or changing
circumstances have altered the need for the program. Programs
need consistent and regular review and assessment over time.
Members of Congress are helped in that task by their close
connection to their constituents, which gives them special
opportunities to observe on a day-by-day basis the strengths
and weaknesses of federal programs as they are being carried
out.

D. Decline in Oversight

In recent years, the traditional oversight activities of
Congress have generally declined, for a variety of reasons:
The shorter congressional workweek means that committees do
not meet as often as they used to, reducing time for
oversight.
The power of the authorizing committees--which is where
most of the oversight was done--has declined over the years.
Monitoring the myriad of federal programs is tedious, takes
time and preparation, and is often quite technical. It is
typically unglamorous work, and most Members see little
political benefit from engaging in it. Members do not rank
oversight at the top of their responsibilities. For most
Members, constituent service is number one, legislation is
number two, and oversight is number three.
The media do not pay much attention to traditional
oversight work. They usually like to focus on scandals.
Congress has permitted the desire for media coverage to drive
the hearing and oversight process.
There is simply less interest in government reform.
And constituents rarely contact their Members asking them
to engage in systematic program review.
But another factor has been that the oversight priorities
of Congress have shifted away from the careful review of
programs to highly adversarial attempts at discrediting
individual public officials--looking at great length at, for
example, Hillary Clinton's commodity transactions or charges
of money-laundering and drug trafficking at an Arkansas
airport when Bill Clinton was Governor. Congress has
certainly investigated federal officials throughout
congressional history--from its earliest investigation of the
Indian wars to the Teapot Dome scandal of 1923 to Watergate
and the Iran-contra hearings (which I co-chaired). The
authority of Congress to conduct investigations can be a
crucial check on executive powers.
But recently there has been too much personalization and
not enough policy in congressional oversight. Certainly for
many years a lot of congressional oversight has been done for
partisan purposes, and that doesn't necessarily make it bad.
But spending too much time on personal investigations weakens
the oversight function of Congress. It consumes Executive
Branch time and resources and, more importantly, diverts
congressional time and resources from the more constructive
work of policy oversight. That's why Speaker Hastert 's
attempt to redirect congressional oversight is a good sign,
and I am hopeful that it will be successful.

II. Nature of Good Oversight

You will hear from a host of experts during these oversight
workshops explaining in considerable detail the role and
nature of congressional oversight. So let me briefly give you
a few observations to help set the stage for your
discussions--some specific examples of what I thought worked
well when I was in Congress plus a few general lessons I
learned about how oversight should be handled.

A. Specific Examples from Committee Work

Much of my oversight work in Congress was done on the
Foreign Affairs/International Relations Committee. We had the
responsibility of overseeing all foreign policy activities
and agencies. Let me give you a sense of some of the main
methods I used that I found particularly helpful.
Regular hearings: Congressional hearings are one of the
most important methods of oversight. Yet, hearings can be
unproductive when Members simply read prepared questions and
aren't ready to ask the tough follow-up questions. So I gave
particular attention to regular hearings on United States
policy. I found them particularly helpful in forcing
Executive Branch officials to articulate policy and explain
the rationale behind it--something they do not like to do.
One good example would be the extensive oversight I had
relating to U.S. programs of assistance to the former Soviet
States--the Freedom Support Act--as well as Eastern Europe--
the SEED Act.
Closed briefings: Regular, indeed weekly closed briefings
were essential to educating ourselves on complex issues. I
instituted a monthly series of ``hot-spot'' classified
briefings for Members done by the CIA on particularly
volatile areas including Bosnia, the situation in Rusia,
North Korea, and other issues that most Members do not
routinely pay attention to.
Letters for the Record: One technique I developed, which I
found to be a good way to exercise oversight, was to press
the Administration for written explanations and
clarifications of various aspects of U.S. foreign policy,
which I would then insert into the Congressional Record. I
did this, for example, to help pin the administration down on
its position on arms sales to Taiwan, on the Nuclear Agreed
Framework with North Korea, on the train-and-equip program
for Bosnia, and on U.S. policy vis-a-vis Turkey. Sometimes I
had to go back to them several times to get a meaningful
response. Since educating and informing the public is at the
heart of oversight, I found the publication of letters to be
very important. I was impressed by the interest these letters
generated.
Staff travel: I required staff to make a periodic trips
with focused objectives to the areas of the world they
covered. For example, Committee staff made repeated trips
over a several year period to Bosnia, to look into specific
aspects of the Dayton peace process including how U.S.
assistance was being spent, and the role of U.S. peacekeeping
troops in the region. This travel, in combination with the
travel of staff from other committees, served to demonstrate
to the Administration and local officials in Bosnia that
Congress was paying close attention to how resources were
being spent. I also required staff to write extensive reports
on the main findings and accomplishments of their travel.
Informal contacts: I made sure staff had informal and
frequent contacts with Executive Branch officials. If you get
to know people before a problem on crisis, you are in much
better shape when there is one. Staff has close contact with
officials at the State Department, DOD, and the NSC on all
aspects on the Middle East crisis, in Bosnia, as well as U.S.
relations with Russia and the NIS. My staff and I were able
to work closely with U.S. officials on such issues as the
Middle East, Russia, Yugoslavia, China, and North Korea in
part because of longstanding personal contacts with lay
people.
Reports to Congress: Although Congress has in many ways
gone overboard in the reports that it requires of the
Administration, sometimes this is a very useful tool. For
example, I had the State Department make reports on the
economies of major recipients of foreign aid. We need to know
what effect our assistance is having in key countries.
GAO investigations: GAO has enormous resources, and
probably does more detailed oversight work than congressional
committees can. I found GAO particularly helpful on foreign
assistance programs, the Lavi fighter the Israelis wanted to
build with U.S. help but which did not make sense, and on
specific overseas projects which ran into trouble.

B. General Observations on Successful Oversight

Let me now turn to a few general thoughts and observations
about what makes oversight successful:
First, oversight works best when it is done in as
bipartisan a way as possible. Certainly there will be times
when the committee chairman and the ranking minority member
will disagree, but they should be able to sit down at the
beginning of a new Congress and agree on the bulk of the
Committee's oversight agenda.
Second, policy oversight is aided when there is a
constructive relationship between Congress and the
implementing agency. Much oversight by its very nature is
adversarial, and that is particularly appropriate when an
agency has engaged in egregious behavior. But excessive
antagonism between the branches can be counterproductive and
do little to improve program performance. Oversight should
put aside petty political motives, and it should act
constructively not destructively. Oversight should be
conducted seeking good ideas.
Third, oversight should be done in a regular, systematic
way. Congress lacks a continuous, systematic oversight
process, at it oversees in an episodic, erratic manner. On
the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress we
recommended, for example, that each committee do a systematic
review of all of the significant laws, agencies, and programs
under its jurisdiction at least every 10 years. My sense is
that there are activities of government that have gone on for
a long time without full-scale review.
Fourth, oversight must be comprehensive. There are vast
number of activities of the federal government that never get
into the newspaper headlines, yet it is still the task of
Congress to look into them. When I was on the Foreign Affairs
Committee, for example, we even held oversight hearings on
everything from Yemen and to the future of NATO. Oversight
that is driven by whether we can get cameras into the hearing
room is not enough to get the job done. I am impressed by how
decisions about oversight are made on the basis on how much
media attention can be attracted. The relationship between
the decline of oversight by Congress and the decline of
investigative journalism bears further examination. Being
comprehensive in oversight also means casting

