Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 for September 23, 1999

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Issue]
[Pages 22319-22511]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

106

VOLUME 145--PART 16

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.

[[Page 22319]]

SENATE--Thursday, September 23, 1999

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was
called to order by the President pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Today's prayer will be offered by our
guest Chaplain, Dr. Wendell Estep, from Columbia, SC.
We are pleased to have you with us.
______

prayer

The guest Chaplain, Dr. Wendell R. Estep, First Baptist Church,
Columbia, SC, offered the following prayer:
Gracious Father and God, we bow before You with grateful hearts. As
King David prayed, ``Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that
Thou hast brought me this far?'' The positions of influence and service
that we enjoy have come as a trust from Your hand and we acknowledge
our ultimate responsibility to You.
Father, as I bring this body of men and women before You, I make two
requests: that You give them wisdom and that You give them courage to
act on that divine wisdom.
Gracious Savior, we desire Your blessings on America, but Your word
declares our responsibility: ``If My people who are called by My name
humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked
ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will
heal their land.''
Bless these Senators as they provide godly leadership. I pray in the
name of Jesus, my Lord. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable SLADE GORTON, a Senator from the State of Washington,
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 MAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
I yield for some comments with regard to our visiting Chaplain to
Senator Nickles.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Nickles is recognized.

____________________

GUEST CHAPLAIN ESTEP

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to join with you in welcoming our
guest Chaplain of the day, Wendell Estep.
The President pro tempore introduced Pastor Estep as being from South
Carolina. However, we still consider him a native of Oklahoma. Pastor
Estep was one of the leading pastors in my State. He led one of the
largest churches in the State, Council Roads Baptist Church. Before
that, he was at the First Baptist Church in Pawhuska, OK, which is
pretty close to my home town of Ponca City. He is really one of the
most respected leaders we have had in our state, and we still consider
him an Oklahoman. We are delighted to have him as guest Chaplain and
very much appreciate his opening our day with a beautiful prayer this
morning.
I thank Pastor Estep for joining us.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, thank our guest Chaplain for being
with us today. I know most Senators have been informed that our
Chaplain, Lloyd John Ogilvie, is doing quite well in his recovery
period, and we look forward to having him back in the Senate to hear
his melodious voice and beautiful prayers. In the meantime, we are glad
to have our guest Chaplain this morning.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning it is hoped that the Senate
will be able to resume consideration of the Interior appropriations
bill. The oil royalties amendment is the only remaining issue to
dispose of prior to completing action on the bill. However, in order to
resume consideration of the oil royalties issue, it may be necessary to
have several procedural votes this morning; therefore, Senators should
anticipate votes beginning shortly. The Senate will also resume
consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill with the hope of
finishing that legislation today. Also, either later on today or
tomorrow, it is hoped we can take up one, two, or more appropriations
conference reports as they are completed.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2000

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume
consideration of H.R. 2466, the Interior appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A 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.

Pending:

Hutchison Amendment No. 1603, to prohibit the use of funds
for the purpose of issuing a notice of rulemaking with
respect to the valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes
until September 30, 2000.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the vote by which cloture failed with respect to the
Hutchison amendment No. 1603, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the
motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Before the vote begins, let me announce to my colleagues,
if the motion is agreed to, we will have an

[[Page 22320]]

immediate vote on the actual reconsideration of the cloture vote. If
that second vote is agreed to, it is my understanding that we may have
10 minutes of debate prior to the cloture vote.
Therefore, Senators can anticipate two immediate votes this morning
and a third vote occurring shortly thereafter.
I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--39

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Moynihan

The motion was agreed to.

Vote on Motion to Reconsider

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to reconsider the vote on amendment No. 1603.
Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 288 Leg.]

YEAS--60

NAYS--39

NOT VOTING--1

Moynihan

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
1603 to Calendar No. 210, H.R. 2466, the Interior
appropriations bill:
Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Gordon Smith of Oregon,
Thad Cochran, Larry E. Craig, Bill Frist, Mike Crapo,
Don Nickles, Craig Thomas, Chuck Hagel, Christopher S.
Bond, Jon Kyl, Peter Fitzgerald, Pete Domenici, Phil
Gramm, Slade Gorton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603 to H.R. 2466, the
Interior appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Washington is
recognized.
Mr. GORTON. I now ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of
debate, equally divided, between Senators Hutchison and Boxer prior to
the cloture vote on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate so we may be
able to hear the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia
is correct. We will not proceed until the Senate is in order.
If the distinguished Senator from Washington would repeat his
request, please.
Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of
debate equally divided between Senators Hutchison and Boxer prior to
the cloture vote on Hutchison amendment No. 1603.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before it counts on my time, I ask the
Senator from Texas if she wants to begin the debate or finish the
debate.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will let the Senator from California
proceed first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
Once more, I tell the Senate, the reason I have taken the Senate's
time on this is twofold. First, it seems to me an amendment such as
this does not belong in the Interior bill. In essence, it is a very
major policy change. Oil companies sign an agreement with the Federal
Government that, when they have the privilege of drilling on Federal
lands, be it onshore or offshore, they pay a percentage of the fair
market value of the production to the Federal Government. This is very
important because in the Federal Government we use that for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, which is so important for our environment,
historic preservation, national parks, et cetera. The States use their
share to put the funds right into the classroom.
If this amendment is approved, if cloture is invoked and the
amendment is approved, the Land and Water Conservation Fund will lose
$66 million. Because of this rider, which the Senator from Texas has
put on these bills on three prior occasions, the Treasury has already
lost $88 million. Mr. President, we badly need those funds for those
important purposes of the environment and education.

[[Page 22321]]

What the Senator's amendment does is stop the Interior Department
from collecting the appropriate amount of royalties. How do we know we
are not getting the appropriate amount of royalties? We have
whistleblowers who have come forward and have told of a scheme to
defraud the United States of America of the due amount of royalties.
Just last month, a few weeks ago, Chevron agreed to settle a case on
royalties, $95 million. This is a headline from the Wall Street
Journal: Chevron to Pay $95 Million to End Claim It Shortchanged U.S.
on Royalties.
The companies are settling these claims at an unbelievable rate--$5
billion has already been settled by seven States. Twenty-five percent
of these companies are cheating us, and they don't have a leg to stand
on. They don't want to go to court. Therefore, they are settling.
What we know, for example, is that in one of the recent suits that
was filed, the United States of America has joined two whistleblowers--
and this is the first time this has ever been made public--outlining
seven schemes by the oil companies to cheat Uncle Sam, cheat the
taxpayers out of the money. We have heard of the seven wonders of the
world, and we have heard of the 7 years war and the seven seas and
seventh heaven and the 7-year itch and 007 and many 7s, but we have
never heard of the seven schemes of the oil companies until now. In
essence, all seven schemes have one goal; that is, to show that the
value of the oil is less than what it really is.
I think it is time to put an end to this. The USA Today headline says
it all: It is Time to Clean Up Big Oil's Slick Deal with Congress.
Reading directly from the article:

Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and
grocery bills, giving yourself a 3 percent to 10 percent
discount off the market price. Over time, that would add up
to really big bucks. And imagine having the political clout
to make sure nothing threatened to change that cozy
arrangement.

This amendment offered by my friend from Texas allows the oil
companies to continue this cozy arrangement whereby they decide, these
25 percent of the oil companies, what they are going to pay the Federal
Government. In every case, it is below the fair market value.
This $66 million, as I said before, could do a lot of things. We
could hire 1,000 teachers with it, or put 44,000 new computers into the
classroom, or buy textbooks for 1.2 million students, or provide 53
million hot lunches for schoolchildren.
So let us not think, when we have this vote, it is a free vote. This
cloture vote is very important. The Senator from Texas just about
mustered enough votes. She doesn't have one vote to spare. If just one
of my colleagues would hear my plea, stand up and say no to this
cloture, we could stop this thievery in its tracks. That is what it
is--out-and-out thievery. We need the funds for the functions of
government. We need the funds for the people of the United States of
America.
I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my 5 to the junior
Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana is
recognized for 1 minute.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
There have been so many misstatements and mischaracterizations and
exaggerations and a confusion of facts, as stated by my distinguished
colleague from California, I literally don't know where to begin. This
is not about the Land and Water Conservation Fund because there is no
such real fund where this money goes, and she most certainly knows
that. It flows directly to the State treasury. I would know, since the
State of Louisiana contributes 90 percent of the money to the so-called
fund that doesn't exist.
This is not an environmental issue. This is about a very complicated
accounting law governing what huge companies owe the Federal
Government. They want to pay their fair share. They are actually
begging to pay their fair share. They want a law that makes clear what
their fair share is, and they are willing to pay it. That is what this
argument is about because the current rule makes it more complicated
and more costly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the distinguished Senator has
expired.
Ms. LANDRIEU. May I have 30 more seconds? Fifteen more seconds to
finish?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Just finish the statement.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I urge my colleagues to rethink their votes on our
side. I am actually disappointed there are not more than five of us who
truly understand this issue, with all due respect. I hope some of them
will think about changing their vote so we can get on with the business
of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the senior Senator
from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this question is really about whether we
are going to pause for 12 months and negotiate or whether we are going
to litigate for 5 years. I think the Hutchison amendment is very
helpful in that it says: Let's pause and, instead of fighting it out in
the courtroom, let's get people to talk about it in their offices,
between Interior and industry, over what is a fair market value.
It is well worth a 12-month pause to try to negotiate instead of
litigating from here on after--that is all the Hutchison amendment
does--in order to find out what a fair market value truly is. We should
support it.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today over one-third of the price of a
gallon of gasoline is taxable. This chart shows the average price of
gasoline, around $1.20; crude oil is 64 cents, the light part of this
chart; taxes are 56 cents.
Now, what the Senator from California would do is raise the price of
gasoline for every working American by raising the taxes to go up and
up. In fact, that is what has been happening over the last 10 years.
From 1990 to 1997, the average per gallon motor fuel tax has gone from
27 cents per gallon to 40 cents per gallon. The retail price net of
taxes has stayed approximately the same, going down from 95 cents to 88
cents. It has actually gone down, but taxes have gone up. Therefore,
the price of gasoline in 1990 went from $1.21 to $1.29 per gallon in
1997.
What the Senator from California would do is add taxes on expenses.
We have always taxed at the wellhead. Today, we would tax the expenses,
the transportation expenses, that you have to make to get the oil to
its destination, the marketing expenses. Can you imagine the concept of
taxing advertising being done by an agency without congressional
approval and raising the price of gasoline for every working American?
That is what blocking this amendment will do. We have 60 votes to go
forward; 60 people out of 100 in the Senate are saying we should go
forward and have an up-or-down vote on this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right and let us have an up-or-
down vote so that we don't raise the price of gasoline at the pump for
every working American.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has approximately
30 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, historically, the royalty has been
calculated at the wellhead. The essence of the problem is that MMS
decided they want to change that--in many instances, tax it as a
royalty many miles downstream. They contend there is a duty to market.
A court has already ruled there is no duty to market. They want to come
in by the back door and establish regulations and rules that will,
indeed, tax beyond the real value of the oil, based upon rules and
regulations. It is a new tax, a backdoor way of taking away our
prerogative. That is why we have been fighting this for the last 3
years.

[[Page 22322]]

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it will raise the price of gasoline at
the pump for every working American. I urge a vote for cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the distinguished Senator
has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603 to H.R. 2466, the
Interior appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]

YEAS--60

NAYS--39

NOT VOTING--1

Moynihan

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Hutchison amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GORTON. As manager of the bill, I yield an additional hour to
Senator Hutchison of Texas under the provisions of rule XXII, and I am
authorized to yield an additional hour of the time of the Senator from
Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators yielding time must do so
personally.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield my hour under rule XXII to Senator
Gorton.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield my hour under rule XXII to
Senator Gorton.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield those 2 hours to Senator
Hutchison.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield my hour to the distinguished Senator, Mr. Byrd.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, I yield my 1 hour
to the minority manager, Senator Byrd.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour of debate to Senator
Byrd.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the ranking manager of the bill, I now
have 3 hours, as I understand it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I yield my 3 hours to the distinguished Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for my own clarification, how much time do
I have to speak on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator has 1 hour.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, many people who have followed this debate
over the last weeks and months, I am sure, are curious why the Senate
has been spending the amount of time it has on this particular issue.
It is an issue which is of great importance to many of us.
First, let me salute my colleague, the Senator from California, Mrs.
Boxer. She has led this fight, and it has been a difficult fight. It
has involved many hours of debate. It has involved a lot of work on her
part and that of her staff. I have been happy to join her and to add my
voice to her cause.
We have had what might be called a symbolic vote earlier which
suggests that ultimately the oil companies may prevail on this
amendment. But I really believe in my heart, if my colleagues,
particularly on the other side of the aisle, would just for a moment
follow this debate and come to understand what is at stake, they might
have a change of mind and a change of heart. Let me explain in the most
basic terms, as I understand them, why we are here and why we are
facing this debate.
Consider for a moment that we in the United States have many
treasures. Visitors to the Nation's Capitol can see ample evidence of
the legacy we have been given by previous generations. This magnificent
building and all the monuments and statues and museums in Washington,
DC, are not owned by any person. They are owned by America. They are
owned by the American people. But when it comes to our national
treasures, they also include public lands, many of them in remote
places all across the United States, lands, frankly, that we as
taxpayers own and lands that have value.
This bill which we are considering, the Department of the Interior
bill, is one which takes into account these lands and how they are
managed. The Senate and the House, each in its role, has a chance each
year to make policy decisions about how we will manage these lands.
This year, on the Department of the Interior appropriations bill,
several of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have
offered what have been called environmental riders.
To put that in common words, it is an amendment offered by a Senator
trying to limit, for example, the Department of the Interior in doing
certain things in relation to these public lands. So we have had a
parade of amendments involving these public lands and how they will be
used.
There have been amendments, for example, to initiate the mining of
lead in the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri. It is a suggestion
opposed by the two major newspapers in Missouri, by the Governor, by
the attorney general, and by every environmental group. But a rider was
proposed by a Senator from Missouri that would allow lead mining in
this Mark Twain National Forest, an area that is used for recreation.
That amendment prevailed. One Democratic Senator joined Republican
Senators in what was an otherwise very partisan rollcall.
Another amendment was offered which related to the mining of minerals
on public lands, so-called hard rock mining. This amendment, which was
offered, I believe, by the Senator from Washington, said that when it
came to the mining of those minerals, when companies, private
companies, would come onto the land owned by America's taxpayers, we
would change the rules and say when they dumped their waste after their
mining, they could have more acreage to dump on when they wanted to
leave the land behind.
Of course, the mining companies love to mine on public lands because
we charge royalties which are a joke. They date back to a law over 100
years old. It is not uncommon for a private mining company, some even
foreign companies, to be able to mine for minerals on public lands
owned by the taxpayers and to pay as little as $5 an acre--$5 an acre
to mine for gold, for example. These companies can literally bring
millions of dollars of profit out of the public lands owned by this
country and pay to the Federal Government $5, $10, $15, $100, $1,000.

[[Page 22323]]

So the amendment proposed by the Republican Senator suggested that
when they mine this land at these bargain basement royalty prices, they
will be able to leave more and more acreage of waste dumped behind at
the expense of future generations.
We had another amendment relative to grazing. Particularly in the
West, grazing is an important use of western public lands. I support
it. But the question was whether or not the ranchers who grazed on
Federal lands would be able to renew their long-term leases, how much
they would pay, and what restrictions they would have on how much
grazing would be allowed. A Republican Senator from New Mexico offered
an amendment which said these leases for the grazing permits would be
renewed almost indefinitely. Frankly, many of us thought that was
something we should question--whether or not we should, from time to
time, make environmental reviews of the use of grazing permits to make
certain the public land ended up being used for the best purpose for
America.
So time and time again, we have seen a clear difference in philosophy
from the other side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, and
the Democratic side of the aisle when it comes to public lands. I will
only speak for myself, but I will tell you what my philosophy is. I
believe these public lands are a public trust. I have been honored to
represent the State of Illinois in the Senate. I believe, in my actions
and in my votes, I should never compromise the integrity of this legacy
of public lands that have been left for my supervision, entrusted to
me. I have tried my best to vote so I can say, whenever I leave this
body, I took this treasure of public lands and returned it to the next
generation in as good shape as, or better than, I received it. I think
that is consistent with the idea of conservation. It is consistent with
the idea of protection.
I concede, people can use public lands for profitmaking. That is
done, of course, by ranchers for grazing and by the mining industry for
minerals. It is done, as we have discussed earlier, by those who want
to come in and, for example, drill for oil. I believe companies that do
that, whether they are cutting wood or drilling for oil, should pay to
the American taxpayers fair compensation for using the land so I could
say, if ever held accountable: Yes, it is true, we did allow people to
cut down trees on public lands; they paid for it; it was not something
that was in derogation of the value of the land to be left for future
generations.
That is my philosophy: Protect the public lands. If people use them,
they should pay fair compensation to America and its taxpayers for the
use of the public lands.
The philosophy on the other side--I will try to characterize as best
I can--is that the public lands are in some way an intrusion of the
Federal Government into many of these States. I think there is a
general resentment that the Federal Government owns so much acreage in
Western States. Yet the fact is, if the Federal Government had not
owned this acreage, it is really questionable whether some of these
States would have finally become populated or become part of the Union.
The Federal Government took control of the lands in the initiation of
our great country, and over the years many of these lands have stayed
in our control. I can understand that if I lived in a Western State, I
might have a different view. But, frankly, I do not believe they should
be viewed as antagonistic. These lands are part of our national
treasure.
Second, the view on the other side of the aisle is, if a private
company wants to come in and make money off these public lands, we
should bend over backwards to make it easy for them and subsidize them.
That is why we have not changed that mining act for 100 years. That is
why these companies are paying $5 an acre and taking thousands of
dollars of profits, millions of dollars of profits, off that acreage
and not paying more to the taxpayers. That is why they want to be
grazing these lands without the oversight of departments which decide
whether or not they are doing something that could harm the lands
permanently.
So there is a real difference in philosophy between the Democratic
side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle. And rider after
rider, whether they talk about mining or logging or grazing or drilling
for oil, comes down to this basic same debate.
The amendment of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, really calls
in question the idea of how much oil companies should pay if they are
going to drill for oil on public lands and which they turn around and
sell at a profit.
Frankly, I have no objection if the drilling for that oil does not
create an environmental hazard or environmental problem. These
companies should be allowed to bid and to responsibly drill for oil. It
is good for America's energy needs. It creates jobs in the area. It is
something with which I do not have a problem.
The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and I come to this Chamber
to oppose an amendment being offered by the Senator from Texas. The
amendment says this: The Department of the Interior, which is to
establish the amount of money, the royalty, paid by the oil companies
to drill on public lands, will be prohibited, by the Hutchison
amendment, from revising that royalty to reflect the cost and value of
the oil that is drilled.
I believe this is the fourth time we have gone through this where
they have stopped the Department of the Interior from revising upwards
the amount of money taxpayers receive in royalties for drilling oil on
public lands, despite the fact the law clearly says: Yes, owner of the
oil company, you can use public land, but you owe the taxpayers
something; pay the taxpayers for profit you are taking out of their
land.
Yet the Hutchison amendment says: No, we do not want to revise the
royalty schedule; we do not want to make certain that the taxpayers
receive fair compensation and the oil companies pay what they are
required to pay under the law.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased the Senator is taking us back to the
basics of this amendment which, as he pointed out, has essentially been
offered to the Interior appropriations bill on three previous occasions
in the committee on which he serves, the Appropriations Committee. We
have tried to fight it in that committee only to be outvoted basically
on a party-line vote.
This is the first time, I know my friend is aware, we have had a vote
on this in the Senate. I underscore and ask a question of my friend.
My friend points out there is a problem with some of the oil
companies, that they are not paying their fair share of royalties, and
the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, wants to make sure
everyone pays their fair share.
Is my colleague aware that 95 percent of the oil companies are doing
the right thing? I want to make sure he understands the problem lies
with 5 percent of the oil companies that are ripping off the people. I
hope he responds to that, and I have an additional question.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from California, this chart
demonstrates what she has already stated. The percentage of companies
affected by this rule is only 5 percent, 68 percent of the Federal
production; 95 percent of the oil companies, particularly the small and
independent companies, are not affected by this debate. We are talking
about the big boys. We are talking about the big oil companies and
whether they are going to use our Federal public lands to make a profit
and pay the taxpayers a fair share of their profit back to our
Treasury.
When I heard the debate on the floor that I heard earlier suggesting
that if these big oil companies have to pay their fair share of
royalties, the price of a gallon of gasoline is going to go up at the
pump, it is almost laughable. We are talking about such a small amount
of money in terms of these multimillion-dollar oil companies but a
significant amount of money which would come back to Federal taxpayers
and to the States that are affected for very important purposes.

[[Page 22324]]

The Senator from California is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I know he gets this completely. I also
want to make sure he knows and that he puts into his remarks the fact
that as a result of these three prior riders the Senator from Texas,
Mrs. Hutchison, has put on these bills, we have already lost to the
Federal Treasury $88 million. Is my friend aware of it? And is my
friend aware what this particular amendment will do to add to that $88
million? I see he has a terrific chart which explains it all. I yield
to him for an answer.
Mr. DURBIN. Just by coincidence, I happen to have a chart which
illustrates this because this is a point we made during the course of
the debate. The cost of this amendment, offered by Senator Hutchison,
to the taxpayers of America is $66 million. The amount of money the
taxpayers have lost to date is $88 million.
With both amendments, if this amendment prevails today, America's
taxpayers will lose $154 million which these oil companies were
required to pay for the purpose of drilling oil on public land, oil
which, of course, has generated great profits for them and their
companies.
This observation, that these companies have not paid their fair share
for the royalties, has been backed up by lawsuits. States which receive
the benefits of some of these royalty dollars have turned around and
sued these oil companies and said they are not paying what they are
required to pay under the law. In State after State, we have seen the
oil companies basically concede, yes, we are underpaying the royalties
we owe taxpayers.
Take a look at these recent oil undervaluation settlements. State by
State: Alaska, $3.7 billion; Louisiana, $400 million; California, $345
million; Texas, $30 million. In all, we have collected $5 billion these
oil companies have underpaid, their statutory obligation to pay
royalties on this land.
For the proponents of this amendment to argue that it is
fundamentally unfair to require private oil companies to pay these
royalties and that these formulas for payment are unfair is to ignore
the reality that time and time again, when the oil companies have been
challenged, they have been found guilty of having cheated the taxpayers
out of the fair share of money they were supposed to pay.
The Hutchison amendment says we will not change this formula; we will
not update it; we will not hold these oil companies accountable. We
will say to the Department of the Interior: Walk away from it; let the
oil companies make the profit they want; do not let the taxpayers
receive the fair compensation to which they are entitled.
A lot of this money, incidentally, that goes to States is used for
purposes which are absolutely essential. One of them is education. What
is $66 million worth in terms of education? That is how much this
amendment will cost the Federal Treasury and how much it will leave in
the hands of the oil companies. What can one do with $66 million?
By Federal standards, people say: Don't you people deal in billions?
What does $66 million mean?
With $66 million, you can hire 1,000 teachers. You can put 44,000 new
computers in classrooms. You can buy textbooks for 1.2 million
students. You can provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren.
Mr. President, $66 million may be small change by some Senators'
standards, but when it comes to running schools and providing good
education, it turns out to be a very important part of the component of
meeting our obligation.
Also, this has been an issue which has received a lot of attention.
In fact, one of the articles which I think is extraordinary came from a
publication which I rarely would run into, but it is Platt's Oilgram
News. I cannot say as I have ever read it or subscribed to it.
On Thursday, July 22, 1999, a retired employee from ARCO, one of the
major oil companies involved in this debate, said that his company
deliberately underpaid the oil royalties to the Federal Government.
This was not a miscalculation. This was not an accidental occurrence. A
calculated decision was made by the oil company to shortchange
America's taxpayers by refusing to pay the royalties required by law
because they felt that some day they may be sued as a result of that
decision and they would just as soon hold on to the money, declare it
as profit, make interest on it, and run a risk they would have a
lawsuit and a day of reckoning sometime in the future.
This gentleman, Mr. Anderson, is quoted at length in the article:

I was an ARCO employee, he said. Some of the issues being
discussed were still being litigated. My plan was to get to
retirement. We had seen numerous occasions, the nail that
stood up getting beat down.
. . . The senior executives of ARCO had the judgment that
they would take the money, accrue for the day of judgment,
and that's what we did. I would not have been there in any
capacity had I continued to exercise the right they had given
me to dissent to this process during the discussion stage.
But once we made our decisions, ranks closed . . . I did not
get to be a manager and remain a manager being oblivious and
blind to signals.

A calculated corporate decision to underpay the Federal Government:
Leave the money in the bank and earn interest on it and wait to be
sued.
So the Hutchison amendment basically says: The Department of the
Interior should ignore this, ignore the fact that oil companies are
basically cheating the taxpayers out of the money to which they are
entitled.
Recently there was a lawsuit filed, which the Senator from California
brought to my attention, that raised the question of this effort by the
oil companies. They came up, in that lawsuit, with what they call the
seven schemes by which these oil companies were basically cheating
America's taxpayers:
No. 1, misrepresenting the actual value received for oil;
No. 2, buying and selling crude oil at values less than what would
have been received in an arm's length transaction;
No. 3, selling oil to their affiliates to mask the true value;
No. 4, claiming an artificially low value for oil refined by the
company itself;
No. 5, falsely classifying high-valued sweet oil as lower-priced sour
crude oil;
No. 6, paying royalties on the basis of lower-valued oil, then
commingling it with higher-valued and selling it as high-quality oil;
No. 7, claiming payment of certain fees on commingled oil when such
fees were never paid.
Those are schemes that have been used by these oil companies to avoid
paying the royalty they are required to pay under law.
They want to drill on public lands. They want to make a profit. They
do not want to pay back to America the cost we have incurred in
allowing them to take this oil from the land. They have been caught
time and time again with their hands in the cookie jar.
The Hutchison amendment says: We are not going to pursue these oil
companies any further. We are going to say to the Department of the
Interior: You cannot enforce the law. You cannot enforce the
requirement that these oil companies pay their fair share in royalties.
There are many special interests at work on Capitol Hill. I would be
the first to admit it, having served here for 17 years. This is one of
the more blatant examples I have seen, where companies have basically
come in and said: We want to be exempt from the law.
The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, has fought a valiant fight
to bring this issue to public attention. Time after time, publications
across America, which have taken a look at this issue, have reached the
conclusion that the Senator from California is right and this amendment
is wrong.
In the USA Today--and this is from last year; same issue, same type
of amendment--the editorial is entitled ``Time to clean up Big Oil's
slick deal with Congress.'' Let me read just a few words here from the
USA Today editorial of August 26, 1998:

Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and
grocery bills, giving yourself a 3% to 10% discount off the
market price. Over time, that would add up to really big
bucks. And imagine having the political

[[Page 22325]]

clout to make sure nothing [ever] threatened to change that
cozy arrangement.
According to government and private studies, that's the
sweet deal the oil industry is fighting to protect: the right
to extract crude oil from public land and pay the government
not the open market price but a lower ``posted price''--based
on private deals--

The schemes I mentioned earlier--

the oil companies can manipulate for their own benefit.

They go on to talk about the fact that it is no secret that these oil
companies are big players in Washington. They make contributions to
Members of Congress. And, of course, when the time comes, they expect
at least a day in court, if not some help, when their issues come to
the floor. This is a classic illustration.
It just strikes me as odd that companies that otherwise enjoy
positive reputations are willing to fight so viciously to protect what
has been unmasked as a scheme to defraud America's taxpayers.
In the scheme of things, if this 5 percent of the major oil companies
paid $66 million more a year to the Federal Treasury, can you believe
that would affect their bottom line? I do not think the money is what
is at stake here. I think what is at stake is the attitude, the
attitude of these companies that we have no right as Members of the
Senate to defy their scheme and to say that the American taxpayers
deserve a fair shake, that the American taxpayers deserve better.
They believe, as some do in this body, that these public lands are
there as a disposable product to be used up, if necessary, and
discarded, that future generations be damned. That is the philosophy
they follow.
That troubles me greatly because I know that Republicans and
Democrats alike understand that the law should be followed, understand
that private citizens and families and businesses are required to
follow the law as much as anyone, and, frankly, that even though we
have a good economy, getting away from the days of deep deficits, we
still have the need for money in our Treasury for valuable purposes
such as, for example, education.
One of the things we will debate in the closing weeks of this session
is whether or not this Senate, by the time we adjourn, will be able to
point to anything we have accomplished in the field of education.
When the session started, the leaders on the Republican side, who are
in control of the House and the Senate, made important speeches about
how critical education was in the priorities of this Congress. Yet I
will tell you, quite honestly, if we held a gun to the head of any
Member of Congress and said, I am going to pull the trigger unless you
can tell me something this Congress has done to help American families
improve education, I would have to tell them, fire away, because we
have done nothing.
This is an illustration, that we would walk away from $66 million, a
portion of which goes back to the States for education, at a time when
we realize there are critical priorities in education all across
America. Our schools are becoming antiquated. They do not have the
modern technology they need. We know more and more kids are on the
horizon. They are going to be showing up and enrolling in schools. So
the demands are there for education to be improved in every State, and
certainly in Federal programs.
Why the Hutchison amendment would want to take away what the Federal
Treasury is entitled to receive for the oil companies drilling on
public lands, taking that money away, shortchanging education, is
beyond me. It is beyond me.
Certainly we can have a spirited debate about whether we want to
increase taxes for given purposes. We have had that debate. I know it
is one that is contentious. But this isn't about a new tax; this is
about existing law that requires these oil companies to pay their tax,
their royalty, for drilling oil. For some reason, certainly a large
number of the Members of the Senate believe these oil companies should
be able to walk away scot-free and not accept this obligation.
The Los Angeles Times editorial of July 20, 1999, characterized this
effort, this amendment, the Hutchison amendment, and this scheme as
``The Great American Oil Rip-Off.'' I quote the first paragraph:

America's big oil companies have been ripping off federal
and state governments for decades by underpaying royalties
for oil drilled on public lands. The Interior Department
tried to stop the practice with new rules, but Congress has
succeeded in blocking their implementation--

With this amendment that is before the Senate today--

and will again if a Senate bill calling for a moratorium on
the new rules, proposed by Senators Hutchison and Pete
Domenici of New Mexico and scheduled for a floor vote . . .
is enacted.

Let me read this paragraph:

Not since the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s has the
stench of oil money reeked as strongly in Washington as it is
in this case.

This amendment, frankly, brought to the floor may enjoy the support
of a majority of Members and I am sure will enjoy the plaudits and
praise of the oil companies benefited by it.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on that point?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to.
Mrs. BOXER. My friend hits again on an issue that I think we should
explore because under the rules of the Senate we have up to 30 hours
for debate on this Hutchison amendment. I do not know if it will take
30 hours, but it will take some time because it is important that the
light of day shine on this.
My friend from Illinois has hit on a really important point that, in
essence, the scandal is the nature of this. I wonder if my friend could
comment on the perception people in this country have that if you are
big, if you are powerful, if you give millions of dollars in
contributions, you can get your way in something as obvious as this.
Why do I say obvious? The New York Times did a story on this just 2
days ago.
I thought the opening lines were very important. I wonder if my
friend read them. I think he did. It said:

Oil companies drilling on Federal land have been accused of
habitually underpaying royalties they owe the government.
Challenged in court, they have settled lawsuits, agreeing to
pay $5 billion. The Interior Department wants to rectify the
situation by making the companies pay royalties based on the
market price of oil, instead of a lower price set by the oil
companies.

The author asks:

A simple issue? Not in the United States Senate.