[[Page 16641]]

the net widely to look at the variety of federal agencies
involved in a particular area, not just the main one (for
example, not just looking at foreign policy actions of the
State Department, but also of Commerce, Defense, Agriculture,
CIA, etc). As I said earlier, it is the responsibility of
oversight to look into every nook and cranny of government.
Fifth, the oversight agenda of Congress should be
coordinate to eliminate duplication. The administration often
complains, with some justification, about the burden of
redundant oversight and duplicative testimony. Different
committees shouldn't cover the same ground over and over,
while other important areas and programs fall through the
cracks. Committees currently do prepare their oversight
plans, but I sense no one is in charge of coordination.
Sixth, continuity and expertise are critical to successful
oversight. Excessive staff turnover and turnover of chairmen
harm the institutional continuity and expertise so essential
to the job of oversight. This is also why I generally favor
having standing committees do oversight rather than special,
ad hoc communities. Also, oversight should not be used or
directed by interest groups.
Seventh, there is such a thing as too much oversight. Good
oversight draws the line between careful scrutiny and
intervention or micro-management. Congress should examine
broad public policies, but it should not mettle and it should
avoid a media show. It should certainly expose corrupt and
incompetent officials, but it should avoid attacking
competent, dedicated officials. Oversight requires reports to
be informed, but the reporting requirements should not be
excessive. In general, the quality of oversight is much more
important than the quantity.
Eighth, good oversight involves documentation. The more you
can get things in writing, the better off you are.
Ninth, follow-through is also important. It is one thing to
ask agencies to improve their performance, but it requires
the work of Members, committees, and staff aides to make sure
that the changes have taken place.
Tenth, Member involvement in oversight is important.
Certainly much of the work needs to be done by staff. Yet I
found that Members often left too much of the responsibility
with staff. Having Members involved brings additional
leverage to any oversight inquiry.
Eleventh, good oversight takes clear signals from the
leadership. Structural reforms and individual efforts by
Members can be helpful, but for oversight to really work it
takes a clear message from the congressional leadership that
oversight is a priority and that it will be done in a
bipartisan, systematic, coordinated way. The key role of the
House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader in successful
oversight cannot be overstated.
And finally, there needs to be greater public
accountability to congressional oversight. The general public
can be a very important driving force behind good oversight.
Congress needs to provide clear reports from each committee
outlining the main programs under its jurisdiction and
explaining how the committee reviewed them. As citizens
understand how important congressional oversight is to
achieving the kind of government they want--government that
works better and costs less--they will demand more emphasis
on the quality of oversight by Congress, and they will be
less tolerant of highly personalized investigations that
primarily serve to divert Members' attention from this
critical congressional function.

Conclusion

My personal belief is that conducting oversight is every
bit as important as passing legislation. President Wilson
thought that ``the informing function of Congress should be
preferred even to its legislating function.'' Our founding
fathers very clearly recognized that ``eternal vigilance is
the price of liberty''.
A strong record of congressional oversight of--``continuous
watchfulness''--will do a lot to restore public confidence in
the institution. It will show that Congress is taking its
responsibilities seriously and is able to work together.
I'm not Pollyannaish about all of this. Certainly there
will be roadblocks and obstacles in the effort to strengthen
and improve oversight. The work is not particularly easy
under the best of circumstances, and we can't expect all of
the hard feelings and distrust about the direction of
oversight in recent years to dissipate overnight. But it is
my firm belief that this is an area in which Congress simply
must do better. And your willingness to participate in these
workshops gives me good reason to think that this is an area
in which Congress will do better.

____________________

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

______

speech of

HON. RON KLINK

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Friday, July 16, 1999

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 434) to
authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara
Africa:

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 434, and I am proud to say I
was an original co-sponsor of a much better trade bill, H.R. 772, the
``HOPE for Africa Act'' introduced by my colleague Jesse Jackson of
Illinois.
I supported H.R. 772, and opposed H.R. 434, for reasons centering on
concerns for labor, the environment, womens' rights, and the HIV/AIDS
problem faced worldwide.
First, in labor terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because it is bad for both
American and African workers. Over the past twelve months, 118,000 jobs
in the textile and apparel industry have been lost in the United
States--more jobs than in any other industry. The reason is competition
with low-wage imports, manufactured in nations where worker
compensation and working conditions are deplorable. As a result, U.S.
textile workers are losing their jobs, and African workers work in
sweat-shop style conditions.
On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, would have required
that labor rights be adhered to in the workplace, while the H.R. 434
has no binding language to protect worker rights. The Teamsters,
International Longshoremen and Warehousemen, AFSCME, Paper Allied-
Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE), Transport Workers of
America, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees
(UNITE) and the United Auto Workers all opposed H.R. 434.
Second, in environmental terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because the bill
text does not even mention the environment. The bill contains no
environmental safeguards in its core text--which is a startling
oversight. This encourages U.S. firms to move to sub-Saharan Africa in
order to evade the standards they must meet here at home.
On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, provided a new model
for trade by combining expanded trade, open to all sub-Saharan
countries, with the requirement that multinational corporations
operating in these countries comply to the same environmental standards
that apply here in the United States.
For these reasons, H.R. 434 was opposed by--and H.R. 772 was
supported by--the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the
Earth, American Lands Alliance, Earth Island Action, International
Rivers Network, Native Forest Council, International Law Center for
Human, Economic and Environmental Defense, and the International
Primate Protection League.
Third, in women's rights terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because it simply
called on the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to give
special consideration to women entrepreneurs and to investments that
help women and the poor.
On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, targeted investment
financing for small businesses and women-owned and minority-owned
businesses, including provisions for human rights, labor rights and
environmental protections.
Fourth, in HIV/AIDS terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because it completely
ignored the AIDS crisis. The bill failed to mention the word ``AIDS''
nor did it specify any funding to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
However, since the beginning of the AIDS crisis, 83% of AIDS deaths
have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.
On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, targeted direct
assistance from the Development Fund for Africa for AIDS education and
treatment programs. For these reasons, many HIV/AIDS community groups
opposed H.R. but supported H.R. 772--ranging from the Human Rights
Campaign Fund to Project Planet Africa.
In closing, I want to turn for a moment to general trade policy. I
read a disturbing quote from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and
Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) given on March 3, 1999: ``Setting up
assembly plants with Chinese equipment, technology and personnel could
not only greatly increase sales in African countries but also
circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin imposed
by European and American countries.''
H.R. 434, had very weak transshipment provisions, with no safeguard
against China using sub-Saharan Africa as a transshipment point for
Asian manufacturers of textile and apparel products. On the other hand,
H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, contained strict, enforceable rules
guarding against transshipment from China and other locales. For these
reasons, the National Cotton Council and the American Textile
Manufacturers Institute opposed H.R. 434.
By passing H.R. 434, which I voted against, nothing was accomplished
to give relief, and to save the jobs of, American and African textile
workers; to protect the environment; to

help African women; to give aid to victims of HIV/AIDS; nor to deny
China the right to circumvent the trade laws which impose quotas on
Chinese goods.
This is a sad day for American trade relations with sub-Saharan
Africa.

____________________

[[Page 16642]]

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the
following rollcall vote: Rollcall vote No. 295, H.R. 2466. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. DAN BURTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to a prior commitment, I was
unavoidably detained during the following rollcall votes. Had I been
there. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 302; ``no'' on
rollcall vote No. 303; ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 304; ``yes'' on
rollcall vote No. 305; ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 306; and ``no'' on
rollcall vote No. 307.

____________________

HECTOR G. GODINEZ POST OFFICE BILL

______

HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ

of california

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I come to the House of
Representatives to introduce a bill to rename the Santa Ana U.S. Postal
Processing Center after a true American, Hector G. Godinez. Mr. Godinez
gave so much to his country and community, and this bill will recognize
his life long efforts.
Santa Ana has been Mr. Godinez' home since 1925. After graduating
from high school he joined the military, beginning his service to our
country. He served during World War II and in recognition of his
strength and bravery in General Patton's tank unit, was awarded a
Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.
When Mr. Godinez returned home from the war, he decided to continue
his record of public service as a letter carrier. During his 48 years
in the U.S. Postal Service he rose from letter carrier to Southern
California District Manager.
Mr. Godinez' belief that individual action can help build a better
community is clearly illustrated by his active involvement in Santa
Ana. Mr. Godinez was deeply committed to the Orange County District Boy
Scouts of America and was their chairman in 1985. He served as
president of the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce and was a board member
of the California Regional Center Program for Handicapped and Special
Needs Children in Orange County.
Mr. Godinez was a founding member of the Santa Ana League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Council and served on the Board of
Directors LULAC Foundation. He and the other Santa Ana LULAC members
were participants and supporters in the 1948 case of Mendez v. The
Board of Education, a monumental civil rights case ending
discriminatory practices against Mexican American children in Orange
County schools.
He guided our citizens through decades of change in California, both
as a public servant and an activist. Our lives as Orange County
residents are better for his life's work, and as his Congressional
representative, I feel obligated to seek this honor on his family and
community's behalf.
I believe it is only fitting to honor this man who gave so much to
his community and country. I hope my colleagues will support this bill
to name the Santa Ana U.S. Postal Processing Center after Hector
Godinez.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO GEORGE E. ``SHORTY'' McGRAW