We have a simple, straightforward issue. If the Senator or I or any
of the people watching this debate around the country didn't pay their
fair share of taxes, believe me, they would have a knock on their door
from the IRS. Here they have a knock on the door from the Senate. They
say: It's OK; we will defend it.
I ask my friend whether he feels the power of this special interest
is playing a role in this? Not just to pick on them--I know my friend
has taken on the tobacco companies time and time again--but I want my
friend to comment on the perception of people in this country that this
Senate and this Congress does the bidding of the special interests over
the bidding of the people we are supposed to fight for and represent.
He can tie it into any issue he wants, but I think it is an important
part of this debate.
Mr. DURBIN. I think the point of the Senator from California is well
taken: We do demand of families and businesses that they pay their fair
share of taxes. If they don't, they are held accountable. What we want
to create with the Hutchison amendment is an exception for oil
companies; to say to some of the most profitable companies in America
that they don't have to pay their fair share as required by law. That
is what the Hutchison amendment does.
It says the Department of the Interior cannot review the amount of
money being paid in royalties by these oil companies and stop them from
even considering implementing and enforcing the law. We know, as the
Senator from California has indicated, that in the past, time and
again, these companies have underpaid their required royalties to the
Federal Government and to the States.
We have a letter, which was addressed to the Senator from California,

[[Page 22326]]

from the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. He writes, on
September 8, 1999:

I am writing to call on you and your colleagues to reject
from the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill a Senate amendment extending the
moratorium prohibiting the Department of the Interior from
issuing a final rulemaking on the royalty valuation of crude
oil until October 1st, 2000. A similar letter has been sent
to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Prior to a series of congressionally-imposed moratoria, the
Department was prepared to publish a final rule on oil
valuation on June 1, 1998. On March 4, 1999, I announced that
the Department would reopen the comment period for the
federal oil valuation rule. On March 12, 1999, we formally
reopened the comment period and held a series of public
workshops to discuss the rule. We believe that the process
set in motion will assure full and open consideration of all
new ideas for resolving the concerns that have been raised
and will lead to a solution that best meets the interests of
the American public.
Currently, we are reviewing the information gathered at the
workshops and are confident that we will be able to address
the outstanding issues raised by our stakeholders. The
moratorium [as suggested by the Hutchison amendment] would
simply delay our ability to implement a final rule until
October 1, 2000, although we may have resolved these key
issues well before then. This unnecessary delay will result
in losses to the Federal Treasury, States, and Indians of an
amount of up to $5.65 million per month.
We urge you to defeat any proposal to extend the moratorium
prohibiting the Department from issuing a final rule during
Fiscal Year 2000.
Sincerely, Bruce Babbitt [Secretary of the Interior]

Five point six million a month, owed to the Federal Treasury, owed to
the taxpayers for the use of public lands for private profit, that will
not be paid if the Hutchison amendment passes.
As I look across the aisle, I see a chart the Senator from Texas has
used repeatedly to explain how complicated this is to come up with this
valuation. I haven't seen it in detail. I don't question the veracity
of the Senator's statements about this process.
Let me suggest to my colleagues, when we are dealing with
conglomerate oil companies, multinational, with large legal
departments, large engineering departments, arguing over the value of
oil, trust me, it is not something that is done over lunch, where they
write a figure on a napkin and agree to it. You have to bring in all of
the information, verify it, subject it to public comment, and then
establish the right royalty to be paid by the oil companies.
I think it might be interesting to see a chart of how much the oil
companies are paying to bring this amendment to the floor and pass it,
all of their corporate and legal departments and government departments
that are at work to try to save them over $5 million a month at the
expense of the Federal taxpayers.
The other day, I was on an airplane flying to Washington, which is a
big part of my life over the last 17 years. I sat on a plane next to a
gentleman from Colorado who worked for MCI WorldCom. He quickly wanted
to talk about politics, which is always a dangerous topic when one is
captured on an airplane. He allowed as to how he was a libertarian and
believed there was entirely too much government around and, frankly,
that is the way he voted.
I said: Let me tell you about an issue. Let me describe to you
because you live in Colorado--a beautiful State that has a lot of
public lands--this issue about whether or not oil companies should be
able to come on public land, drill on that land, take the oil out, sell
it for a profit, and pay a royalty for that purpose.
He said: I don't have any problem with that; that's only fair. If
they are going to use the public lands that they don't own, they ought
to pay something for them.
I said: Well, that is what the debate is all about.
The Hutchison amendment stops the Federal Government from collecting
the royalty these companies owe under the law. Whether you are a
conservative, a libertarian, independent, liberal, this is just simple
justice. It is fairness, as to whether or not these companies are going
to get such a break from the Senate, that we are basically wrapping up
in a beautiful little package with a nice big bow on top, 5.6 million
bucks a month to these oil companies.
They hold tag days in the city of Chicago, which I am privileged to
represent, for a lot of people who are homeless, people who need food
and clothing, folks who need a break in life. These tag days give you
little things to put in your lapel to show that you helped.
They are never going to have a tag day for a major oil company. These
companies are doing OK. Frankly, for us to give them an additional
subsidy of $5.6 million a month is scandalous; that at this time in our
history, when we know this money could be so well spent for education,
for health care, for things every American expects us to respond to, we
would literally turn our backs on $5.6 million a month, money that
these oil companies have conceded in lawsuits they underpaid the
Federal Government.
That is what this amendment is all about. It is a real test. The oil
companies, at the end of this debate, will get the vote. Senators will
be counted on: On one side, those who believe the oil companies need to
be treated a little more gingerly, a little more lightly, they should
not be required to make the payments they are required to make under
law; on the other side, those of us who believe the public lands should
be protected and those who use them should make fair compensation for
the use of those lands.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much, the
Senator from Illinois, for his comments. He has proven, once again, a
very important point around here; that is, that he speaks for the
people, all the people.
I think the primary issue in this amendment is, for whom do we stand
up and fight? The oil companies, the tobacco companies, the special
interests, they are strong. I know Senator Feingold, who has spoken
before, has been very eloquent on the point of the power of the special
interests in this country. They have the ability to really make things
come out the way they want. On the other hand, this is supposed to be a
government of, by, and for the people, which sometimes gets shut out.
There isn't an occasion I can recall in all the years I have served
with my dear friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, not an occasion when
he didn't stand on the side of what was right. That is a pretty strong
statement. But I know when he gets up and speaks against the Hutchison
amendment, it is because he is as outraged as I am that the people are
being forgotten by the Senator from Texas, and the very powerful are
being represented.
Why did I take so much of the Senate's time on this? Because I feel
so deeply that when you see people being hurt, you have to stand up on
their side. Now, a newspaper in California said, well, it is only
$600,000 a year to California. First of all, that is incorrect. It is
$600,000 a year as their share of the royalties; but when more money
gets put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State of
California gets back 10 percent of that. So it is really millions of
dollars.
Mr. President, I would like to ask my friend, Senator Feingold, at
approximately what time he would like to be heard on this.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Right now.
Mrs. BOXER. Since my friend from Wisconsin is here, I will retain the
remainder of my time and yield for him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her tremendous
determination and leadership on this issue. I have watched this effort
from the beginning, and her enthusiasm and determination is really
making a difference. I am extremely impressed with it.
My purpose is to rise again in opposition to the Hutchison amendment.
Earlier in the debate on this amendment, I engaged in a colloquy with
the Senator from California about the relationship

[[Page 22327]]

between campaign contributions and the continued reappearance of this
amendment. I believe this is the fourth time similar provisions have
been offered or contained in the Interior appropriations bill, just
since May of 1998.
I will return in a minute to the issue of campaign contributions.
First, I want to share a few observations that highlight the overall
importance of the issue we are discussing. I ask unanimous consent that
an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 10,
1999, 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, Sept. 10, 1999]

Chevron to Pay About $95 Million to End Claim It Shortchanged U.S. on
Royalties

(By A Llexei Barrionuevo)

Chevron Corp. has agreed in principle to pay about $95
million to resolve civil allegations that it shortchanged the
U.S. on royalty payments, according to people close to the
negotiations.
The agreement would resolve allegations made in a 1996
lawsuit filed in federal court in Lufkin, Texas, by two
whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. The suit,
originally filed against 18 large oil companies, alleges that
the companies knowingly undervalued oil extracted from
federal and Native American lands from 1988 on to reduce the
royalties they owed.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in March, but several
companies are moving to resolve the issues well before then.
Until recently, only Mobile Corp., based in Fairfax, Va., had
addressed the charges; it agreed to pay $45 million in a
settlement in August 1998.
Then, last week, Occidental Petroleum Corp. in Los Angeles
agreed to pay $7.3 million to settle the charges.
According to people close to the talks, BP Amoco PLC and
Conoco Inc. also have reached agreements in principal to
settle for about $30 million apiece. A document expected to
be filed today in federal court in Lufkin will ask the court
to cease discovery against Chevron, Conoco and BP Amoco on
the basis that the government has reached preliminary
agreements with the companies.
The people close to the talks said Chevron and the Justice
Department must agree on the language of a final agreement,
which is expected in the next few weeks. Chevron is based in
San Francisco.
Chevron, Conoco and BP Amoco all confirmed they are
negotiating with the government, but they wouldn't elaborate.
Chevron spokeswoman Dawn Soper said the company hasn't yet
signed an agreement, and ``until we have a settlement
agreement signed, we are not going to comment on what we may
have offered or are offering.'' BP Amoco said it has an
``understanding in principal'' to settle.
A spokesman for the U.S. Minerals Management Service said
discussions are continuing with all three companies, but it
wouldn't confirm that any settlements had been reached. The
companies' willingness to reach settlements were earlier
reported by an industry publication, Petroleum Argus.
Since 1996, the Interior Department, in separate actions,
has billed the oil companies for more than $400 million in
alleged underpayment of federal royalties stretching back two
decades.
In the Lufkin lawsuit, the whistleblowers allege that the
companies paid royalties based on a ``posted'' wellhead price
rather than the fair-market value. The Justice Department
intervened in the case in March 1998 against four companies:
Amoco Corp., Burlington Resources Inc., Conoco and Shell Oil
Co., a unit of Royal Dutch/Shell Group. The government later
intervened against Occidental Petroleum, Texaco Inc. and
Unocal Corp. In the suit, the government is seeking about $5
billion from all the companies combined, which includes
actual damages trebled, plus civil penalties.
Attorneys involved in the suit say more companies are close
to settling. Still, Exxon Corp., which prevailed in a 14-
year-old royalties case in California recently, hasn't joined
the negotiations. Federal regulators argue that the Lufkin
case differs from the California case, because the federal
royalty agreements were more explicit.
Bob Davis, spokesman for Exxon USA, declined to comment on
the oil giant's litigation strategy or to say whether the
company would negotiate in the case. However, he added, ``in
these posted-price issues, it is the company's position that
we post our prices fairly and properly, and in complete
accordance with the terms of the contract. That applies
whether it be the city, state or federal land.''
The case was originally filed by two former Atlantic
Richfield Co. marketing executives, J. Benjamin Johnson Jr.
and John M. Martineck. They stand to receive 15% to 25% of
settlements paid in cases where the Justice Department
intervenes, or 25% to 30% where the government doesn't
intervene.
Efforts by the Interior Department to institute a rule
change that would allow the government to collect royalties
based on fair-market prices rather than a posted price remain
mired in politics. The department estimates the rule change
would require oil companies to pay $66.1 million a year in
additional royalty payments.
On Wednesday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Texas),
proposed an amendment to the appropriations bill that would
keep the rule change off the books for another year. In
defense of the move, she said that while larger oil companies
may be able to absorb the higher royalties, the rule changes
will hit small producers ``at a time when they are still
reeling from the historically low oil prices we have seen
lately.'' It was the fourth time since May 1988 that Sen.
Hutchison has sought to delay the rule change.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, since we have been engaged in debate on
the Interior bill, four major oil companies have reached tentative
agreements with U.S. prosecutors who accused them of cooperating in
schemes to shortchange the Government through their royalty payments by
millions of dollars. A tentative settlement, which was filed in Federal
court in Lufkin, TX, involved about $185 million in payments and would
end a case that alleged that companies underpaid royalties by
undervaluating oil extracted from Federal and American Indian lands.
Though the settlement has not yet been finalized, it is a very
serious matter. Chevron USA, Inc.; BP American Inc.; Amoco Oil Co.; and
Conoco, Inc.; agreed in principle to settle for $95 million, $32
million, $32 million, and $26 million, respectively. The Wall Street
Journal reported that a 1996 lawsuit by two former Atlantic Richfield
employees alleges that 18 companies, their affiliates and subsidiaries,
knowingly defrauded the Government on royalties derived from the
production of crude oil from land spanning more than 27 million acres
in 21 States.
The Justice Department entered the case against Conoco; Amoco;
Burlington Resources; the Shell Oil Company; Occidental Petroleum;
Texaco, Inc.; and the Unocal Corporation, which resulted in the recent
settlements. The Government is seeking triple damages of about $5
billion from all the companies. The Interior Department has billed the
oil companies more than $400 million for the alleged underpayment of
Federal royalties, stretching back two decades.
The Wall Street Journal article I referred to, reports that these
recent settlements aren't even the first of their kind. Several
companies have been negotiating settlements. The Mobil Corporation
agreed last year to pay $45 million, and Occidental Petroleum
Corporation agreed in early September to pay $7.3 million.
I think this is a very troubling trend as these lawsuits are settled.
I am very concerned that Congress is abdicating its responsibility.
Unintentionally or not, Congress is making it possible for this issue
to continue to go unaddressed because the royalty underpayment
situation is the issue that this rulemaking we are debating seeks to
correct.
The proponents of this amendment have stated their concerns that
regulators are straying onto Congress' turf by amending the
regulations. Proponents of this amendment say they want Congress to act
on this matter; otherwise, the increase in royalties would amount to a
type of ``taxation without representation.''
I have to respectfully disagree with that argument. It ignores the
fact that our Government agencies regularly update their regulations
and they are authorized to do so by Congress. We don't require Congress
to act every single time a regulation needs to be changed. We would
never be able to get to it.
For example, Congress enacted the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act. That law is intended to provide for orderly leasing of these
lands, while affording protection for the environment and ensuring that
the Federal Government receive fair market value for both lands leased
and the production that might result. The Outer Continental Shelf
Program is carried out by the Minerals Management Service of the
Department of the Interior. Thus, Congress delegated the power to set
royalties to MMS.

[[Page 22328]]

In addition to ignoring the fact that Congress passed laws which give
the MMS the ability to set royalties, this argument that has been made
rings hollow when you consider that Congress is not acting to prevent
the underpayment of royalties with this amendment. What it is doing is
preventing the Interior Department from doing anything about it at all.
So this raises the question: Why is Congress doing nothing about this
problem? I think, certainly, the public will want to know why. The
alleged underpayments involve more than 6,000 onshore and offshore
leases in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Alabama, Alaska,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Michigan,
Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming.
So this is not just a coastal States problem, or even just a Western
problem. It affects a broad number of States, and it deserves attention
as a national problem, the kind of attention the Senator from
California has brought to it.
I have no doubt that one of the factors contributing to Congress'
inaction on this issue of great importance to American taxpayers is the
role of campaign contributions in the political process. So I want to
review the figures I briefly presented when I ``Called the Bankroll''
last time I joined the Senator from California on the floor. I call the
bankroll from time to time in this Chamber to remind my colleagues and
the public about the undeniable, but sometimes hidden, role that money
plays in the decisions we make.
During the 1997-1998 election cycle, the very large oil companies
that will benefit from this amendment gave the following political
donations to the parties and to Federal candidates:
Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in
PAC money; Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than
$330,000 in PAC money; Atlantic Richfield gave more than $525,000 in
soft money and $150,000 in PAC money; BP Oil and Amoco, two oil
companies that have merged into the newly formed petroleum giant, BP
Amoco, gave a combined total of more than $480,000 in soft money and
$295,000 in PAC money.
So if you put that together, that is more than $2.9 million just from
those four corporations in the span of only 2 years. They want the
Hutchison amendment to be part of the Interior appropriations bill. As
powerful political donors, I am afraid they are likely to get their
way.
You will notice that all of these companies except for Exxon gave
more to the political parties in soft money than their PACs gave to
individual candidates. So, remember, and this is a key thing about soft
money, which I don't think everybody in the country realizes; it took
me a while to get it. Soft money comes right out of the corporate
treasury, right out of the treasury. This isn't money where you form a
PAC and you get employees to contribute to it; it comes straight out of
the corporate treasury.
I am happy to yield without yielding my right to the floor. I ask
unanimous consent that I can yield briefly to the Senator from North
Dakota so he can make a request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, paragraph 2, I
yield my 1 hour to the minority leader, Senator Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. Let me get back to this
point.
Of the four companies I mentioned, only one of the four--that being
Exxon--didn't give more soft money than they did PAC money. The point I
am trying to make is a very important point about what is going on with
these campaign contributions. This money came straight out of corporate
treasuries.
I would have thought a few years ago that these kinds of donations
were illegal. They are supposed to be essentially illegal under our
Federal elections law.
The Tillman Act passed way back in 1907 in the Senate and in the
Congress prohibited corporations from making campaign contributions.
That statute, which was codified in title 2 of the United States Code,
at section 441(b), reads as follows:

It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation
organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a
contribution or expenditure in connection with any election
to political office . . . or for any candidate, political
committee or other person knowingly to accept or receive any
contribution received by this section.