______

HON. MARION BERRY

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great Arkansan.
This man served his country with intelligence, courage, and dedication,
Mr. George E. ``Shorty'' McGraw.
Mr. McGraw was born in 1918 in Gillett, Arkansas. He worked as an
auto mechanic until 1941, when he enlisted into the military. Mr.
McGraw went on to graduate from Air Mechanic School and Flight Engineer
School. He later served overseas with the Twentieth Air Force, 6th Bomb
Group. On July 20, 1945, while flying his 33rd mission, Mr. McGraw was
shot down and wounded. He was captured, beaten, and taken as a prisoner
of war until his release on his 27th birthday. Mr. McGraw later
attended Navigator Training School. He eventually retired as a Captain
in 1961 with a total of 10,000 flying hours over his twenty years of
service.
George E. ``Shorty'' McGraw is not only a wonderful citizen, neighbor
and friend, he is a brother, husband, father, grandfather and great-
grandfather. He is the heart and soul of his community. Captain McGraw
was recently bestowed with a Purple Heart for his selfless service of
his country. His devotion and love for his country never diminished.
Captain McGraw serves as an inspiration to all.

____________________

A DIPLOMAT'S DIPLOMAT RETURNS HOME

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, in a few days, Mr. Pat Hennessy, the
Political Counselor at the Irish Embassy here in Washington, returns
home for service in his government's Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA). The DFA's gain will be our loss here in America at a critical
point in Irish history.
Pat is known to many of us in the Congress, on both sides of the
isle, as a diplomat's diplomat. He previously served with distinction
in the Irish Consulate in New York City before his tenure at the Irish
Embassy here in Washington. In New York, he got to know and worked
closely with the large Irish American community and the many friends of
Ireland in America's largest and greatest city. He understands our
nation and people well.
Pat has worked tirelessly for lasting peace and justice in the north
of Ireland during his service in the U.S. He has also helped to advance
greater U.S.-Irish relations in many areas, whether cultural, economic
or otherwise.
During an important transition to Republican control of the House and
new congressional leadership in the cause of lasting peace and justice
in Ireland and improved U.S.-Irish relations, Pat did not miss a beat.
He treated all of those many friends of Ireland equally and fairly.
In 1997, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich reinvigorated the long dormant
Irish American interparliamentary exchange. Pat has played a vital role
in fostering and improving these parliamentary exchanges since then.
Our sessions on both sides of the Atlantic since 1997 have served to
further the bonds of friendship and understanding between the Congress
and the Dail, the Irish Parliament, in Dublin. They increased interest
in the Congress on events in Ireland, whether in the north, or the
Republic in the south with its booming economy and many American firms'
vast investment in the ``Celtic Tiger.''
The success of these legislative exchange programs is in no small
part due to Pat's efforts and the growing and expanding U.S.-Ireland
links in so many areas of common interest and support. We wish Pat and
his wife Pauline and their family much happiness and success as he
returns to Ireland.
Our door will always be open when Pat decides to return to America,
whenever or in whatever capacity.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE

of california

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday July 15, I was unavoidably
detained for rollcall No. 302. If I had been present, I would have
voted ``nay'' on this amendment.

____________________

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE

______

HON. DOUG BEREUTER

of nebraska

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends this editorial from
the July 15,

[[Page 16643]]

1999, Norfolk Daily News to his colleagues regarding the need for
development of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in light
of recent successful tests and North Korea's intention to launch a long
range missile capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii.

It Can Be Done--First ``Hit'' of Missile Intercept System an Indication
the Technology Does Work

In hindsight, it would appear that the media gave too
little coverage to a report several weeks ago that had U.S.
intelligence sources confirming that North Korea is preparing
a late-summer launch of its Taepo Dong 2 missile, an ICBM
capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii. This will make North
Korea one of only a few countries above to strike U.S. soil
with long-range missiles.
But what should be given even bigger coverage is the news
that the U.S. Army's new anti-missile system successfully
intercepted a target ballistic missile launched 120 miles
away in a test that was conducted last month.
Without using an explosive warhead, the interceptor
destroyed the incoming missile by crashing into it at an
altitude of almost 60 miles. What's called the Theater High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) is designed, however, to defeat
intermediate-range missiles. That means it will not be able
to stop North Korea's Taepo Dong 2. But it proves that ``hit-
to-kill'' technology can work, which is something critics of
missile defense have long denied.
The challenge now is to build an effective defense against
long-range missiles that builds on THAAD's success. This will
require much more development and testing, and much more
support from Congress and the Clinton administration.
The fact that it took the Army seven tests to score the
first THAAD ``hit'' is not an argument against missile
defense but an argument for investing more in anti-missile
technologies. It can be done, but it's a difficult
proposition.
Unfortunately, the United States cannot make progress as
long as the Clinton administration observes the restrictions
of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. As a matter
of international law the treaty is defunct since the United
States' signing partner, the Soviet Union, ceased to exist in
1991. Misplaced devotion for the ABM Treaty hampers the
development, testing and deployment of certain kinds of
missile defense, ensuring that any system will be less
capable than it otherwise could be.

____________________

IN MEMORY OF VICTORIA ``VIKKI'' BUCKLEY (1947-1999)

______

HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Colorado
State Secretary, Victoria ``Vikki'' Buckley: a wife and mother of
three, a public servant, a self made individual, and a leading citizen
of the Denver Metro Area, in Colorado, who passed away last week.
Vikky Buckley was a courageous political leader who worked in the
Secretary of State office for the citizens of Colorado for more than a
quarter century. Few realize that Vikki, a Denver Native, began working
in the secretary of state office 28 years earlier. She had been a
welfare mom and actively removed herself from a system that she
believed fosters dependency.
Many people have read about individuals who lift themselves through
their own dedication and efforts, but it is seldom that they rise so
quickly to an elected office. Vikki was educated in the Denver Public
Schools attending East High School. She continued her education at
Metro State College and then the Seible School of Engineering in
Englewood where she received an Associates Degree in drafting. She was
an active participant at Heritage Christian Center and in various
political organizations including the Aurora Republican Forum and the
Araphahoe County Republican Men's Club. She spoke frequently on issues
of community and inclusion from the perspective of an American woman
who happened to be black and Republican.
Elected Secretary of State in 1994, Vikki was the first American of
African descent elected to a statewide constitutional office in
Colorado. As a Republican, she was noted as the highest ranking African
American female holding statewide office in America. She has been
featured in publications from the controversial Limbaugh Letter (June
1999) to the Ladies Home Journal (``Against All Odds'').
She was a rising star that believed in making government work for
people. She was loved by friends and admired for her courage of
conviction. My heart goes out to her entire family upon their loss. I
am honored to have known Vikki.
Governor Bill Owens released the following statement, ``I join all
Coloradans in being deeply saddened by the untimely passing of Colorado
Secretary of State Vikki Buckley. She overcame many challenges in life
and achieved high office in our state through determination and hard
work. Vikki's competitive spirit paved the way for her election as
Colorado's first African-American Secretary of State. Frances and I and
our three three children express our profound sympathy to Vikki's
family on behalf of all Coloradans and our appreciation for her many
years of service to our state.''
Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show
that Vikki Buckley was a tireless advocate for the people of Colorado,
and a friend of America.