That sounds pretty simple and straightforward. Yet unfortunately, in
1978, the Federal Election Commission made a ruling that opened up this
soft money loophole and allowed the political parties to begin
accepting unlimited contributions of soft money from corporations such
as Exxon, Chevron, and Atlantic Richfield to pay for party-building
activities and things such as get-out-the-vote campaigns and voter
registration. That is what it was supposed to be for.
Let me remind my colleagues that we all believed, based on the
Tillman Act, that contributions----
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the subject
matter is not germane.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly dispute that. I believe this
is entirely relevant. I am talking about corporations and interests
that are very much behind this matter. I would certainly suggest that
it is appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would remind the Senator that under
the cloture, speeches must be relevant to the issue at hand.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe this presentation is entirely
relevant to this issue. I am going through the way in which these
corporations can technically legally provide this kind of help to this
cause of trying to make this change. That is merely the background I am
giving at this point.
So let me return to the present. Soft money has grown exponentially
since those early days when corporate contributions were just going to
give the parties a little breathing room to cover party-building
activities, not campaigns. In the last Presidential campaign, in 1996,
the parties raised $262 million in soft money, three times as much as
in the 1992 election cycle. The experts project we will see perhaps as
much as $500 million or even $600 million in this next election, and
about 65 percent of the money is coming from corporate treasuries.
So as we look at an issue, such as Senator Boxer's concern with the
Hutchison amendment, we have to realize that what is before us is not
simply an amendment. It is an amendment supported by interests that
have been involved in an immense infusion of corporate cash that,
unfortunately, is totally legal, even though I certainly don't think it
should be. We wonder why the American people are skeptical of what we
are doing. We have heard the horror stories again and again. Parties
have special clubs for big givers and offer to the donors exclusive
meetings and weekend retreats with office holders. And it is totally
legal.
In other cases, in other bills, so we know this isn't an isolated
incident, the tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in
soft money to the national political parties.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order again, that
campaign finance is not the issue we are talking on, and I raise a
point of order on it.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I may be heard in response.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe it is clear that what I am
saying is not simply in the context of a debate on campaign finance
reform, and that the Members of the Senate and the American people
should hear and understand the kind of money that is behind legislation
on the floor of the Senate.
I think it is relevant to this debate. I think it is relevant to the
debate on the subject matter involved. I have in the past on a number
of occasions taken the opportunity to raise this issue. I have spoken
about campaign money in connection with 9 or 10 other

[[Page 22329]]

bills, without objection from anyone, to point out the money that is
involved in those bills. As you know, my presentation here has not been
exclusively on the topic of campaign money. I have talked about the
merits as well. I believe both are relevant, and I certainly would
dispute the notion that this is in any way appropriate for a point of
order.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is totally inappropriate. You
can talk about the campaign finance issue on any issue. On this issue,
we had a vote. This issue was designed to proceed for 30 hours. This
issue was not to be done on campaign finance. I continue to raise a
point of order, and will continue to raise a point of order.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I be heard on this point of order? I
ask unanimous consent that I may be heard on this point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THOMAS. I object. I at least would like to have some limit as to
the amount of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For how long does the Senator wish to speak?
Mrs. BOXER. I want to make a point in response, and I can do it, and
raise a question for the Senator from Wisconsin, because he still
controls the time.
Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I just got unanimous consent to speak. So I would take
that, and I thank my friend.
I want to make a point in support of Senator Feingold's amendment to
campaign contributions, but I want to do it in a way that I think is
very objective.
If you look at the New York Times article--he should make sure he
looks at this New York Times article as well--I say to all of my
friends, the title of this article is ``Battle Waged in the Senate Over
Oil Royalties by Oil Firms.'' The essence of the article goes to the
heart of what my friend is saying. It goes to the heart of the issue of
campaign contributions.
So I surely believe the Senator from Wisconsin is in full order to
connect this amendment to the number of contributions that oil
companies give, and I think his comments are on point and in order.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to object. I would like to
take issue, as respectfully as I can, with my colleague from
California, who came earlier to this floor. I don't have the quote, but
I remember.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?
Ms. LANDRIEU. The order is----
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could I ask what the order is in speaking?
I thought the time belonged to the Senator from Wisconsin, and that it
was his chance to continue his remarks.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am objecting to his remarks.
Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from Wisconsin got time to make a speech when
he has the floor, and he has an hour's worth of time. I would ask for a
ruling as to who asked for time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from California has
expired.
Mr. THOMAS. We just completed this question on germaneness. If you
would like me to read the ruling, I would be happy to do that.
Mrs. BOXER. That is fine with us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. On germaneness of debate, if the Senate is proceeding
under cloture, debate must be germane. ``Germane'' means you have to be
on the subject. It doesn't mean you can sway off the subject to some
irrelevant subject. This says it must be germane, and I again raise a
point of order.
Ms. LANDRIEU. The only way it would be germane is if the Senator from
Wisconsin----
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, who has the time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. On giving contributions----
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, who has the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators will suspend.
There are precedents of the Senate that permit nongermane debate even
under cloture, notwithstanding the precedent cited by the Senator from
Wyoming.
The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate having the floor returned.
I appreciate the ruling of the Chair.
Let me say that any attempt to gag the discussion on the floor of the
Senate about the impact of soft money on this place is something I will
fight tooth and nail with my colleagues on, and I was prepared, if
necessary, had the Chair ruled against me to appeal. But I am grateful
for the ruling and the precedents.
There is a notion that somehow saying the oil companies have
contributed money means we are accusing somebody of something illegal,
or something that can't be done. But that isn't a necessary conclusion.
Contributions can be given innocently, but if the impact is that the
process is greatly affected and the judgment is affected by the power
of that money, I think it is relevant to this debate.
That is my concern about soft money. It is not so much the
contributions given to individual Senators. Individual Members can't
take soft money. It is this new phenomenon of the very large soft money
contributions being given to political parties that I think has changed
this place in a way that is extremely troubling and has allowed some
amendments such as the one before the Senate today to get the kind of
credibility I don't think they would have had without the power of soft
money.
We have heard the horror stories again and again. Parties have
special clubs for big givers and offer exclusive meetings and weekend
retreats with officeholders to the donors. It is totally legal. In
response to the Senator from Louisiana, I can see it is legal. I am not
suggesting that these parties or industries are involved in illegal
activity; it is legal, but it should be illegal. It is distorting to
the process.
The tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in soft money
to the national parties in the last decade, $4.4 million in 1997 alone,
when the whole issue of congressional action on the tobacco settlement
was very much alive, and it is totally legal. In 1996, the gambling
industry gave nearly $4 million in soft money to the two major
political parties at the same time that Congress was creating a new
national commission on gambling but with limited subpoena powers. It is
totally legal.
There are some in this body, despite what the Thompson investigation
uncovered a few years ago and what news stories show on almost a daily
basis, who don't see or won't acknowledge the corrupting influence of
these unlimited soft money contributions which again are now totally
legal.
I remember a history lesson that one of our colleagues, the junior
Senator from Utah, gave during a debate on campaign finance reform a
few years ago that was intended to convince Members there was nothing
wrong at all with enormous campaign contributions. He recounted the
very frequently told story of how Senator Eugene McCarthy's
Presidential campaign in 1968 was jump-started by some very large
contributions by some very wealthy individuals.
He also noted that Steve Forbes was apparently prepared to make
similar contributions to support Jack Kemp for a run for the Presidency
in 1996 but was prohibited from doing so by the Federal elections law
and decided to run his own campaign, a decision from which we might
infer that money is more important than the candidate.
He also recounted the story of Mr. Arthur Hyatt, a wealthy
businessman who gave large soft money contributions to the Democratic
Party in 1996 but decided after the election not to give soft money to
the parties anymore but instead to fund an advocacy group that is
promoting public financing of elections.

[[Page 22330]]

The point of the examples was to try to argue that wealthy donors are
motivated by ideology and to benefit the public as they see it, rather
than the desire to gain access and influence with policymakers through
their contributions. I suppose that could sometimes be the case.
Of course, there are other examples, including the candid story of
the well-known incident of Mr. Roger Tamraz who testified under oath to
our Governmental Affairs Committee that he never even votes and the
only reason he gave soft money to the DNC was to gain access to
officials he thought could help him with his business. It is my strong
suspicion that Mr. Tamraz' motives, if not his methods, are more
typical of big contributors than are those of Steve Forbes or the
millionaires who funded Eugene McCarthy's campaign.
Mr. THOMAS. Regular order. I renew my objection that the debate is
not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. While the Chair continues to research the
question, the Chair is not prepared to rule at this time. It will
continue to research the question on the point of order.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I don't think the Senator should be allowed to
continue if there is a question that this violates Senate rules.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't think the Senator from Texas can
rewrite the rules of the Senate. It is my understanding the Senator
from Wisconsin has time. He has now been interrupted three or four
times in what I consider to be a crucial presentation which gets to the
heart of this amendment. I hope he can continue his remarks until the
Chair has made a decision.
Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from California does not make precedent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is wrong. I think it borders on a personal attack
on Senators who I think are doing something they think is in the best
interest of this Nation.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am shocked at the efforts of my colleagues to gag one
of their colleagues who is trying to talk about a reality in this
country that has occurred with regard to these campaign contributions
that affect what we are doing on this amendment. The notion that
somehow I should stop speaking while the Chair reviews the precedents
is absurd. A Senator should be allowed to speak as long as he is
permitted under the rules to do so, and there has been no such ruling
otherwise.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator------
Mrs. BOXER. Regular order.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe I have the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I will not yield for a question at this point. I will
later.
Mr. President, I am not cynical about this. There is a reason I hold
suspicions about the motives of soft money donors. The reason is, a
solid majority of soft money contributions to our political parties, as
I mentioned before, comes from corporate interests. It simply cannot be
argued that those interests are acting out of a public spiritedness or
ideological conviction. Corporations do not have an ideology; they have
business interests. They have a bottom line to defend. They have
learned over the years that making contributions to the major political
parties in this country is a very good investment in their bottom line.
Unfortunately, too often campaign money buys access and access often
pays off at the bottom line.
Corporate interests are special interests. Special interests have
self-interested motives. They are concerned with profits, not only what
is best for citizens or consumers or the country as a whole. They like
to cast their arguments in terms of the public interest, and I am sure
sometimes their beliefs are genuine. And they certainly will argue that
if Congress follows their advice on legislation, the public will be
better off. But in the end, it is their own businesses they most care
of and not necessarily the broader public good.
Indeed, the boards of directors and management of corporations
actually have a legal duty--this is not a criticism of the corporations
at all--to act in the best interests of their shareholders. They are
supposed to do that, not to think of the broader public at large.
Let me make it clear to those Senators concerned about my remarks,
there is not a suggestion here that the corporations are acting
illegally or suggesting that there is something wrong with corporations
doing what they should can for their own interests. I have no illusions
about it. It is OK with me that the corporate special interests are
looking out for No. 1 in the public debate. But I must object, and
object loudly and over and over again, when their deep pockets give
them deep influence that ordinary Americans simply don't have.
Corporations with business before the Congress, not disinterested,
public-spirited millionaires, and certainly not ordinary citizens, lead
the way in soft money giving. One interesting set of contributors
proves that access, not ideology, is the main reason for soft money
donations. In the 1996 election cycle, 40 companies gave over $150,000
to both political parties. Guess what. Three of those double-givers
were the oil companies I have already mentioned here today. Double-
givers, they give to both parties: Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, and
Occidental Petroleum. They cover their bases. This is not always about
choosing sides, but covering bases.
I suppose there might be some in the companies or in this body who
argue that the double-givers just want to assist the political process,
that they are motivated not by the bottom line but by a keen desire to
assist both parties in serving the public. If that is the case, why is
it, in every Congress since I have been here, the industries most
seriously affected by our work give huge contributions to Members and
to the political parties?
In 1993-1994, it was the health care debate. Hospital insurance
companies, drug companies, and doctors all opened up their wallets in
an unprecedented way. In 1995 and 1996, the Telecommunications Act was
under consideration, and, lo and behold, the local and long-distance
companies and cable companies stepped up giving. In the last Congress--
and this one, for that matter--we have been working on bankruptcy
reform and financial services modernization. The biggest givers of all
in the 1998 cycle, according to Common Cause research, was security and
investment companies, insurance companies, banks, and lenders eager to
have business interests protected or expanded.
What is going on here? I suggest this is not a spontaneous burst of
civic virtue. Since we didn't finish work on the bills last year, the
money is flowing again this year. It has even been suggested that
sometimes the very Members of Congress who most want a big bill to pass
will slow progress to keep the checks flowing in. That such a view of
legislators and public servants has gained currency in the public
debate, even if it is true, shows the depths of cynicism that this soft
money system has inspired in those we represent.
Mr. President, the American people are not gullible or naive. They
know that these companies contribute these enormous sums to the parties
because their bottom line is affected by what the Congress does and
they want to make sure the Congress will listen to them when they want
to make their case. And they know that the big contributors get
results. We are seeing another example of that here today.
And frankly, it's a two-way street. The parties are hitting up these
donors because they know that most companies, unlike Monsanto and
General Motors have announced early in 1997 that they would no longer
make soft money donations--most companies don't have the courage to say
no. Most companies are worried that if they don't ante up, their
lobbyists won't get in the door.

[[Page 22331]]

Our current campaign finance laws encourage old fashioned shakedowns,
as long as they are done discreetly.
A growing number of business leaders are objecting to this system,
and recognizing that it must be changed. The business group CED, the
Committee for Economic Development, has come out for a ban on soft
money, and I think we will see more and more business leaders embracing
campaign finance reform in the future. An unhealthy democracy is not
healthy for business.
It is beyond me how any Senator could support this soft money system.
In a few weeks, we will have a chance to vote on a bill that bans soft
money. Senator McCain and I are looking forward to that debate, and I
want to thank the Senator from California for giving me the opportunity
to talk about it this morning, as part of her fight against this ill-
advised amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. If we can pass a
soft money ban this year, perhaps there will be fewer of these special
interest deals to contend with in the future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I insist on
the point of order and insist on a ruling.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not sustained.
Mr. THOMAS. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mrs. BOXER. Absence of a quorum. Absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient
second.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mrs. BOXER. Ask for a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending appeal
be laid aside to be called up by the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am glad we can try now to get back on
the central subject of this debate, which is so important to many
people in our country and particularly to us in Louisiana because many
of these oil companies reside in our State and most of the work in the
production of oil and gas goes on off of our shore. So I have been
actually anxious all morning to try to get some time on the floor to
speak about this issue of royalty valuation.
But I just feel compelled to say how disappointed I am in my
colleague from Wisconsin and the remarks he made, I think, directed to
this issue and to be backed up by the Senator from California. To say
that this issue, which is giving soft money contributions, ``is at the
heart'' of this debate, I think is really--it is offensive to the
Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is particularly
offensive to those of us who actually weren't supported by the oil and
gas industry when we ran to get elected to the Senate but find
ourselves having to speak on this issue of royalty valuation because of
the principles involved, because of the facts involved, and because
this is a very important principle at stake on this vote.
I also want to say, as the Senator from Wisconsin knows, I have been
a strong supporter of campaign finance reform. So I am particularly
offended by the way he made the remarks in the context of this debate
and hope in the course of the next 5 or 6 or 7 hours that have been
agreed to on both sides, we can stay focused on the oil royalty
valuation and the issues regarding this because they are important.
So in that vein, let me just try to get us back to the subject at
hand and remind all my colleagues what this debate is really all about
because it is important.
It involves a lot of money. It involves a lot of businesses. It
involves a lot of employees. It means a lot of jobs. It is about
taxation, and that is always important to everyone involved.
The Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior is
responsible, as has been made clear, for assessing and collecting
royalties from oil and natural gas production from Federal lands,
including the Outer Continental Shelf.
Federal laws that date back to 1920--and while those laws have been
modified, the fundamental issue has not been changed since 1920--
require that for the purposes of paying Federal royalties, the value of
oil must be assessed at the lease. That is interpreted and has been
interpreted to mean at the wellhead. It is at the lease.
These leases, as we know, are getting larger and farther from the
shore. They are not just in the neighbor's backyard any longer. They
are not just out on the rancher's property. They are hundreds of miles
offshore.
The usual royalty rate for oil is one-eighth the value from land and
deep sea and one-sixth the value of oil drawn from offshore leases. In
1988, oil and gas producers paid more--and I want the record to be
clear about this--paid more, in 1 year, $4.7 billion in Federal
royalties and have paid more than $40 billion in the last 10 years. In
fact, I happen to know because of another bill that many of us have
been working on, that since 1955, the oil companies have paid in rents,
royalties, and bonuses $120 billion.
The thought that the oil companies would balk or would reject paying
another $60 million is actually ludicrous because they paid $4.7
billion last year and will probably pay a similar amount next year.
While my colleagues continue to talk about the $60 million figure, it
is ludicrous that the oil companies that already pay this amount would
flinch actually at paying $60 million more.
What is at issue is the principle of the way this is calculated. As
we know, before it is sold, the oil is typically transported,
processed, and marketed for sale. Each of these costs incurred must be
subtracted from the purchase price in order to get back to the wellhead
value. It is the determination of this wellhead value that can be
complex and costly and lengthy, and many legitimate disputes have
arisen about the correct method of valuation.
Some of these were addressed as part of the Oil and Gas Royalty
Fairness Act enacted into law in 1996, but several other contentious
issues remain. That is why we are debating this today. Both the
industry and Government agreed that royalty valuation needed to be
updated and simplified. When that law was passed to encourage
simplification, the agency responsible for interpreting the law,
instead of making a rule that is more simple, made it more complicated;
they made it more complex. The new rule is not very transparent, and it
is unworkable.
The industry is stating, and I believe they make a legitimate
argument when they say: We do not mind paying our fair share, but we
want the fair share we owe to be more clear so we can get out of the
courtrooms. The issue today is whether we want to spend 5 months trying
to work this out, which is what I am proposing we do, along with the
Senator from Texas, or we want to spend 5 years in court at great cost
to the taxpayers, at great cost to the industry, at the loss of jobs in
many States throughout the Nation.
It simply makes no sense, and with all due respect to the Senator
from Wisconsin, it has nothing to do, in my case and knowing the
integrity of the Members of this Senate, with campaign finance reform
or lack thereof. It has to do with the legitimate difference of opinion
over an accounting rule. It is not an environmental issue. It is not a
campaign finance issue. It is an issue regarding a complicated rule.

[[Page 22332]]

All we are asking is to take some more time to try to work it out so
we can get out of the courtroom and get on to business because I think
that is what the taxpayers of America want. I think the people in
Louisiana, California, Wisconsin, and Texas want us to get back to work
creating jobs and to get out of the courtrooms. This rule--as has been
presented in great detail by the Senator from Oklahoma earlier and as
posted on the chart that is up for display for all to see--is more
complicated, not less.
It is as if the opponents, led by the Senator from California,
seemingly are arguing that if a taxpayer--in this case it happens to be
an oil company, but tomorrow it could be the taxpayer next door;
tomorrow it could be your neighbor. If their taxes are audited and a
discrepancy is found, which often happens, it would be similar to
allowing the IRS to simply raise their tax rate. That is not fair. It
is un-American.
I do not think there are many people in the United States who support
that, but that is exactly what we are getting ready to do if we do not
stop this rule from coming into effect. No agency should have the right
to raise tax rates because of a legitimate difference over an auditing
procedure that is very complicated. If that precedent is set, there is
no taxpayer in this Nation safe from having their taxes raised by an
agency. If we want to raise the royalty rate, then we should do it. If
we want to raise the tax rate, this Congress should do it. We are
setting a terrible precedent, allowing an agency to raise a tax rate
based on a misinterpretation of a rule that is ill conceived and ill
thought out and ill timed.
Also, with respect to my colleagues who have argued the other way,
this is not only a bad principle to set and a rule that should not be
adopted, but the timing could not be worse. The oil and gas industry,
the domestic energy industry has just begun to recover from the last
year and a half which saw oil prices fall to one of the lowest
constant-dollar prices in history. We have been recovering over the
last several months. But as you know, this is very volatile. The prices
can go high; they can go low. Businesses open; they shut down. People
are laid off. Savings accounts are used up. Industries and businesses
go out of business and come back. So we are used to it, but it is still
tough. To be acting this way at this time for an industry that is
recovering--I do not know how much we want to push because 57 percent
of all the oil and gas is now imported. That is up from 36 percent in
1974.
No. 1, we should not be badgering this industry at this time. We
should be supporting them, particularly when they have a very
legitimate request. They are not requesting to reduce the royalties
they pay. They are not requesting their fair share to be delayed in any
way. They are asking us, as we develop a rule, to help make the rule
simple, transparent, and clear so they know what they owe and we know
what they owe. We can then get out of the courtroom and get back to the
business of running our Government. You yourself have been very
sympathetic and very supportive and encouraging as we have attempted to
create a real wildlife and land conservation trust fund for this
Nation, which was promised and never delivered because the money goes
into the general Treasury; it does not go into a real fund.
So many of us are working on that. That is why this issue is very
important. That is why it is important we get this rule right and we
get it straight. It is important that these royalties can flow into our
Treasury and then, in turn, flow into a real account that some of us
want to establish so we can fund tremendous environmental programs
throughout this Nation, and so our States and our counties and our
cities can count on these revenues to expand parks and recreation,
which is important not only to California and not only to Wisconsin but
important to Illinois and to Louisiana and to Texas and to all the
States and the people we represent.
So, yes, it is important to get it right. That is why some of us are
taking some time on the floor to urge our colleagues to vote to not
allow this complicated and ineffective rule to go into place but to
give us the time to work it out so the oil companies can pay their fair
share.
I also have to say I find it sort of odd, because the oil companies
did not support me when I came to the Senate, I am feeling kind of odd
about having to speak so strongly, but I think there have been things
said on this floor that are offensive.
Just because they are big oil does not mean they are bad oil. Just
because they are oil and gas does not mean they are not a legitimate,
terrific business that is doing their business in a better, more
environmentally sensitive way. They create thousands of jobs directly
in my State and around this Nation. Without the work of the oil and gas
industry, there would not be the lights lit in this Chamber; there
would not be the factories operating; we would not have the clothes on
our back.
So I take offense at others who come to the floor and talk about them
as ``thieves'' or suggest that they would--they did not use the word
``bribe,'' so I will be clear that is not what was said, but to infer
that some companies would go so far.
We all know our system of campaign finance has to be changed and
altered and improved. There is hardly anyone in this Chamber who does
not agree with that. But as a Senator who represents this industry--and
I represent all the people in my State. I represent the big companies
and the little companies, the employees, the people who do not work for
oil companies. That is my job. But I want to say on their behalf I am
offended by some things I heard on the floor.
This is not a rip-off. This is not an intention to rip off the
taxpayer. This is not an effort to steal school lunches from
schoolchildren. This is a legitimate and complicated business,
financial and accounting issue that should be resolved, not by the
bureaucrats but by the Members of this body. So by postponing this
rule, hopefully, the Members of Congress can come up with a better way,
a clearer way to keep us out of court.
So I yield back the remainder of my time, if I can, to the Senator
from Texas. I thank the Chair and hope we can stay on the central
arguments of this issue because it is important, and I think all
Senators should have the right to be heard on the pros and cons of the
oil royalty valuation in the limited time we have and try to give the
Senators an opportunity to speak on this important issue before the
debate is shut off.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague
from Louisiana. I think she said it very well. The idea that we would
in any way impugn the integrity of anyone in the Senate on this issue
is wrong. I do not believe that was meant, but I do think that it came
across that way.
I am glad she spoke from her heart. I will, too. I had much the same
experience. I had not remembered it because I do not count
contributions, but I was not supported in the early stages when I first
ran because I was running against an incumbent. That did not make any
difference; I am representing all the people of Texas and doing what I
think is right for America.
What I think is right for America is to keep jobs in America. Oil
jobs are good jobs. Oil jobs are supporting families all over this
country. What we are seeing is more and more jobs moving overseas. They
are being lost by Americans and American families. That means we are
not only losing jobs in the oil sector, but we are also, unfortunately,
depending on imports for more and more of our basic oil needs in our
country. We are getting ready to go into winter, and the last thing we
need is higher prices on oil. The last thing we need is higher prices
on gasoline at the pump. Yet if we do not pass this amendment, that is
exactly what will happen. That is exactly what will happen. Every
person in America is going to pay higher gasoline prices if we do not
pass my amendment.

[[Page 22333]]

So I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership, and her
colleague, Senator Breaux, for his leadership, in showing how important
it is.
Senator Breaux earlier made a point that I think is very important.
It is shown by this chart. We all would like to have a simpler and
fairer oil royalty tax on the oil industry so there isn't a dispute.
All the lawsuits that are being discussed are about disputes on how
much is owed by oil companies. None of us want oil companies to cheat
the American schoolchildren or the Indian tribes--none of us. We want
the oil companies to pay their fair share. Part of the dispute is
because it is so complicated. We would like to see a simpler system.
Unfortunately, what the Mineral Management Service has preliminarily
proposed is this kind of trying to set oil royalty rates. Not only are
they making you have to go through all these hoops, but they do not put
out any kind of ruling letter that would allow an oil company, an
independent producer to know what the precedent is. So that independent
has to spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars every
time there is a dispute to determine what they owe to the people of our
country.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to----
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to yield back the remainder of my time,
under rule XXII, to Senator Gorton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for yielding that
time to Senator Gorton, but I hope we will not need it. I hope the
Senator from California will not continue to hold up the Senate in
passing the very important Interior appropriations bill that is
important to her State, to my State, and every State in our country.
We are now into dilatory tactics. We are now into prolonging
something that is already accomplished. It is a matter of letting the
Senate do its will. Sixty people in the Senate believe we need an up-
or-down vote on this amendment. We are going to have an up-or-down vote
on the amendment. I do not see a purpose, other than after an hour or
so of legitimate debate--which I think the Senator has already
received--of prolonging this. Particularly, I hope there will not be an
attempt to prolong it with irrelevant and nongermane discussion.
So I am going to go back to the bill because I think it is very
important. Our amendment seeks to simplify the rulemaking by the
Mineral Management Service. This is what is proposed. Who can figure it
out? No wonder there is a dispute between the oil companies and the
Federal Government or the State government. If this is what the Federal
Government is putting forward, it is not a precedent for anything. I do
think we need to simplify.
The question is, Do we want to raise gas taxes? That is what the MMS
would propose to do in this circuitous route.
I want to talk about where we are on the price of gasoline at the
pump. Every American who fills up their tank knows that the price of
gasoline has gone up. It is estimated that today the average price of
gasoline in our country is about $1.20 a gallon. Of that $1.20, the
light part of this chart shows how much is taxes--I am sorry, the light
part shows how much is crude oil. The light part is 64 cents. That is
the cost of crude oil in a gallon of gasoline. But the dark part is 56
cents, and that is taxes.
If the Senator from California succeeds in defeating my amendment,
gas taxes are going to go up, because the MMS, with the circuitous
route they are proposing, in fact, is going to tax the price of
gasoline, not at the wellhead, as it has always been and as is the
standard in the industry, but instead, after it goes through the
marketing process and through the pipelines, after it is transported,
all of those costs will be included in what is taxed. Basically, what
the MMS is doing is raising taxes on every gallon of gas that is bought
at the pump by every hard-working American. That is the essence of what
will happen if my amendment fails.
The policy of taxing expenses in business is also something very new.
I don't think a Federal agency should be able to change tax policy so
we now start taxing expenses because that is exactly what happens. If
we have the requirement that oil be marketed and transported and we
raise the price accordingly and we tax that expense, we are talking
about a whole new era. Instead of a Federal excise tax on a Beanie Baby
being made when the Beanie Baby comes out of the manufacturing shop, it
will be taxed on the retail shelf. That means every Beanie Baby that is
marketed in this country and transported by truck to a building, where
it can be sold at retail, is going to be taxed. You are going to have
to pay the added tax in the price of that Beanie Baby.
The price is already going up. We are talking about a whole new
concept that the MMS is trying to start with the oil industry, to set a
precedent--no vote of any Member of Congress. Then we will see that
start happening in other industries as well. It is a very dangerous
precedent.
This chart shows what has happened to the price of gasoline at the
pump in the last 10 years.
In 1990, the price of gasoline was about $1.21 per gallon. That was
the average price in 1990. Of that, 26 cents was gasoline taxes and 94
cents was the cost of the crude oil in that gasoline that was bought at
the pump. Move down to 1997; the retail price has moved up to $1.29.
Look at what has happened to the costs. The costs have actually gone
down. The cost of the oil in that gallon of gasoline has gone from 94
cents per gallon to 88 cents per gallon. So if that is the case, why
has the price of gasoline at the pump gone up? It is because taxes have
increased from 26 cents per gallon to 40 cents per gallon. That is why
oil prices have gone up in the last 10 years.
The Senator from California wants to defeat my amendment, which will
have the effect of raising the taxes on oil, which means every American
is going to pay a higher tax than 40 cents per gallon. It is going to
go up by however much MMS says. But if we start taxing the expenses of
marketing and transportation, we could see 50 cents a gallon going into
the price of gasoline at the pump and we could start looking at $1.39
being the average price of gasoline per gallon.
I think it is very important that we look at where the price of oil
has gone up and what is causing Americans to pay higher prices at the
pump. Because we import 57 percent of the oil from foreign countries
and because OPEC has now limited what they are going to produce, the
price of the imported oil is also going up. So put added taxes, which
defeating my amendment will achieve, with the higher price of imported
oil--you cause oil companies to stop drilling in America because it is
now so expensive to do so, and it is going to be more expensive if my
amendment fails--and you have the triple whammy. You have our jobs
moving overseas, our dependency on foreign oil rising to 57 percent and
continuing to go up, and the hard-working American paying higher prices
for gasoline at the pump.
That is not a good solution. We should not be allowing Federal
agencies to raise the price of gasoline at the pump by raising the
price of oil, by taxing it at a higher rate, without so much as one
vote by a Member of Congress who is accountable to the people.
If the Senators who want to defeat my amendment want to pass a tax
increase up or down based on the principles they are espousing from the
MMS, let them do it. Let them do it on a straight-up vote. Let them
come to the Senate floor and defend raising gasoline taxes on every
hard-working American. That is what the effect of defeating my
amendment will be.
Why not do it straight up? I call on the Senators who are trying to
defeat