____________________

THE MEAL TAX REDUCTION ACT

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the
Meal Tax Reduction Act. This legislation, which I also introduced in
the last session of Congress, is designed to alleviate some of the tax
code inequities that hurt the food service industry. As many of my
colleagues know, the food service industry is the only business
specifically excluded from normal business expense deduction rules. My
legislation is aimed at restoring fairness to current law.
The Meal Tax Reduction Act would partially restore the deduction
permitted for meals and entertainment expenses to 80 percent. While I
believe we should eventually reinstate the meal tax to 100 percent,
this legislation takes the first steps to gradually restore the tax to
at least the pre-1993 level of 80 percent.
Under the Balanced Budget Act, transportation workers can already
deduct a higher percentage of their meal expenses than other workers,
and transport workers will eventually be able to deduct 80 percent of
their food expenses. My legislation would simply extend the deductions
already put in place for the transportation industry, so that fairness
is ensured for everyone.
This important legislation would eventually allow someone starting a
small business, working away from home on a construction job, or
traveling away on business to take a reasonable tax deduction for food
expenses.
Since the law was changed in 1993 to a 50 percent meal tax deduction
there has been a notable has had a negative effect on the restaurant
sector of our economy. And the restaurant industry employs millions of
people. Restoring the meal tax deduction would help create new jobs in
our economy, often for people who are trying to enter the workforce for
the first time. If welfare to work is to be fully implemented, we need
to create the kind of entry level positions and entrepreneurial
opportunities that are often the first steps up the ladder to the
American Dream.
In addition, law penalizes and de-legitimizes the food service. The
Meal Tax Reduction Act would begin moving the restaurant industry
toward parity with other businesses. The act immediately increases the
meal tax deduction to 60 percent next year, and eventually to 80
percent by the year 2008. My legislation gradually fixes the meal tax
inequity.
Lastly, I want to note that since the introduction of my legislation
last year, that support for meal tax equity has been steadily
increasing. In fact, Chairman Bill Archer of the Ways and Means
Committee has included meal tax reductions in his comprehensive tax
plan tat are very similar to legislation for which I have been
advocating. There is nothing like an idea whose time has come.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUTING AND AIR QUALITY ACT

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, traffic congestion and lack of mobility
threatens not only our nation's prosperity, but quality of life and the
family unit. That is why today, I am introducing the ``National
Telecommuting and Air Quality Act,'' a bill designed to reduce both air
pollution and traffic congestion.
Efforts around the country to widen existing facilities and construct
new bridges and highways and improve mass transit are essential.
However, improved and expanded use of new technologies is also
essential to meeting transportation needs.

[[Page 16644]]

Telecommuting is also part of the answer to reducing traffic
congestion and air pollution and easing the strain on families trying
to find time to raise children and make ends meet from one payday to
the next. It's also part of good environmental stewardship and energy
conservation. Many jobs can be performed as well or better at home
through the use of computers, faxes, email, and telephones than at an
office or in other work centers.
Mr. Speaker, telecommuting, by large numbers of employees, has many
positive bi-products to which I would like to draw my colleagues'
attention.
Traffic congestion: In cities such as Los Angeles and Washington,
D.C. (Numbers 1 and 2 on the gridlock list), telecommuting could reduce
peak commuter traffic. According to research, 40 percent of the
nation's workforce have jobs which are compatible with telecommuting.
This reduction would come without paving one more lane of highway or
adding one more bus or subway car. That saves money and makes
everyone's life better.
Air pollution: Automobiles produce about 30 percent of urban smog.
Telecommuting could take a large bite out of air pollution (including
nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, volatile
organic compounds and carbon dioxide). The result helps now and leaves
a better world for our kids.
Family wellness: Telecommuting gives workers more time to spend at
home. Parents could care for infants or small children while they work.
The stress of what to do with an ill relative--an older parent
afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, for example--can be lessened.
Working moms and dads could be better and more nurturing parents
without having to leave the workforce. Instead of choices, there are
good choices.
Benefits to the handicapped: People with handicaps who lead
productive and useful lives, but decide that the hassle of getting to
and from work just isn't worth it, could be in the mainstream of the
workforce through telecommuting.

Energy conservation: Our nation remains heavily dependent on foreign
oil, which is directly related to our culture of two- or more- car
families and daily driving habits. Replacing the daily commute with
telecommuting would reduce national oil consumption and help reduce
dependency on foreign oil.
Telecommuting is the information age's answer to traffic congestion,
environmental stewardship and strengthening the family. Studies have
shown that telecommuting works to increase both employee productivity
and morale, which in turn helps the business bottom line. The concept
is a win-win proposal for reducing traffic congestion and improving air
quality--at virtually no cost to the federal government. Problems of
employees shortfalls are also eased--people leaving the workforce for
personal reasons would be less inclined to do so. But outside of the
communications industry and some participation in the high-tech
community, American businesses have not yet caught the vision-and the
benefits of telecommuting.
I believe the ``National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act'' can
help.
The idea is to develop pilot programs to urge employers to encourage
and allow their employees to telecommute. That, in turn, helps reduce
regional traffic congestion and air pollution, and also enables the
region to build new bridges and parkways within clean air regulations.
The goal is to provide an incentive for the public and private sectors
to use telecommuting.
The centerpiece of the telecommuting pilot project is a voluntary
pollution credits trading program to explore the feasibility of using
``profit incentives'' to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution.
The idea works like this: millions of people nationwide get in their
cars each morning and drive to work. This causes air pollution, and
urban smog (nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxides, etc.) often referred to
as ozone precursors. Yet there is little incentive for the private
sector to become involved to reduce air pollution causing traffic.
There is no monetary value placed on reducing this source of air
pollution from a private sector business standpoint.
The pilot program would establish an air pollution credits trading
program in which small and large businesses, non-profit organizations,
federal and state governments, schools and universities, or any other
employer, can acquire credits by voluntarily participating in an
employee telecommuting program. Participating employers receive
pollution credits for a portion of the reduced pollutants which they
can then sell on an exchange similar to a commodities exchange.

Manufacturers and utility companies are currently regulated under the
Clean Air Act and under increased pressure to reduce air pollutants
from both the federal government and states which are struggling to
develop implementation plans that improve air quality while allowing
economic growth. Pollution credits trading is in practice today with
sulfur dioxides (SOXs), which were mandated to be reduced under the
Clean Air Act. Trading occurs between utility companies and
manufacturing operations.
If the air pollution credit trading program were in place, a
participating employer which allowed its employees to telecommute on a
regular basis would receive a pollution reduction credit for keeping
those cars off the road and would be able to sell a portion of those
credits for cash on a trading exchange. The size or value of the credit
would be determined by the estimated pollution reduction.
Any number of groups could buy the credits including utilities or
other regulated entities under the Clean Air Act. Even environmental
groups might want to buy pollution credits and hold on to them. The net
result is reduced air pollution and traffic congestion, and most
importantly an improvement in quality of life--more time with the
family and less time on the road in traffic. And if all the studies are
correct, these gains will be made with no loss of worker productivity.
In fact, studies indicate telecommuting increases productivity.
The bill provides a grant to the National Environmental Policy
Institute to work with the Department of Transportation, the
Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy to develop, in
conjunction with regional businesses and local governments, a
telecommuting clean air credits trading program in major metropolitan
regions in the country confronted with significant traffic congestion.
Included in the pilot will be the Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles,
California, metropolitan regions, the top two most congested regions in
the nation, and several other heavily congested areas.
Mr. Speaker, the reason for the pilot program is two-fold. First, as
chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee and as
a representative of one of the fastest growing regions in the country,
I understand today's serious transportation needs. Loudoun County,
Virginia, in my district, is the third fastest growing county in the
nation. Between 1976 and 1997 Loudoun County's population has shot up
175 percent. Those of you familiar with Tysons Corner may be interested
that in 1976 it had 3.5 million square feet of office space. Today
there is more than 21 million square feet of office space, a 500
percent increase.
With this rapid and sustained growth, it should be no surprise that
Washington is the second most traffic congested region in the country.
Spending an hour and a half commuting each way to work is typical for
many area residents.
Also, I have long been an advocate of ``family-friendly'' workplace
policies, particularly with the federal government. Families today are
under so much daily stress and are faced with too many difficult
challenges. Perhaps the most frustrating part of an hour and a half
commute is that in many cases it could have been avoided. I think it is
even more frustrating when both parents are working. Today's moms and
dads are challenged to race home and get a hot meal on the table so
they can sit, eat and talk together as a family.
In the 101st Congress, I was a part of a successful effort to
authorize and fund a metro-wide federal telecenter program which now
boasts a total of 17 regional federal telecenters. There are seven
telecenters in Northern Virginia, including one of the first
telecenters to open in the Shenandoah Valley TeleBusiness Center in
Winchester, Virginia. The centers are up and running with the latest
technologies and technical support staff on hand. The next logical step
is to get the public and private sectors involved in a wider
telecommuting effort for their employees who can take advantage of
cutting-edge technology to work from home.
I have talked with leaders in the high-technology community about
this telecommuting and air quality project. I have urged participation
of industry leaders such as ATT, Litton Corporation, AOL, Orbital, and
Science Application International Corporation and would encourage them
to join in a symposium this fall on telecommuting initiatives for the
Washington metropolitan region. The symposium would be part of the
TeleWork America initiative spearheaded by the International Telework
Association and Council.
Any weekday morning, you can see the traffic back up along the Dulles
Toll Road with high-tech buildings dotting the landscape along the
corridor. If anyone can show how successful telecommuting can be, these
are the businesses to lead the way.
Clearly, as we are poised to enter the 21st Century--the
``Information Age''--telecommuting has a place. I have heard it said
that

[[Page 16645]]

work is something you do, not someplace you go. A pollution reduction
credit trading program will provide the incentive for the private
sector to lead the way in the telecommuting effort.
Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues will look at this bill and
consider signing on as a cosponsor of this proposal to promote cleaner
air and less traffic congestion.