[[Page 22334]]

my amendment to say: OK, I want higher gasoline taxes; I want hard-
working Americans to pay not $1.20 or $1.29 at the pump; I want them to
pay $1.39 or $1.49. If that is their goal, let's address it straight
on, because that is the effect of defeating the Hutchison-Domenici
amendment.
I hope we can have a debate that is based on the issues affecting
this amendment. Let's talk about raising gasoline prices on hard-
working Americans who are seeing prices go up already. Let's talk about
what will happen if we have a crisis in the Middle East and we have 5-
hour gas lines and we have to pay higher prices to get the gasoline for
which we wait 5 hours to fill our tanks. Let's talk about the real
issue here, which is raising the price of gasoline at the pump on hard-
working Americans.
I don't think that is what Congress wants to do. I think that is why
60 Members of Congress said let us have an up-or-down vote. That is the
issue today, Mr. President.
I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas withhold her
quorum call?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to allow the Senator to be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Texas. I do look forward to this
debate. We have, for the first time, a debate about this particular
rider to an appropriations bill on the Senate floor, finally.
(Mr. BUNNING assumed the chair.)
Mrs. BOXER. The Hutchison rider has been agreed to many times in the
dead of night in the committee. But the Senate has never had time to
explore all that it means. It is a tough debate going on here. I think
it is good because, again, it shows, in many ways, the difference
between the two parties, who stands for whom, where we come out.
I thought comments of the Senator from Wisconsin about the role of
campaign contributions to the political parties, as he pointed it out,
was germane. We may have a vote about that later. He is simply pointing
out a fact that has been noted in the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times,
the New York Times, which is that, in fact, campaign contributions
taint this debate. Even if everybody is pure of heart and pure of soul
in this Senate--and I pray that is the case--there is an appearance
here. It doesn't look right when you realize that 5 percent of the oil
companies--mostly big oil--are not paying their fair share of
royalties.
We show it right here on the chart. The cost of the Hutchison
amendment would represent $66 million that would otherwise go to the
taxpayers, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the national parks,
historic monuments, and to the States to go into the classrooms. So it
is very important that when these decisions are made, they are being
made by the pure of heart because you have a situation where the oil
companies are not paying their fair share--5 percent of the oil
companies--and the people are therefore not getting their fair share to
go into the classrooms and the national parks. Therefore, we want to
make sure the decision is based on the facts, not on campaign
contributions.
I thought the Senator from Wisconsin was absolutely brilliant in his
discussion and laying down the facts that show these campaign
contributions. I hope if we do have a vote on whether that is germane,
we will, in fact, find that the Senator from Wisconsin can continue his
remarks because I think it goes to the heart of the matter. So just to
show why I have taken the time of the Senate on this, I want to look
again at this chart, which I call ``Big Oil's Big Rip Off.'' Because of
this rider, we have lost $66 million from the Treasury--excuse me, we
have already lost $88 million from the Treasury. Under this amendment,
we lose another $66 million. That would mean if this amendment passes,
the total cost of the oil rider will be $154 million to the taxpayers.
I find it really interesting--a couple of things that the Senator
from Texas now says--that if we collect the fair share of royalties, we
will see an increase in gasoline at the pump. Let me tell you why I
find that really interesting. We have debated this issue for many years
now, and we have heard every argument being used. It always changes.
The first argument as to why we should not allow Bruce Babbitt and
the Interior Department to collect a fair amount of royalties from the
oil companies was that oil companies are being fair. Why, we are not
cheating; we are paying the fair share. They argue that. That didn't
fly. The newspapers didn't buy it. Nobody really bought it. So the next
argument is, well, maybe there needs to be a clarification. Maybe what
we are paying isn't exactly right. We don't admit that, but let's have
a clarification. But we need more time. So let's not allow the Interior
Department to decide this matter now; let's buy some time.
OK. Then they went to the third issue because that didn't fly very
well anymore. The third excuse was that we haven't had enough public
comment period on the rule. But go ahead and again open up public
comment, and we will be glad to pay our fair share. Well, there were 17
meetings held, and then they opened up the public comment period again.
We have heard every excuse in the world, bar none, as to why we should
not be collecting the $154 million that is due taxpayers. The latest
one is: Oh, oh, you better not allow Bruce Babbitt to go after those
royalties because your prices will go up at the pump. Well, we know for
a fact--if you look at the amount of money this means to the oil
companies--it is a tiny percentage.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a
chart that shows what these royalties mean to the big oil companies.
There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Total Percent of Potential Percent of
Company Revenue (Oil and 1996 Roy Paid Royalty Paid Vs. Liability Under Royalty Liability
Gas J.) (oil and cond.) Revenue the Rule v. Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Total.............................................. $29,151,000,000 $213,008,437 0.73 $19,459,159 0.07
Exxon Corp. USA, Total................................... 134,249,000,000 154,531,037 0.12 7,993,222 0.01
Chevron USA, Inc. Total.................................. 43,893,000,000 159,611,684 0.36 7,111,509 0.02
Texaco Exploration & Prod, I Total....................... 45,500,000,000 87,370,721 0.19 6,375,000 0.01
Marathon Oil Company Total............................... 16,356,000,000 53,593,234 0.33 5,225,380 0.03
Mobile Explor. & Prod. U.S. Total........................ 81,503,000,000 55,511,623 0.07 3,978,051 0.00
Conoco Inc. Total........................................ 20,579,000,000 30,562,431 0.15 2,444,738 0.01
Phillips Petroleum Co. Total............................. 15,807,000,000 10,527,634 0.07 2,334,420 0.01
BP Exploration and Oil Inc. Total........................ 17,165,000,000 46,819,366 0.27 2,138,002 0.01
Amerada Hess Corporation Total........................... 8,929,711,000 12,271,849 0.14 1,446,901 0.02
Amoco Production Company Total........................... 36,112,000,000 31,030,184 0.09 1,427,185 0.00
Pennzoil Products Co. Total.............................. 2,486,846,000 23,858,522 0.96 1,416,140 0.06
Unocal Exploration Total................................. 9,599,000,000 36,205,793 0.38 1,358,282 0.01
Murphy Oil Company U.S.A. Total.......................... 2,022,176,000 16,445,805 0.81 778,351 0.04
Arco Western Energy Total................................ 19,169,000,000 50,363,676 0.26 718,384 0.00
Coastal Oil & Gas Corporat Total......................... 12,166,900,000 4,364,577 0.04 470,939 0.00
Total Petroleum, Inc.--Oil Total......................... 34,526,000,000 3,059,110 0.01 364,045 0.00
Koch Oil Co. Total....................................... Unavailable 3,214,012 ................. 342,222 .................
Fina Oil & Chemical Company Total........................ 4,078,502,000 1,393,795 0.03 156,560 0.00
Hunt Oil Company Total................................... Unavailable 8,256,498 ................. 125,731 0
Howell Petroleum Corporation Total....................... 712,501,000 1,581,010 0.22 122,669 0.02
Frontier Oil & Refining Co. Total........................ 3,379,000 486,634 14.40 47,583 1.42
Giant Refining Company Total............................. Unavailable 945,403 ................. 46,854 1.42
Citgo Petroleum Corp. Total.............................. Unavailable 600,941 ................. 45,755 .................

[[Page 22335]]

Navajo Crude Oil Mktg Co Total........................... Unavailable 2,598,096 ................. 45,063 .................
BHP Petroleum (Americas), I Total........................ 135,180,000 6,266,511 4.64 34,020 0.03
Barrett Resources Corp. Total............................ 202,572,000 306,239 0.15 32,719 0.02
ANR Production Total..................................... Unavailable 402,039 ................. 13,801 .................
Petro Source Total....................................... Unavailable 919,725 ................. 12,049 .................
Berry Petroleum Company Total............................ 57,095,000 132,733 0.23 9,711 0.02
Sinclair Oil Corp. Total................................. Unavailable 181,480 ................. 5,949 .................
Ashland Exploration, Inc. Total.......................... 13,309,000,000 47,270 0.00 3,825 0.00
Big West Oil & Gas Inc. Total............................ Unavailable 1,877,664 ................. 3,415 .................
Sun Refining & Marketing Co. Total....................... Unavailable 73,075 ................. 2,683 .................
Pride Energy Company Total............................... Unavailable 113,116 ................. 2,389 .................
Cenex, Inc. Total........................................ Unavailable 140,119 ................. 2,267 .................
Sunland Refining Corp. Total............................. Unavailable 4,034 ................. 1,919 .................
Diamond Shamrock Ref & Mktg Total........................ Unavailable 6,805 ................. 226 .................
Montana Refining Company Total........................... Unavailable 2,923 ................. 213 .................
Gary-Williams Energy Corp. Total......................... Unavailable 27,848 ................. 8 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total of 40 Companies........................ ................. ................. ................. 66,097,612 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. BOXER. The list that is going into the Record shows all of the
big oil companies and what this really means for them. It is so small
that these royalty payments, in some cases, can't even be measured.
They are so minuscule, they can't even be measured. The largest one is
.07 percent of their revenues. So to stand up here and say your oil
prices are going to go up is ludicrous. It is completely a new argument
that absolutely holds no weight. Even if they were to pass this on, it
would not even be a penny a gallon. It would not even be a mill.
Let's face it; this isn't anything about higher gas prices because it
doesn't even impact these companies. This isn't about any of that. It
is about fairness; it is about justice. How do we know that it is about
fairness and justice? The whistleblowers who work for big oil have
testified. Let me tell you about something I have not even mentioned
before in this debate. Recently, there was a lawsuit filed on behalf of
two whistleblowers from big oil, and the lawsuit is quite compelling.
It is so compelling that the Justice Department actually joined in as a
party to the lawsuit.
I know we have heard many seven schemes. We have heard of the Seven
Wonders of the World; the Seven Years' War; Seven Brides for Seven
Brothers; the Seven Seas; Seventh Heaven; Seven Days of the Week;
Seventh Inning Stretch--which is what we could probably use right now--
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; Lucky Number Seven; Dance of the Seven
Veils; the Seven Year Itch. How about even this biblical one: Forgive
your enemies 70 times 7; Seven Hills of Rome; the Magnificent Seven;
Seven Days in May; the Seven Percent Solution. There is even a book
called ``The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People''; Seven-Up. We
have heard of 7-Eleven stores; Seven Samurai; Double-O Seven; there is
even Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
So we have heard a lot about sevens in history, and today on this
floor of the Senate I am going to talk about another seven. This isn't
a pretty one. This isn't a movie. This isn't a song. This isn't a
saying. This is a lawsuit, a lawsuit that outlined the seven schemes of
the oil companies--the seven schemes of the oil companies to defraud
the taxpayers. I am going to speak to you from this lawsuit. I am going
to read to you right from this lawsuit. Before you fall asleep and
think it is boring, it is not boring. These are two whistleblowers,
former ARCO executives, big boys in the echelon, who cleansed their
souls. This is what they said in a lawsuit under penalty of perjury:

Causes of action alleged herein arise from a nationwide
conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to
shortchange the United States of America of hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenues known as royalties.

Let me repeat that because this is the crux of what is before us
today. Two whistleblowers from the highest echelons of the big oil
companies stated under penalty of perjury that there is a ``nationwide
conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to shortchange
the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenues known as royalties.''
What does this amendment do? Why am I taking the Senate's time? I
want to shine the light of truth on this issue.
The Department of the Interior knows this scam is going on, and they
want to fix it. What we have before us is an amendment to stop the
Interior Department. You can see from the poster by my good friend from
Texas. Now the argument is: Turn your sights on the Interior
Department; they are corrupt. This is a new argument about trial
lawyers. I haven't heard that one before. I guess they keep taking a
poll to see who is popular, and then they try to argue with us because
they cannot argue with us on the merits.
I think it is also very interesting because the Senator from Texas
and the Senator from Wyoming tried to stop Senator Feingold from
talking about the oil company contributions. They are coming up with
the trial lawyers. I find it is interesting. That is fine. I don't mind
that. I wouldn't gag any of my colleagues. They can say whatever they
want because the issue here is clear. It is stated in a lawsuit:

There is a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's
largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of
America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue known
as royalties.

That is not a statement by trial lawyers; that is a statement under
penalty of perjury by two former employees of big oil.
Let's see what else they say.
They say:

There is a pattern and a practice of carefully developed
and coordinated schemes targeted to defraud the United States
of America of its lawful share of royalties owed by the
defendants, the oil companies, for crude oil produced in
United States owned or controlled land.

In English language, it means that when these oil companies drill on
lands that belong to the people of the United States of America, land
of the United States, either onshore or offshore, they are not paying
their royalties.
To continue:

The oil companies' unlawful conduct is continuing in nature
and these major oil companies operating in the United States
have underpaid oil royalties to the United States by
calculating the royalties based on prices less than the total
consideration actually received by the oil companies.

In English language, these royalties are not being based on the fair
market price, which is what they have to be, according to the lease
they sign. Let's take a look at that lease they signed because I think
that is pretty telling.
The Senator from Texas keeps referring to a royalty as a tax. A
royalty is not a tax. A royalty is paid subject to an agreement. When
oil companies drill on lands that belong to ``we, the people,'' they
have to pay something for it. It is a privilege, and they have to pay
something for it. The ``something'' that they pay for is the subject of
this debate.
The Department of the Interior says--and these whistleblowers say--
that 5 percent of the oil companies are cheating and 95 percent are
doing the right thing. They are paying the fair market value--their
royalty is based on a fair market value--but 5 percent of the companies
that are cheating us are not. We know that to be the case.
So let's look at the agreement that the oil companies signed. They
signed an agreement that says the value of production for purposes of
computing royalty on production shall never be

[[Page 22336]]

less than the fair market value of the production. It further says gas
of all kinds, except helium, is subject to royalties and that, for
purposes of computing, the royalty from this lease shall never be less
than the fair market value of production.
That is the subject of this debate. Five percent of the oil companies
are not paying the fair market value.
Let's look at some of the companies and the posted prices.
Whistleblowers have told us that these oil company executives sit
around and plan to defraud the people. It is all in this lawsuit, and
it is reflected in this chart. If you track the market price of oil--
right here we have done that-- from July 1997 to June 1998, just to
give you an example, this blue line is the market price.
How do we know the market price? It is listed in oil publications
every day. We know what it is. It is really definable. If you track
that market price compared with this red line, which is the ARCO posted
price--in other words, that is the price ARCO decided to pay royalties
on--what do you see? You see a differential of about $4 per barrel.
Sometimes it is less--$2. But it can go up to $4 or $5 in difference.
What does that mean? It means that the taxpayers are being defrauded by
this amount in the middle, in between the two.
Do we have another oil company? It just doesn't happen in ARCO. I
don't want to say it just happens in ARCO.
Here we have another oil company. We track the market prices and the
posted prices. Isn't it amazing? Why is it this way? Because these
companies are cheating the Government. They are not paying the
royalties based on the blue line, which is the market price, which they
have to, according to the agreement they signed. This isn't about
taxes, my friends. This is a royalty agreement. They are paying the
royalty based on the red line, and the taxpayers are getting ripped
off.
You may say, well, what is $4 a barrel with $2 to $4 on a regular
basis? It is a lot. Let me tell you what it is. We are not talking
about peanuts; we are talking about real dollars. Let's talk about
that.
This amendment that is before us today, on which the Senator from
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, got 60 votes--just the amount she needed, and
not 1 vote to spare to bring this amendment to the floor--is about real
dollars, $66 million. What can you do with $66 million?
By the way, that is only 1 year. If this continues, we are looking at
$1/2 billion pretty soon, and $1 billion after that.
Let's take 1 year for this particular amendment, $66 million. We
could have hired 1,000 teachers with that. We know we need more
teachers in the classroom. These royalty payments, when they go to the
States, are used in the classroom. Anyone who talks about how we need
more money for education, we could hire 1,000 teachers with the $66
million.
Maybe you don't want to hire teachers. Maybe you want to improve the
schools. We can put 44,000 new computers in the classroom with $66
million. That is just this year. Or we can buy textbooks for 1.2
million students.
Have you ever looked at some of the textbooks in our public schools?
When I was a kid and I got a textbook--it was a long time ago; I plead
guilty to that--when we opened up a textbook in those happy days, it
smelled clean and fresh. It was clean and fresh. It was ours. Today,
some of the textbooks have writing; they are old; they are falling
apart. What kind of message is that?
I could be challenged: Why is the Senator from California talking
about schools, textbooks, and teachers? Easy. The money we would get if
we defeat the Hutchison amendment could buy 1.2 million students new
textbooks.
If you want to do something for the safety net with that $66 million,
we could provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren, lunches
that have more than ketchup, I might say; lunches with nourishment,
nutrition. We know a lot of our kids need that.
When these oil companies sit around and plot to defraud the
government--and we have it here, under penalty of perjury, that that is
what they do with seven schemes. We have the schemes outlined. Later in
the debate I will get into exactly what are the seven schemes.
Essentially, all seven are schemes to lower the value of the oil that
is pumped from Federal lands. They have intricate ways of doing that.
It is spelled out right here. I will read a little more from this
complaint.
These whistleblowers, who were former executives high up in the chain
of big oil, say:

. . . they have knowledge of the unlawful conduct,
including the schemes and the practices alleged herein, which
include the oil company's misrepresentation and underpayment
of oil royalty payments to the United States.

They go through the schemes. Does anyone want to challenge the
authenticity of these charges from these whistleblowers, former oil
executives, who say they have ``direct knowledge that this is going
on.'' They call it ``conspiratorial activities'' to cheat the United
States out of its royalty income by deflating the base price of oil
upon which royalties are to be paid.
This is thievery. People say: Why are you taking the time of the
Senate, Senator Boxer? It is because I love this place too much to see
us put our imprimatur on this scheme.
Let's read directly from the Platt's Oil article that shows exactly
what one of these executives said under penalty of perjury. This is an
article that appeared over the summer of this year in an oil company
report. This isn't from the New York Times. We have gotten a good
article from the New York Times. We have gotten good articles from USA
Today and the Los Angeles Times. We have gotten good articles in South
Dakota; we have gotten good articles in Michigan. All of those
editorials are saying Senator Boxer is right.
This is from an oil company newspaper, so it should have total
credibility with all who take the oil company's side. I will read this
article entitled ``Retired ARCO Employee Says Company Underpaid Oil
Royalties.''

A retired Atlantic Richfield employee has admitted in court
that while he was the secretary of ARCO's crude pricing
committee, the major's posted prices were far below the fair
market value.

Let me repeat that. An oil company executive who worked in this area
said that the ``posted prices''--that is, the price that the oil
company paid the royalty on--was ``far below the fair market value.''
Let's look at the chart again. He is saying the amount they paid
their royalties on--remember, the royalty is a percentage, about 12
percent if it is onshore, 12 percent of the fair market value. They did
12 percent of their made-up posted price.
He is not anonymous. This man has a name. He has put his good name
out there. He has said under penalty of perjury in court that what he
says is true. Harry Anderson is his name. He testified this month in an
ongoing suit, and he said he was a witness to the inner workings of
ARCO. According to court documents, Anderson testified that the primary
purpose of the crude pricing committee was to set the posted prices for
the mid-continent, Alaskan and California crudes. In other words, it
was his job to decide what was the posted price. On that posted price,
they would pay their royalties. Whatever Mr. Anderson and his friends
decided was that fair market value called the posted price, that is on
what they would pay the royalties.
This chart shows consistently these prices were below the market
price listed in the paper. Could this be an accident? No, because he
said ARCO's postings were within 15 to 30 cents per barrel of the
others, and at least $4 to $5 below what was accepted as fair market
value for crude.
What he said was all of the majors were doing this. This 5 percent
that we say are doing the wrong thing were within a few cents of each
other, and all of them, according to him, were $4 to $5 below the fair
market price. That is even more than we said, $2 to $4. He says in a
certain period of time they were $4 to $5 below market price.
Under penalty of perjury, a man with the inside knowledge of what was
going on, said that ARCO and the other

[[Page 22337]]

``posters''--meaning the posted price people--never raised the posted
price to the market value. We see that is true. We plotted the market
price during that period and here is the posted price. He says all of
our calculations, all the public information on refined values relating
to California crudes say the fair market value was well in excess of
the posting.
That is another way of putting it: The fair market value was well in
excess; it was more than the posted prices that they put down.
He said, and this is really interesting, he was:

. . . not being truthful 5 years ago when he testified in a
deposition that ARCO's posted prices represented fair market
value.

So the man admits that he wasn't truthful before in court. He is
cleansing his soul and he is now telling the truth. He goes on to say,
and this is chilling, in explanation for why he lied about the fair
market value:

I was an ARCO employee. Some of the issues being discussed
were still being litigated.

Listen to this. He says:

My plan was to get to retirement. We had seen numerous
occasions where the nail that stood up got beaten down.

What does that mean? Someone who had the courage to stand up in the
face of the higher-ups and tell the truth that they were cheating
taxpayers got beaten down. Harry Anderson said that. It is pretty
chilling. He goes on. He said:

The senior executives of ARCO had the judgment that they
would take the money, accrue for the day of judgment, and
that's what we did.

What does he mean by that, ``take the money'' and wait ``for the day
of judgment?''
What he means is they would lie about the value of the oil, not give
the true market value, pay less of a royalty, pocket the money, and
wait for the judgment day.
Maybe the judgment day is here, I say to my friends. Maybe if this
Senate has some courage, we can stop this fraud today. We will not be
stopping it if we approve the Hutchison amendment, I will say that. Mr.
Anderson said he was afraid he would lose his retirement if he didn't
go along with the game. Mr. Anderson said the other executives said:
What the heck, we'll just lie about this and we'll wait for the
judgment day. That is a translation of what he said. He goes on to say
even more chilling things. He goes on to say:

I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued
to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the
process during the discussion stage.

Let me repeat that:

I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued
to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the
process during the discussion stage.

In other words, Mr. Anderson is saying if I blew the whistle, I would
be gone. If I did not go along with this scheme--and we now know seven
schemes--that he would be gone. He says further:

Once we made our decisions, the ranks closed.

So they sat around, decided to wait for the judgment day, and people
like Harry Anderson who were afraid for their retirement went along
with the scheme. Then he says: Once we made our decision we closed
ranks. That was the deal.
He says further:

I did not get to be a manager and remain a manager being
oblivious and blind to signals.

What an ethic. What an ethic. Where is the corporate responsibility,
when they have someone who is honest in their ranks and he is afraid to
talk because he will get fired, he won't get his retirement? When he
talks up about how the company underpaid oil royalties, he is finished.
So he doesn't talk up. And he is feeling guilty and he is carrying this
on his back. He comes clean in a lawsuit where he just says: I was
afraid of losing my job if I told the truth.
We are going to protect that kind of behavior by the oil companies by
voting for this amendment? I pray not. I pray not. I really hope some
of the folks who voted for cloture to bring this debate to a close will
join me on the substance of this thing. I have never in all my years in
politics--and I have been in politics so long I am embarrassed to tell
you that I was elected the first time in 1976. I have seen a lot of
things. I have seen issues that were cloudy. I have seen issues where
the line between right and wrong was fudged. They say every issue has
two sides. This one does. The oil companies versus the people. That is
the two sides.
The Interior Department wants to make sure the oil companies pay
their fair share so the people get their fair share. We will show you
the money again; the money, what is at stake here. If we do not vote
down the Hutchison amendment, the people of America will have lost $154
million.
Let's suppose you do not even like to spend it on national parks; you
don't want to spend it in classrooms. How about paying down the debt? I
will bet a lot of folks think that is a good idea. But, no, if we vote
for the Hutchison amendment, we lose a cumulative $154 million.
I want to read into the Record a letter I just received from the
Consumer Federation of America. First, I want to say a word about the
groups that have really worked hard to defeat this Hutchison amendment.
I just told you before there are two sides on this amendment: the oil
companies versus the people of the United States of America. I believe
that in my heart. We have over 50 groups that are helping us defeat
this amendment. Every one of them is worthy of mention, but I do not
have time at this point to mention them all, so I will mention some of
them:
The American Association of Educational Service Agencies--they know
they are being robbed of education funds by this amendment. They oppose
it. The American Association of School Administrators, the American
Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of
Teachers--they have to be in the classrooms with the books that don't
measure up, without computers. They want to fight for this. They are
against the Hutchison amendment.
American Rivers, Americans for Clean Energy, the Arkansas State Lands
Commission, the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction,
the Clean Fuels Foundation, Common Cause. Common Cause understands what
is at stake here. They agree with Senator Feingold when he stood up--
and they tried to gag him when he said there is a tie-in between this
amendment and the campaign finances where big special interests like
the tobacco companies, the oil companies, you name it, have an
incredible amount of influence. Again, even if everyone was pure of
heart it looks terrible to see the special interests win on these.
The Better Government Association is with us, the Colorado State
Board of Land Commissioners, the Consumer Project on Technology--they
know they need technology in schools--Defenders of Wildlife. It is an
incredible list. The Friends of the Earth, the Gray Panthers--they are
the elderly. They understand we need to support our parks and our kids
and our schools; the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation.
I am just on the M's, and this goes all the way to the W's.
I want to comment on one of the organizations that has worked so hard
with me and others on this, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, U.S.
PIRG. They have worked very diligently talking with colleagues, and we
have kept this fight alive because of these people. We have kept this
fight on the front pages of some of the newspapers because of these
people. Hopefully, tonight we will see it on TV.
The Washington State Lands Commissioner; the Wilderness Society; the
Wisconsin Secretary of State and Chair, Board of Commissioners of
Public Lands--this is an incredible list. I left out the N's and the
P's, and I will have to get back to them later.
Today, I have a new letter from the Consumer Federation of America.
Let me read it. This is one of the foremost consumer groups in the
country. I have to say it is now headed by a beloved colleague, Howard
Metzenbaum, who served here as the voice of the consumers for so long,
the voice for the

[[Page 22338]]

people who do not have a voice, the voice for the people who have to
get up in the morning and go to work, the people who cannot afford to
send their lobbyists here and the people who cannot afford campaign
contributions.
What does he say in this letter?

The Consumer Federation of America joins you in opposing
the Hutchison-Domenici rider to [this bill]. [The
organization] is concerned about the decline in
accountability of many corporations to the needs and concerns
of consumers, communities, and national interests. This rider
is a case study in this lack of accountability, not to
mention an unjustified subsidy by the taxpayers to the [big]
oil companies.
According to the Department of Interior, eighteen oil
companies have consistently undervalued the cost of oil
drilled on federal land to avoid paying [their royalty
payments] of about $66 million a year.

He goes on to say we have already lost $88 million and that this
amendment of Senator Hutchison will, in fact, delay the Department of
the Interior--even a better word--``prohibit the Department of Interior
from finalizing their regulations'' to require the oil companies to pay
their royalties based on the fair market price of the oil, not on a
lower price established by the oil companies themselves.
Howard Metzenbaum said it as straight as one can. They are paying
royalties on their made-up price rather than on the market price.
He goes on to say that the Consumer Federation of America opposes
this rider for two reasons.
One:

The undervaluation of oil drilled on Federal land amounts
to nothing more than corporate welfare. The practice
represents an unjustified subsidy, especially to the larger
oil companies that are in a position to reap huge returns
from oil drilled on Federal land.

Second:

Taxpayers must pick up the tab for this subsidy, to the
tune of tens of millions of dollars a year.

He goes on to say:

The Consumer Federation of America applauds you for your
efforts to insure that taxpayers receive a fair return from
federal oil sales.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record, along with a list of groups that are, in fact, opposing the
Hutchison amendment.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Consumer Federation of America,

Washington, DC, September 23, 1999.

Re Urgent! CFA opposes Hutchison-Domenici oil royalty rider.

Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: The Consumer Federation of America
(CFA) joins you in opposing the Hutchison-Domenici rider to
the FY 2000 Department of Interior Appropriations bill. CFA
is concerned about the decline in accountability of many
corporations to the needs and concerns of consumers,
communities, and national interests. This rider is a case
study in this lack of accountability, not to mention an
unjustified subsidy by the taxpayers to large oil companies.
According to the Department of Interior, eighteen oil
companies have consistently undervalued the cost of oil
drilled on federal land and avoided paying fees of about $66
million a year. Since this rider first took effect last year,
an estimated $88 million in royalties have not been
collected. This rider would prohibit the Department of
Interior from finalizing regulations that would require oil
companies to pay royalties based on the market price of oil
drilled on federal land, and not on a lower price established
by the oil companies themselves.
CFA opposes this ride for two primary reasons:
The undervaluation of oil drilled on Federal land amounts
to nothing more than corporate welfare. The practice
represents an unjustified subsidy, especially to the larger
oil companies that are in a position to reap huge returns
from oil drilled on Federal land.
Taxpayers must pick up the tab for this subsidy, to the
tune of tens of millions of dollars a year.
CFA applauds you for your efforts to insure that taxpayers
receive a fair return from federal oil sales.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Metzenbaum,
Senator (Ret.).
____

Opposition to Moratorium Hits a Gusher: Millions Agree Big Oil Should
Pay Fair Share

(Revised August 3, 1999)

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has vowed to re-attach
an amendment known as the oil royalty moratorium to the
Department of Interior appropriations bill in the coming
days. The moratorium would stop Interior from implementing a
rule that prevents royalty-evasion by 40 of the largest oil
companies drilling on federal and Indian lands. A growing
coalition of educational, taxpayer, conservation, native
American and labor organizations as well as state governments
agree with Interior that Big Oil should pay its fair share.

American Assn of Educational Service Agencies
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)
American Federation of Teachers
American Lands Alliance
American Oceans Campaign
American Rivers
American Wind Energy Association
Americans for Clean Energy
Arkansas State Lands Commission
Better Government Association
California State Lands Commission
Calif. State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Clean Fuels Foundation
Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners
Common Cause
Consumer Project on Technology
Council of Chief State School Officers
Defenders of Wildlife
EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund
Endangered Species Coalition
Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs
Friends of the Earth
Fund for Constitutional Government
Government Accountability Project
Gray Panthers
Greenpeace
Mineral Policy Center
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
National Assn of State Boards of Education
National Audubon Society
National Education Association
National Environmental Trust
National Parent-Teachers Association (PTA)
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Rural Education Association
National School Boards Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Wildlife Federation
Native American Rights Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Navajo Nation
New Mexico State Lands Commissioner
North Dakota Commissioner of University and School Lands
Ozone Action
Pacific Rivers Council
Paper Allied Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE)
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Preamble Center
Project On Government Oversight
Public Citizen's Congress Watch
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Safe Energy Communication Council
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club
South Dakota Commissioner of Schools and Public Lands
Southern Utah Wilderness Association
SUN DAY Campaign
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Texas State Lands Commissioner
Trout Unlimited
20/20 Vision
UNITE, Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
United for a Fair Economy
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Washington State Lands Commissioner
Wilderness Society
Wisconsin Secretary of State and Chair, Board of
Commissioners of Public Lands
World Wildlife Fund

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are in quite a situation here, and I am
going to go through some of the charts I have not gone through up to
this time.
When we talk about the money we will lose because of the Hutchison
amendment--and I find it ironic we are doing an appropriations bill to
appropriate money for the various functions therein, including national
parks, including very important functions, such as preserving historic
monuments--we realize we are losing $66 million, and I told you that
money can go pretty far. It will affect many States.
My staff has been extraordinary in terms of all the research and all
the work they have put into this issue. I thank Jodi Linker, Matthew
Baumgart, and the rest of my staff, and Liz Tankersley and Dave
Sandretti