H.R. --

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Telecommuting and
Air Quality Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PILOT PROGRAM REGARDING
TELECOMMUTING AS MEANS OF IMPROVING AIR
QUALITY.

(a) In General.--
(1) Grant for design of pilot program.--The Secretary of
Transportation (in this section referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall make a grant to a nonprofit private
entity that is knowledgeable on matters relating to air
quality for the purpose of developing a design for the
proposed pilot program described in subsection (b). The grant
shall be made to the National Environmental Policy Institute
(a nonprofit private entity incorporated under the laws of
and located in the District of Columbia), if such Institute
submits an application for the grant.
(2) Administration of Program.--The Secretary shall carry
out this section (including subsection (c)(1)(C)) in
collaboration with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy.
(b) Proposed Ozone Precursor Credit-Trading Pilot
Program.--
(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(A) The term ``participating employers'' means employers
that voluntarily authorize and engage in telecommuting.
(b) The term ``telecommuting'' means the use of
telecommunications to perform work functions under
circumstances in which the use of telecommunications reduces
or eliminates the need to commute.
(C) The term ``regulated entities'' means entities that are
regulated under the Clean Air Act with respect to emissions
of one or more ozone precursors.
(D) The term ``ozone precursors'' means air pollutants that
are precursors of (ground level) ozone.
(E) The term ``VMTs'' means vehicle-miles-traveled.
(2) Description of program.--For purposes of subsection
(a)(1) and other provisions of this section, the proposed
pilot program described in this subsection is a pilot program
under which the following would occur:
(A) Methods would be evaluated and developed for
calculating reductions in emissions of ozone precursors that
can be achieved as a result of reduced VMTs by telecommuting
employees of participating employers.
(B) the estimated reductions in such emissions for the
periods of time involved would be deemed to be items that may
be transferred by such employers to other persons, and for
such purpose the employers would be issued certificates
indicating the amount of the reductions achieved for the
periods (referred to in this section as ``emission
credits'').
(C) A commercial trading and exchange forum would be made
available to the public for trading and exchanging emission
credits.
(D) Through the commercial trading and exchange forum, or
through direct trades and exchanges with persons who hold the
credits, regulated entities would obtain emission credits.
(E) Regulated entities would present emission credits to
the Federal Government or to the State involved (as
applicable under the Clean Air Act) and the amounts of
reductions in emissions of ozone precursors represented by
the credits would for purposes of the Clean Air Act be deemed
to assist in achieving compliance.
(F) The Federal Government would (explore means) to
facilitate the transfer of emission credits between
participating employers and regulated and other entities.
(c) Sites for Operation of Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the design
developed under subsection (a) includes (recommendations for)
carrying out the proposed pilot program described in
subsection (b) in each of the following geographic areas:
(A) The greater metropolitan region of the District of
Columbia (including areas in the States of Maryland and
Virginia).
(B) The greater metropolitan region of Los Angeles, in the
State of California.
(C) Three additional areas to be selected by the Secretary,
after consultation with the grantee under subsection (a).
(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall require that, in
carrying out paragraph (1) with respect to a geographic area,
the grantee under subsection (a) consult with local
governments and business organizations in the geographic
area.
(d) Study and Report.--The Secretary shall require that, in
developing the design under subsection (a), the grantee under
such subsection study and report to the Congress and to the
Secretary the potential significance of the proposed pilot
program described in subsection (b) as an incentive for
expanding telecommuting and reducing VMTs in the geographic
areas for which the design is developed, and the extent to
which the program would have positive effects on--
(1) national, State, and local transportation and
infrastructure policies;
(2) energy conservation and consumption;
(3) national, State, and local air quality; and
(4) individual, family, and community quality of life.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
making the grant under subsection (a), there is authorized to
be appropriated $250,000 for fiscal year 2000. Amounts
appropriated under the preceding sentence are available until
expended.

____________________

STATEMENT ON THE 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMIA BOMBING

______

HON. NITA M. LOWEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, we have seen a
horrifying increase in terrorist attacks around the world. Extremists
in every corner of the globe have carried out violent, deadly attacks
on innocent civilians in the Middle East, Latin America, the United
States, and elsewhere.
One of the worst terrorist attacks in the 1990s was the bombing of
the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. July 18,
1999 marks the fifth anniversary of this cowardly attack on the Jewish
community of Argentina, which tragically took the lives of 86 people,
and injured over 200 more.
I rise today to honor the memory of the victims of the AMIA bombing;
to pay tribute to the families of those victims, who have carried on
with tremendous strength and courage; and to join them in their call
for justice.
Mr. Speaker, although it has been five years since the AMIA bombing--
and seven years since the bombing of the Israel Embassy in Buenos
Aires, which killed 29 people--the perpetrators of these terrorist
attacks have not yet been brought to justice.
Last year, I had the privilege of visiting Buenos Aires and meeting
with representatives of the Jewish community there. I stood with
members of Memoria Activa, AMIA, DAIA, and others affected by these
bombings, and I joined them in their demand that the Argentine
government do more to arrest and prosecute those responsible for these
terrible attacks. But our calls have gone unanswered.
The absence of swift and sure justice for the terrorists who carried
out these attacks is a tragic mockery of the memory of those who lost
their lives. A terrorist attack anywhere in the world is a threat to
all of us. And a terrorist attack that goes unpunished, is an
invitation for these cowards to strike again.
Mr. Speaker, today we honor the memory of the victims of the AMIA
bombing. The greatest gift we can give to their friends and family is
to bring their killers to justice. I can upon our own government and
the Argentine government to do everyting in their power to close this
horrible chapter in our fight against terror.

____________________

HALTING THE ANTHRAX VACCINATION PROGRAM, H.R. 2548

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 2548, a bill
to halt the implementation of the Department of Defenses' Anthrax
Vaccination Program. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
worthy legislation.
This legislation would halt the continued implementation of the
force-wide Anthrax Vaccination Program within the Department of
Defense. As my colleagues may know, this program was the result of a
decision reached by the Secretary of Defense early last year that
mandatory vaccination of all personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces was
necessary.
Concerns about the program began shortly after its implementation
earlier this year and have increased as the number of troops receiving
the vaccine has increased. These problems attracted the attention of
the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, which
initiated a series of hearings in March. To date, the subcommittee has
had three hearings, with a fourth scheduled for this week.
The congressional hearings held in March, April, and June have raised
a number of concerns about the vaccination program including

[[Page 16646]]

its purpose, its value, the manner in which it is being carried out,
and its effects on those who serve in uniform. These concerns have been
heightened by recent media reports and information circulating among
those affected by the vaccine. Subsequently, my office, and those of
many of my colleagues, has received an increasing number of contacts
from concerned constituents, both members of the Armed Forces, as well
as their distraught parents or relatives.
The Secretary of Defense set out four specific conditions that had to
be met before the vaccination program could start: First, supplemental
testing to assure sterility, safety, potency, and purity of the vaccine
stockpile; second, implementation of a system for fully tracking
anthrax immunizations; third, approval of operational plans to
administer the vaccine and communications plans to inform military
personnel; and fourth, review of medical aspects of the program by an
independent expert.

According to the hearing testimony before the subcommittee, none of
these conditions was satisfactorily addressed before the vaccine
program was implemented.
The most prominent concern raised relates to the overall
effectiveness of the vaccine. The FDA approval cited by the Defense
Department was for a vaccine that was designed to protect workers in
the woolen industry from cutaneous contact with anthrax spores.
Conversely, the primary anthrax threat facing military personnel is not
from cutaneous, but weaponized versions of the bacteria, which are
inhaled by their victims. There has been little or no testing of the
vaccine's effectiveness in humans against this form of anthrax. Some
testing has been done on animals with mixed results, the most promising
returns coming from laboratory monkeys. However, to assume a drug that
has achieved moderately successful results in primates will have a
similar response with humans is only the start of basic research, not a
definitive conclusion based on solid scientific evidence.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence from the Defense
Department that this vaccine would be effective against altered or
multiple anthrax strains. Given that the Soviet Union placed a high
priority on the development of the deliverable multiple anthrax
strains, this is a legitimate concern. Analysis of tissue samples from
Russians killed in an accidental anthrax release from a production
facility in the 1970's have indicated infection from a combination of
individual strains.
A second major concern relates to the overall safety of the vaccine.
As with any drug, there are concerns about harmful side effects. Since
1970, the primary recipients of the vaccine have been several thousand
mill workers and mostly DOD researchers. This limited civilian usage of
the drug has resulted in limited evidence of adverse reactions. The one
exception to this was the inoculation of approximately 150,000 gulf war
troops. However, the Defense Department's poor recordkeeping after the
gulf war has made gleaning any useful information about the vaccine's
effectiveness or harmful side effects impossible. In fact, a Senate
committee studying gulf war illness in the 103rd Congress did not rule
out the use of the vaccine as a cause of gulf war syndrome.
Thus, it is premature to conclude that a drug used on several
thousand individuals with a small incidence of adverse effects is safe
to administer to 2.5 million military personnel. A simple overall 2
percent rate would yield 50,000 adverse reactions each and every year.
This is an unacceptably high rate (more on the DOD reported reaction
rate later). It is also completely unknown what will be the effect of
cumulative annual boosters, let alone the combined effects from 15 or
so other biological warfare vaccines under development. I ask, Mr.
Speaker, what other force protection program has, as a built-in
component, such a high casualty rate and unknown level of future risk?

Questions regarding the safety of the vaccine are appropriate given
the history of the production of the vaccine. The original manufacturer
of the vaccine, Michigan Biologics Products Institute (MBPI),
``voluntarily'' closed down in March 1998, in order to make $1.8
million renovations. Prior to this, MBPI had been cited repeatedly by
the FDA for quality control problems and manufacturing violations
dating back to 1990.
The subcommittee briefing from the April 29 hearing, stated that the
vaccine ``is dangerous enough that the manufacturer demanded, and
received, indemnification from the Army against the possibility that
persons vaccinated may develop anaphylaxis or some unforseen reaction
of serious consequences, including death. Private indemnity insurance
was considered too costly.'' If the manufacturer was highly concerned
about potential civil litigation, why was the Defense Department so
quick to convey the message that the vaccine was safe for general use?
This is a question that needs to be addressed.
There are additional concerns related to the tracking system being
implemented with this vaccine. The gulf war experience illustrated the
need for a comprehensive tracing system to measure the potential side
effects of the multiple vaccinations often administered to soldiers
being deployed overseas. While I understand that such a tracking system
has been developed for this program, there have been several reports of
individuals being inoculated with expired lots of the vaccine, to the
significant detriment of their health as recorded in testimony and the
media.
Moreover, it appears that adverse exclusionary categories, such as
respiratory conditions, previous reactions, chills and fever, and
pregnancy are not being adequately reviewed by the personnel in charge
of administering the shots. Rather, the subcommittee has received
reports that many of those administering the vaccine are simply
glossing over communicating the exclusionary requirements in an effort
to inoculate as many individuals as rapidly as possible. Likewise,
there is evidence suggesting that the reporting of adverse reactions
among troops who have received the vaccine, is being discouraged, so as
not to cause undue alarm in those units which have not received their
first round of shots.

In that same regard, the official Defense Department's reported
reaction rates of between .0002 percent and .007 percent this year is
not reassuring. The subcommittee has received reports that vaers forms
are not available to service members, not filled out, or not forwarded.
FDA and JAMA sources indicate extremely low percentages of reactions
are ever reported anyway, and the military's record of reaction reports
with the 1970's swine flu vaccine is far below that of civilian rates.
Given these qualifiers, it seems the DOD-reported reactions rates
should, at least, be accompanied by reasonable disclaimers.
There is also some uncertainty with the operational plans to
administer the vaccine. There appears to be some confusion with
deadlines as some units begin their shots and frequent deadline
adjustments for unit personnel to receive their shots. Some of those
deadline adjustments appear due to commander fear of excessive
personnel losses because of the vaccine. Additionally, as Reserve
Component personnel express an interest in transferring or terminating
their participation because of the vaccine, the subcommittee has heard
that they are met with delays, instructions to not list the vaccine as
a reason, and even threats of poor evaluation reports. If members are
convinced after careful research that a policy truly threatens their
civilian livelihood, they should be allowed to communicate the truth
about their perspective.
Moreover, the Reserve Officers Association has recommended that all
National Guard and Reserve units should receive shots from lots of
newly made vaccine. The ROA is chartered by Congress to review Defense
policies to ensure their adequacy. Since they represent 80,000 current,
experienced, and retired Reservists, their opinion should be considered
carefully. Given that Bioport Corp. is not due to begin distribution of
new vaccine until next year, and Guard and Reserve units are currently
being vaccinated, it appears that DOD has rejected this recommendation.
Lastly, there are serious reservations about the independent review
of the medical aspects of the vaccination program. The reviewer in
question, Dr. Gerald N. Burrow, has been cited by the Defense
Department as approving of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.
Yet in a letter to the subcommittee dated April 26, 1999, Dr. Burrow
stated:

The Defense Department was looking for someone to review
the program in general and make suggestions, and I accepted
out of patriotism. I was very clear that I had no expertise
in anthrax and they were very clear they were looking for
a general oversight of the vaccination program . . . I had
no access to classified information. The suggestions I
made were to utilize focus groups to be sure the message
they wanted to send to force personnel was being heard,
and to use the vaccination tracking system as a reminder
for subsequent vaccinations. I had no further contact
after delivering my report and do not know whether my
suggestions were implemented.

Given that the independent reviewer was admittedly not an expert in
the field of anthrax, how can the Defense Department stand by his
earlier claims that the vaccine was safe for distribution and the
``best protection against wild-type anthrax?'' Given past poor
credibility in these issues, the history with gulf war illnesses, and
the enormous potential risk to our entire population of uniformed
defenders, why was this individual, and not someone with a background
in large vaccination programs or biological agents like anthrax,
selected for the

[[Page 16647]]

independent review? These are questions that the Secretary of Defense
needs to answer.
Mr. Speaker, it bears mentioning that several of our allies have
taken a different approach to this issue. The United Kingdom has a
voluntary vaccine policy for anthrax, which yields only an estimated 30
percent cooperation. The Canadians have faced the similar controversies
to our program, and even more severe logistics problems with their
vaccine, and are not currently administering it to their troops.
Furthermore, it should be noted that Israel, which is conceivably at
the greatest risk in the middle east and has received Scud attacks,
does not rely on vaccines, but antibiotics.
Moreover, our own State Department, which arguably has more personnel
risk because embassies are less well protected than military units, has
only a voluntary policy. It is almost inescapable that this policy
appears as a captive research market. Why in light of everyone else's
lack of forced inoculations is it necessary to put U.S. service member
trust on the line when two surveys have indicated that 80 percent of
the civilian and military respondents oppose the program?
Above and beyond the specific concerns mentioned here, we are
concerned about the public perception of the anthrax vaccination
program and its impacts on service member morale. We must ensure that
this single force protection measure which addresses only one of myraid
of biological threats is not itself a more real threat to our citizens
in uniform.
This legislation would accomplish this goal by requiring a suspension
of the anthrax vaccine program until an independent study by the
National Institutes of Health is conducted on both the safety and
effectiveness of the vaccine. This study would review the claim being
made by the Defense Department concerning both the effectiveness of the
vaccine against airborne anthrax as well as on the low incidence of
harmful side effects.

In addition, the legislation would require a second study by the
General Accounting Office, on the effect of the vaccination program on
service morale, focusing specifically on recruiting and retention
issues in National Guard units.
Should these studies show that the vaccine is indeed effective
against weaponized anthrax, is produced in a safe, controlled manner
acceptable to the FDA, and does not have an unacceptably high systemic
reaction rate, Congress may authorize the resumption of the program.
Until these questions are answered however, our service men and women
should not be subjected to a mandatory vaccination program with so many
unknowns.
To allow the program to continue without these concerns being
addressed, would not only be irresponsible, it would be, for those of
us in Congress, an abdication of our oversight authority. As it
currently stands, the anthrax vaccination program simply has too many
unknowns. It may or may not work as advertised, and in doing so, may
fulfill the old cliche of the cure being worse than the illness.
Given that our allies have seen fit to either make their programs
voluntary, or eliminate them altogether, we owe our men and women in
uniform a closer look at the effects of our program.
Accordingly I urge my colleagues to join in support of this measure,
H.R. 2548.

H.R. 2548

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Anthrax Vaccination Moratorium Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) a single force protection measure such as the mandatory
anthrax vaccine immunization program should not be
implemented by the Department of Defense without regard for
that measure's own effects on morale, retention, recruiting,
and budget; and
(2) an insufficiently proven vaccine should not be
advocated as a substitute for research, development, and
production of truly effective vaccines and essential
antibiotics, adequate personal protective equipment,
detection devices, and nonproliferation measures.

SEC. 3. MORATORIUM OF VACCINATION PROGRAM.

The Secretary of Defense shall suspend implementation of
the anthrax vaccination program of the Department of Defense.
After the date of the enactment of this Act, no further
vaccination may be administered under the program to any
member of the Armed Forces except in accordance with this
Act.

SEC. 4. STUDY BY NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes of
Health shall require the appropriate national research
institute to conduct or oversee an independent study of the
effectiveness and safety of the vaccine used in the
Department of Defense anthrax vaccination program.
(2) Matters to be studied.--The Director shall include in
the study under paragraph (1) determination of the following
with respect to that vaccine:
(A) Types and severity of adverse reactions.
(B) Long-term health implications, including interactions
with other (existing and planned vaccines and medications.
(C) Efficacy of the anthrax vaccine for protecting humans
against all the strains of anthrax pathogens members of the
Armed Forces are likely to encounter.
(D) Correlation of animal models to safety and
effectiveness in humans.
(E) Validation of the manufacturing process focusing on,
but not limited to, discrepancies identified by the Food and
Drug Administration in February 1998 (especially with respect
to the filter used in the harvest of anthrax vaccine, storage
times, and exposure to room temperature).
(F) Definition of vaccine components in terms of the
protective antigen and other bacterial products and
constituents.
(G) Such other matters as are in the judgment of the
Director required in order for the Director to make the
determinations required by subsection (b).
(3) Limitation.--The Director may not use for purposes of
the study any data arising from the experience of inoculating
members of the Armed Forces with the vaccine studied because
of the lack of informed consent and inadequate recordkeeping
associated with such inoculations.
(b) Report.--Upon completion of the study, the Director of
the National Institutes of Health shall submit to the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and to the Secretary of Defense a report setting
forth the results of the study. The report shall include the
Director's determination, based upon the results of the
study, as to each of the following:
(1) Whether or not the vaccine used in the Department of
Defense anthrax vaccination program has an unacceptably high
systemic reaction rate.
(2) Whether or not the vaccine is effective with respect to
noncutaneous transfer of anthrax.
(3) Whether or not the vaccine will be produced in a manner
acceptable to the Food and Drug Administration.

SEC. 5. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study of the inoculation program referred to in section 3 and
of the effect of the use of contractor-operated facilities
for that program. As part of the study, the Comptroller
General shall study the following with respect to the
inoculation program:
(1) Effects on military morale, retention, and recruiting.
(2) Civilian costs and burdens associated with lack of
military medical care and loss of civilian sick leave and
work capacity for members of the reserve components who
experience adverse reactions while not in military status.
(3) A system of accurately recording medical conditions of
members of the Armed Forces and other patients before and
after inoculation, including off-duty reactions and treatment
of reserve component members and including screening for
allergens and contraindication, to include prior adverse
reactions.
(b) Public Comments.--The Comptroller General shall publish
the study under subsection (a) for public comment.
(b) GAO Review.--The Comptroller General shall review the
Secretary's written report and provide comments to Congress
within 75 days after the Secretary files the report.

SEC. 6. BOARDS FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS.

The Secretary of Defense shall direct that the respective
Boards for Correction of Military Records of the military
departments shall, upon request by individual members or
former members of the Armed Forces, expedite consideration of
applications for remedies for adverse personnel actions (both
voluntary and involuntary) that were a result of the
mandatory anthrax vaccine immunization program, to including
rescission of administrative discharges and separation,
rescission of retirements and transfers, restoration of
flying status, back pay and allowances, expunging of negative
performance appraisal comment or ratings, and granting of
physical disability certificates.

SEC. 7. CONTINGENT RESUMPTION OF VACCINATION PROGRAM.

(a) Contingent Authority for Resumption.--If the Director
of the National Institutes of Health determines in the report
under section 3(b) that the vaccine used in the anthrax
vaccination program of the Department of Defense meets each
of the criteria stated in subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may resume the Department of Defense anthrax
vaccination program. Any such resumption may not begin until
the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the
submission of the report under section 3(b).
(b) Criteria for Program Resumption.--the criteria referred
to in subsection (a) are the following:

[[Page 16648]]

(1) That the vaccine used in the Department of Defense
anthrax vaccination program does not have an unacceptably
high systemic reaction rate.
(2) That the vaccine is effective with respect to
noncutaneous transfer of anthrax.
(3) That the vaccine will be produced in a manner
acceptable to the Food and Drug Administration.
(e) Requirement for Use of New Vaccine.--If the anthrax
vaccination program is resumed under subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense may only use newly produced vaccine for
vaccinations after the resumption of the program.

____________________

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2000

______

speech of

HON. TOM BLILEY

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 14, 1999

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2466) making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, section 322 of H.R. 2466 is a funding
limitation to prevent monies appropriated under the bill to be used by
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
for spectrum purposes, GSA Telecommunication Centers, or the
President's Council on Sustainable Development. I rise in opposition to
this provision's applicability to NTIA's spectrum functions because of
its potential impact on telecommunications policy and efficient use of
the radio spectrum by government users.
Spectrum management issues fall within the jurisdiction of the
Commerce Committee. As our Members have learned over the years,
spectrum management is a complex task that requires detailed and
analysis and consideration. Under the current process, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) oversees the use of spectrum by private
entities and NTIA oversees the use of spectrum by government entities,
including the Department of Interior.
NTIA currently is required to be reimbursed by all federal agencies
for the spectrum management functions NTIA does on behalf of the
agencies. Today, federal agencies typically reimburse NTIA for about 80
percent of the costs associated with spectrum management. Since its
inception, reimbursement by federal agencies to NTIA for spectrum
functions has had a positive impact on the spectrum efficiency of
federal agencies. Putting a cost on government spectrum has caused
agencies to reassess exactly how much spectrum and what precise
frequencies they need to complete their mission. This cost, however, is
not an attempt to decrease or interfere with the valuable functions
that federal agencies use spectrum for. In practice, the concept has
promoted spectrum efficiency and promoted the efficiency of NTIA's
spectrum management functions.
Section 322 would, in effect, prohibit the Department of Interior
from reimbursing NTIA for spectrum functions. The Department of the
Interior has already been required to reimburse NTIA since FY1996 and
had to take into account such provisions prior to submitting a budget
request to the Congress for FY2000. Section 322 is a direct effort to
undermine the reimbursement effort and provides the Department of
Interior with extra funding for other purposes for FY2000 that they
wouldn't have otherwise. Providing the Department of the Interior with
a statutory mechanism to avoid paying its fair share for spectrum
management functions is not sound policy.
Further, section 322 could harm the Department of Interior's use of
spectrum because under current restrictions NTIA is prohibited from
providing any spectrum functions to a federal agency that does not
reimburse NTIA for such functions. To the extent that the Department of
Interior does not have funding outside of the monies provided in H.R.
2466, the Congress may be limiting the spectrum functions and
capabilities of the Department of Interior. In effect, this provision
may be prohibiting the Department of Interior from reimbursing NTIA for
spectrum functions and as a result preventing the Department of
Interior from using spectrum.
The Commerce Committee intends to move legislation reauthorizing NTIA
this session. In particular, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection is considering legislation to codify the
current reimbursement practices and expand on the level of
reimbursement from federal agencies to 100 percent. If any effort is
necessary to adjust, alter, or exempt any federal agency from
reimbursing NTIA for spectrum functions it should be through this
vehicle and not through an appropriations bill.
Accordingly, I believe that section 322 may have a negative impact on
spectrum policy. The Commerce Committee will be active to ensure that
the inclusion of any provision within the final version of this bill
not interfere or cause harm to telecommunications policy. I
respectfully request that these concerns be taken into account during
further consideration of this legislation.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 19, 1999

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 15, I inadvertently voted
``nay'' when I meant to vote ``aye'' on rollcall vote 303, the Lowey
amendment to H.R. 2490, the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY 00) Treasury-Postal
Appropriations Act.
I support the provision in H.R. 2490 to require Federal Employee
Health Benefit Plans (FEHBP) which provide prescription plans to
include coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices.
I oppose the amendment offered by Congressman Chris Smith to allow
health plans to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage by claiming
a ``moral conviction.'' I was happy to see the passage of the Lowey
substitute amendment to strike this exemption for health plans.
It is my hope the Lowey amendment will help reduce unwanted
pregnancies while providing women with contraceptive coverage. While
the FY 00 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act covers only women in the
FEHBP, I believe it is a positive step forward in ensuring
contraceptive coverage is available to women in a majority of health
plans.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2120, the Equity in Prescription and
Contraceptive Coverage Act, introduced by Representatives Jim Greenwood
and Nita Lowey, I will continue to work to provide access to family
planning services.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, July 20, 1999 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

JULY 21
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 985, to amend the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act.
SD-106
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings on the nomination of William Rainer to
be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
and to conduct an oversight review of the farmland
protection program.
SR-328A
Armed Services
To hold hearings on the nomination of F. Whitten Peters,
of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of the Air
Force; and the nomination of Arthur L. Money, of
Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
SR-222
Environment and Public Works
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water Subcommittee
To continue hearings on the habitat conservation plans.
SD-406

[[Page 16649]]

10 a.m.
Budget
To continue hearings to review the President's budget for
fiscal year 2000.
SD-608
Judiciary
To hold hearings on combatting methamphetamine
proliferation in America.
SD-628
Joint Economic Committee
To hold hearings to examine the financial structure of
the International Monetary Fund, focusing on IMF costs,
including quotas, reserves, gold holdings, and the
treatment of the IMF in the budget.
311 Cannon Building
Finance
Business meeting to continue markup of the proposed
Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999.
SH-216
Foreign Relations
East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings on issues relating to Taiwan-China
relations.
SD-419
2 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 1184, to authorize the Secretary
of Agriculture to dispose of land for recreation or
other public purposes; S. 1129, to facilitate the
acquisition of inholdings in Federal land management
units and the disposal of surplus public land; and H.R.
150, to amend the Act popularly known as the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act to authorize disposal of
certain public lands or national forest lands to local
education agencies for use for elementary or secondary
schools, including public charter schools.
SD-366
Governmental Affairs
International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the purpose of Russian space
launch quota.
SD-342
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To hold hearings to examine the scope of bribery and
corruption in the OSCE region.
SD-138
Judiciary
Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings on Federal asset forfeiture,
focusing on its role in fighting crime.
SD-628
3:30 p.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on the role of snactions in United
States National Security Policy.
SD-419
4:30 p.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on the nomination of J. Richard
Fredericks, of California, to be Ambassador to
Switzerland, and to serve concurrently and without
additional compensation as Ambassador to the
Principality of Liechntenstein; the nomination of
Barbara J. Griffiths, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Iceland; the nomination of Richard
Monroe Miles, of South Carolina, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Bulgaria; and the nomination of Carl
Spielvogel, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Slovak
Republic.
SD-419

JULY 22
9:30 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings on S. 835, to encourage the restoration
of estuary habitat through more efficient project
financing and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-
Federal restoration programs; S. 878, to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to permit grants
for the national estuary program to be used for the
development and implementation of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan, to reauthorize
appropriations to carry out the program; S. 1119, to
amend the Act of August 9, 1950, to continue funding of
the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act; S. 492, to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Act to assist in the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay; S. 522, to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to improve the quality of beaches
and coastal recreation water; and H.R.999, to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the
quality of coastal recreation waters.
SD-406
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings on the nomination of Curt Hebert, Jr.,
of Mississippi, to be a Member of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; and the nomination of Earl E.
Devaney, of Massachusetts, to be Inspector General,
Department of the Interior.
SD-366
10 a.m.
Year 2000 Technology Problem
To hold hearings on the impact of Year 2000 on global
corporations.
SD-192
Foreign Relations
Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings on the United State's policy with Iran.
SD-419
Judiciary
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-628
2 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 1320, to provide to the Federal
land management agencies the authority and capability
to manage effectively the Federal lands, focusing on
Title I and Title II, and related Forest Service land
management priorities.
SD-366
Intelligence
To hold closed hearings on pending intelligence matters.
SH-219
Finance
To hold hearings on the President's proposal to reform
Medicare and the modernization of the current benefit
package.
SD-106
Judiciary
To hold hearings on issues relating to cybersquatting and
consumer protection.
SD-628
2:30 p.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on the nomination of J. Brady Anderson,
of South Carolina, to be Administrator of the Agency
for International Development.
SD-419

JULY 23
10 a.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on the nomination of Michael A. Sheehan,
of New Jersey, to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
with the rank and status of Ambassador at Large.
SD-419

JULY 27
9:30 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings on agricultural concentration and anti-
trust issues.
SR-328A
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 719, to provide for the orderly
disposal of certain Federal land in the State of Nevada
and for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive
land in the State; S. 930, to provide for the sale of
certain public land in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to
the Clark County, Nevada, Department of Aviation; S.
1030, to provide that the conveyance by the Bureau of
Land Management of the surface estate to certain land
in the State of Wyoming in exchange for certain private
land will not result in the removal of the land from
operation of the mining laws; S. 1288, to provide
incentives for collaborative forest restoration
projects on National Forest System and other public
lands in New Mexico; and S. 1374, to authorize the
development and maintenance of a multiagency campus
project in the town of Jackson, Wyoming.
SD-366

JULY 28
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 979, to amend the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide
for further self-governance by Indian tribes.
SR-485
Energy and Natural Resources
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-366
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Water and Power Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 624, to authorize construction of
the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System in the
State of Montana; S. 1211, to amend the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional
measures to carry out the control of salinity upstream
of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner; S. 1275, to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to produce

[[Page 16650]]

and sell products and to sell publications relating to
the Hoover Dam, and to deposit revenues generated from
the sales into the Colorado River Dam fund; and S.
1236, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power
Act for commencement of the construction of the
Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the State of
Idaho.
SD-366

JULY 29
2:15 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation
Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 710, to authorize the feasibility
study on the preservation of certain Civil War
battlefields along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail; S.
905, to establish the Lackawanna Valley American
Heritage Area; S. 1093, to establish the Galisteo Basin
Archaeological Protection Sites, to provide for the
protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo
Basin of New Mexico; S. 1117, to establish the Corinth
Unit of Shiloh National Military Park, in the vicinity
of the city of Corinth, Mississippi, and in the State
of Tennessee; S. 1324, to expand the boundaries of the
Gettysburg National Military Park to include Wills
House; and S. 1349, to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct special resource studies to
determine the national significance of specific sites
as well as the suitability and feasibility of their
inclusion as units of the National Park System.
SD-366

AUGUST 3
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings on S. 1052, to implement further the Act
(Public Law 94-241) approving the Covenant to Establish
a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in
Political Union with the United States of America.
SD-366

AUGUST 4
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 299, to elevate the position of
Director of the Indian Health Service within the
Department of Health and Human Services to Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health; and S. 406, to amend the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act to make permanent
the demonstration program that allows for direct
billing of medicare, medicaid, and other third party
payors, and to expand the eligibility under such
program to other tribes and tribal organizations;
followed by a business meeting to consider pending
calendar business.
SR-485

SEPTEMBER 28
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold joint hearings with the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to review the legislative
recommendations of the American Legion.
345 Cannon Building

CANCELLATIONS

JULY 21
2 p.m.
Intelligence
To hold closed hearings on pending intelligence matters.
SH-219