[[Page 22339]]

who helped us. When you are hit with an issue such as this and you know
you have an uphill battle, it takes a good staff to keep on keeping on,
to keep on keeping up with the issues, and they do. I am so grateful to
them.
Today I have a new chart. It shows the 11 most endangered historic
sites in America. What is very interesting about this is that these
buildings qualify for Federal funds to preserve them. As we go into the
next millennium, we start thinking about our heritage, our great
Nation. One of the things we have to do is restore these incredible
monuments to our history. There are 11 of them. They desperately are
seeking, not Susan, but funding. They must have funding because they
are old and they will otherwise fall apart.
I was at one such monument. It is not 1 of the 11 great ones. It is a
small one. But it is in a little town north of my home, Sonoma County.
It is a round barn. I never really knew what a round barn was, but it
is famous. In the 1800s, they used to take the horses and run them
around in this barn. We only have a couple left in California. This one
is falling apart. It needs a few dollars. So when people say $66
million, let's look at these 11.
The Senator from Illinois is here, and I point out to him that one of
these endangered landmarks, as I remember, is in Illinois. I wonder if
he realizes--and I know he does--that some of this funding that would
otherwise go to the Interior Department and we are not going to see if
the Hutchison amendment is adopted could go to help one of the
monuments in his State, which is the Pullman Administration Building
and factory complex, in Pullman, IL, which dates back to 1890.
All of these are very endangered. We see one in Rochester, NY, the
Monroe Theater. We see one in Louisville, KY, a beautiful place called
Robinswood. We see one in Cleveland, MT, Lancaster, PA, barn shadow,
``Lost Barn.'' We see the Allen Auditorium in Alaska and, in my own
State, the incredible Angel Island Immigration Station through which
many of our ancestors came. In New York State, there are four national
historic landmark hospitals. There is one in Hudson Valley. It is a
beautiful one. One is in Baltimore, west side of downtown Baltimore,
Chinatown. It is endangered.
I say to my colleagues, when we are fighting against this amendment,
we are, in fact, saying it is not fair for 5 percent of the oil
companies to do the wrong thing, to defraud the people of the United
States of America of their money; it is wrong to do that.
There are other uses for this money. We believe even if all those
uses did not have support, paying down the debt would be better than
allowing this big ripoff to continue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and retain my time.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, again, for
engaging in this debate. There are those who stay glued to their
screens watching the Senate debate from early morning to late at night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Illinois will pardon the
Chair, I misstated. The Senator has 22 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
Those who stay glued to the screens watching C-SPAN and the Senate
debate know what this is all about. Those who come to the gallery or
tune in may not understand why we are on the floor today with a few
Members very deeply involved in debate.
This is a debate over the use of America's public lands, lands owned
by all of us as citizens of the United States. We have a lot of them,
literally millions of acres. Some of them are beautiful, pristine
parks, and some are national forests.
Many of these lands are used for a variety of purposes. Some are used
for recreational and tourism purposes, our beautiful National Park
System which was instituted by a famous Republican President, Theodore
Roosevelt, who opened Yosemite National Park and started the park
system, and many other aspects such as the National Forest System, of
which we have in Illinois the Shawnee National Forest, one of the more
beautiful parts of our State. We are very proud of it.
Then as you go out West, you find a variety of public lands. I am the
sponsor of a bill, on which perhaps a dozen of my colleagues have
joined me, for the so-called Utah Wilderness, an area much different
from my national forest in southern Illinois, but as a desert, in its
own way, it has a special beauty. It is a wilderness area owned by the
Federal Government.
We say that many areas of public land are going to be protected, that
literally no one can use them, or, if you do, it is in a very careful
manner. But we say as well that there are some lands which can be used,
public lands, by private individuals and companies for a fee. So we
invite onto some lands, like national forests, logging companies that
come in and chop down trees. They make a profit off the lumber. They
give money to the Federal Government to use that land to chop those
trees down.
We also allow mining companies to come in on public land to mine for
minerals which they turn around and sell. We say to western ranchers:
You can let your cattle graze on public lands here, chew the grass, get
fat to bring to market to make you a profit. You will pay us a fee to
do it, but you are welcome to use the land.
This debate is about the use of public lands where oil companies come
in and drill for oil. Keep it in perspective. The oil companies do not
own the land. We do. The taxpayers do. The oil companies--private
companies--come in and bid for the right to drill for oil. If they are
fortunate and find oil they can then sell for a profit, they give us
back a rental fee called a royalty. That is what this debate is all
about. It is about 5 percent of the oil companies in America, the
largest oil companies, and whether they will pay to us, as taxpayers,
to the Federal Government, a fair rental payment, a royalty payment for
extracting oil from our land and selling it for a profit.
Sounds like a pretty simple undertaking. We put a formula into law.
The formula said: We are going to base the royalty that you pay the
taxpayers for drilling oil on public lands based on what the price of
the oil is. It sounds eminently sensible, reasonable, and easy. It is
not. We found, over the last several years, that the oil companies have
found ways to avoid coming up with the real price of the oil. They have
six or seven different schemes they use to basically pay less to the
taxpayers than they are supposed to pay.
How can I say that? I can say it because a lot of States and the
Federal Government have taken the oil companies to court and have said
they did not pay the royalty required by law. The oil companies, over
several years, have paid back $5 billion that was underpaid in
royalties. We caught them with their hands in the cookie jar. They had
not paid the taxpayers--State and Federal taxpayers--what they were
required to pay under the law.
The amendment before us by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison,
says, the Department of the Interior cannot recalculate this royalty
fee based on the new prices of oil. It would be the fourth time in
several years that we stopped the Interior Department from
recalculating the royalty. In other words, we are saying we do not care
if the oil companies owe us more money, we are not going to collect it.
How much is it worth to us, to the taxpayers? It is $5.6 million per
month. Some watching this will say: For goodness' sake, don't they lose
that on the floor of the Treasury when they are mopping up at night?
And $5.6 million a month, that isn't much by Federal standards where
you talk about trillions and billions.
They have a point. But for the average person, the average family,
the average business, $66 million a year is real money, real money that
the oil companies should pay us and are not

[[Page 22340]]

paying us and will not pay us if the Hutchison amendment passes because
the Hutchison amendment insulates the oil companies from this
recalculation of the royalty that they pay. Why? Why in the world would
we take the oil companies and do this?
If this were the Little Sisters of the Poor about to have their
mortgage foreclosed on their convent, for goodness' sake, count me in.
I will be ready to consider an amendment. We are talking about the
largest oil companies in the world. They are being protected by this
amendment. I think it is a bit unseemly, if you will, for these oil
companies to come on our land--not their land--drill oil, an
irreplaceable resource, sell it for a profit, and refuse to pay the
taxpayers what they owe them for being on this land. That is what this
amendment does.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senate yield on that point?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the Senator's outrage on this.
It is incredible. Some of our colleagues have come up and said things
privately such as: I can't believe you're attacking these oil
companies.
I want to make a point and make sure my friend saw this. I read from
a complaint that was filed by two whistleblowers from big oil--ARCO, as
it happens. In their words--these are not words from the Senator from
Illinois or words from the Senator from California, who has been told
she doesn't know what she is talking about. If I don't, I believe
people who have worked in the oil companies for many years. I want to
make sure my friend has heard this. I am going to read to him a little
piece of the introduction to this complaint and ask him if he has read
it before, and even though he might not have, if he could comment on
it.
This is an introduction to a lawsuit being filed by two
whistleblowers. These are two people who worked for ARCO, big
executives in ARCO, who had in their heart, I think--these are my
words, not theirs--the need to tell the truth about what went on inside
those corporate walls. This is what they say. They say:

[There was] a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's
largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of
America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues--known
as royalties--derived from the production of crude oil . . .

They go on to say:

[There was] a pattern and practice of carefully developed
and coordinated schemes--

They outline seven schemes--

targeted to defraud the United States of its lawful share of
oil royalties . . .

They go on to say: ``This is an ongoing conspiracy.''
So I ask my friend this direct question: about his outrage he
exhibits on this floor. Isn't there a reason for anyone with a set of
eyes and a brain to match to be outraged when not just one
whistleblower but two and three and four and more people who got high-
paid salaries admit that they sat around and defrauded the taxpayers,
and that this amendment would allow that outrage to continue--does that
not reflect my friend's views?
Mr. DURBIN. It does. I say further that it is a matter of whether or
not we are going to be Uncle Sam or ``Uncle Sucker.'' Think about these
oil companies. We are talking about $66 million a year.
Let me tell you, it is a bit unseemly for these oil companies to be
fighting over $66 million a year, owed to the taxpayers, to come in and
to support an amendment which insulates them from paying $66 million to
the taxpayers.
Let me give you an idea why I think it is unseemly. And I agree with
the Senator from California. Let's take a look at the oil companies
involved. As I have said, you are not going to find the Little Sisters
of the Poor Petroleum Company here.
No. 1, Shell Oil Company. The total revenues of Shell Oil Company in
1996 were $29 billion. Exxon Corporation, $134 billion; Chevron, $43
billion; Texaco, $45 billion; Marathon, $16 billion; Mobil, $81
billion; Conoco, $20 billion. The list goes on and on.
The reason I read those--and there are many more--you would recognize
every name on the list. You know these companies. You have seen their
gas stations. You have seen their stock printed in the paper. They have
huge worldwide sales. And these multi-multibillion-dollar huge
companies refuse to pay us, the taxpayers, Uncle Sam, America, a fair
royalty, a fair rental payment for drilling oil on our land and selling
it for their profit.
Can we conclude that these companies are in such perilous financial
condition that $66 million would break the bank? Let me tell you, the
royalty which they are refusing to pay, the royalty which this
amendment insulates them from paying, represents, in every instance,
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the revenue of each of the
companies--less than one-tenth of 1 percent, sometimes even smaller
amounts.
Why in the world are we fighting this battle? Profitable companies,
multibillion-dollar companies, coming on our land, drilling oil for
their profit, have to come to the Senate to put on an amendment to
insulate them from paying their fair rental, their fair royalty for
drilling oil? There are those who say: For goodness sakes, Senators,
aren't there some other things you could debate? Yes, I suppose. When
it gets down to it, the money, in the scheme of a $1.7 trillion
national budget, may get lost, $66 million a year, $5.6 million a
month. But there is something that won't get lost. That is the simple
justice of this debate, a question of fairness, a question of common
sense.
As much as those on the other side would like to obfuscate this issue
and tell us it is certainly so complicated, beyond the ken and mind of
any Member of the Senate, they are just plain wrong. We have received
correspondence from the Secretary of the Interior. We have seen
editorial support in USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, articles in the
Wall Street Journal, learned, expert people who have said this is
pretty simple. This is a rip-off for American taxpayers.
I have to say to the Senator from California, I am glad she is waging
this battle, as uncomfortable as it may be to my colleagues in the
Senate, to try, once and for all, to say that if we are going to hold
individual Americans, families, and businesses responsible for their
tax liability on April 15, then, for goodness sakes, these
multibillion-dollar oil companies should pay their fair share under the
law for drilling oil on our land. They have been tested in court time
and again and found guilty. Whistleblowers have come forward. Yet this
amendment, the Hutchison amendment, will perpetuate this rip-off.
I know some will argue that there are other issues of importance. I
hope that in the boardrooms of these oil companies they would please
reflect on this battle. Is this really worth it? Is this really worth
it to the big oil companies. Sixty-six million in a multibillion-dollar
company wouldn't make a ripple on their balance sheet. But for them to
be in a position, as they are today, of trying to defend the
indefensible, a position where they have lost time and again in court,
trying to say they can use up our Federal resources without paying for
them, is just incomprehensible.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a final question and perhaps
retain the remainder--I would like him to speak again --I wanted to
make a point. There is a chart up there on the Long Beach jury verdict
where Harry Anderson, one of the most important whistleblowers, was
quoted. That isn't even a case about Federal royalties. This debate, I
want to point it out, is about Federal royalties. The one case they
ever won was based on State royalties. You don't have to pay your State
royalties based on fair market value.
I thank my friend.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this
afternoon. This money going to the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
been so important to the State of Nevada. Lake Tahoe, which we share
with the

[[Page 22341]]

State of California, has received, from the work that I have been able
to do since I have been fortunate enough to be in the Senate, tens of
millions of dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
purchase environmentally sensitive land, land that would have been
subdivided, land that would have been overrun with problems. Now this
land is in beautiful, pristine wilderness.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been extremely important to
the State of Nevada. This gives me an opportunity, because of how
important the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been to the State of
Nevada, to talk about the State of Nevada. People do not understand the
State of Nevada.
Coincidentally, there was an article in today's Reno Gazette Journal.
That is a Gannett newspaper in Reno, NV. This is a major story,
coincidentally, in today's newspaper. There is a picture of a beautiful
area. Below it are the words, in large print: Many don't associate
Nevada with beauty. But if they do some exploring, one of the many
sites that will take their breath away is the Arc Dome Wilderness.
As is said in this article: One of the many sites that will take
their breath away is the Arc Dome Wilderness.
The State of Nevada is seen by many as a place to dump nuclear waste,
a place to set off nuclear weapons, nuclear devices. The State of
Nevada is the most mountainous State in the Union except for Alaska. We
have, in the State of Nevada, 314 separate, distinct mountain ranges.
In the State of Nevada, we have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high.
Just outside Las Vegas--if you could walk it, it would be about 10
miles--you would come to a mountain that is almost 11,000 feet high.
Nevada is a unique State. It is a very large State. It is a State that
has magnificent views.
What people also don't understand is, we are fortunate. When I first
came here, Nevada was the only State that had not done its Forest
Service wilderness designation, the only State. I introduced
legislation. It took a number of years, but we, in the State of Nevada,
have created a beautiful Forest Service wilderness.
That means we have preserved areas in the State of Nevada in their
pristine state. These are areas that my children, my children's
children can go to, and these areas are the same as they were 100 years
ago. In the process of doing the legislation for the wilderness in the
State of Nevada, I, of course, toured the State of Nevada and looked at
every wilderness site. After the legislation was introduced, I sent
staff to talk to local people because, of course, with rare exception--
although there are two wilderness areas, one right outside Las Vegas
and one right outside Reno--with rare exception, these wilderness areas
are located in remote areas of the State of Nevada, rural areas in the
State of Nevada. I sent staff out to visit with these people in rural
Nevada to talk to them about wilderness.
I got a call from one of my staff members. She said: It is
interesting; I am in Ely, and they believe you should back off your
wilderness--and I had heard that story lots of times. She said: They
think you should create a national park. I said: A national park? She
said: Yes, that is what they think should be done.
I didn't realize at the time that there had been for almost 60 years
an effort to create a national park in the State of Nevada. A long-time
Nevada Senator by the name of Key Pittman, who became the chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate--and was, at the outbreak
of World War I, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee--sent a man,
a forest ranger, to take a look at where would be a good place in
Nevada to have a national park. This man traveled to Nevada. His name
was Mott. He found a place. He reported to Key Pittman.
Key Pittman went to the President. To make a long story somewhat
short, there were efforts made over the decades to create a national
park in Nevada. It failed every time. Mining interests, ranching
interests, they couldn't work it out. Well, I took the advice of my
staff person, and the people in White Pine County, and created a
national park legislatively. I offered legislation to take it out of
the wilderness designation and create a national park. We created a
national park. It is now a law that has passed the U.S. Congress,
signed by the President, and it is a beautiful park--Great Basin
National Park.
It is in a very remote area. It is over the border of the State of
Utah. It is about 720 miles from Ely, NV. It is a place that everybody
should go. What is there? The oldest living thing in the world is
located there. The bristle cone pine tree is over 5,000 years old.
These pine trees in this national park were growing when Caesar was
around. These pine trees were old when Christ was on the earth. You can
go to the Great Basin National Park and see them and feel them. They
are there. They are still growing. On this national park is Nevada's
only glacier. We have a glacier in Nevada at our Great Basin National
Park. Every different thing that is found in the Great Basin is found
in this national park. It is a wonder of nature, from the towering
Wheeler Peak to the base of it, which is high desert. It is a wonderful
place. It is a place where people can walk.
We certainly need to do more things in all of our national parks to
make them better places for visitors, although Great Basin is very
nice. I would love to have a great new visitor center there, and we
need an interpretive site.
The Senator from California has gone, but I say, with land and water
conservation moneys we are going to build in various areas in our
national parks beautiful visitor centers. That is important, and we
should be able to do that.
A bit of the ice age exists in the form of this glacier. As I
indicated, it is the only one of its kind, not only in Nevada but in
the Great Basin. It is a mere token of what the ice age was, but in
Nevada it still exists in the Great Basin National Park. It calls to
mind the powerful glaciers capped at Snake Range only a few thousand
years ago. Glacial activity is easy to find. Piles of glacial debris
form mounds and ridges and lakes.
I failed to mention, in these parks are wonderful little lakes; they
are turquoise blue. I have been there, and I have seen them. They are
ice cold. We call them Theresa and Stella Lakes. They occupy hollows
that were gouged out during the ice age. This national park is just
unbelievably nice. I talk about Nevada having 32 mountain peaks over
11,000 feet high. Wheeler Peak is 13,000 feet high. I think that is
really important, that we have Wheeler Peak, which is over 13,000 feet
high, the second highest peak in the State. It is just really quite
unbelievable that we have Wheeler Peak where it is.
The bristle cone pines we talked about being there at the time of
Caesar and at the time of Christ. When they were building the pyramids,
these trees were growing.
This is interesting. We had a cowboy out riding his horse one day,
and he was looking up, and he suddenly dropped through ground into this
huge cavern, and now these caverns are part of the Great Basin National
Park, called Lehman Caves. It has a separate entrance, a wonderful
place. You can look at stalactites and stalagmites, and it is as dark
as anything could be. We have that there.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
Mr. DORGAN. I have listened with some interest not only to the
Senator from Nevada but to other of my colleagues who are speaking
about the issue before the Senate. I know the Senator from Nevada is
talking about the budget problems we have. The fact is, we don't have
enough money for education, health care, and a range of things. That is
why we have not had the appropriations bills brought to the floor for
those areas. The Senator from Nevada is talking about those issues.
The issue that has been raised by the Senator from California is the
issue of royalties paid with respect to the extraction of oil. My
understanding of this issue--and I know there has been a discussion of
it at some length here--is

[[Page 22342]]

that in integrated oil companies, where you have oil companies raising
oil and then selling it to themselves, the value of the oil they are
pulling from the ground is an issue they largely decide and report to
the Government and say: By the way, that oil didn't have much value;
therefore, I am not going to pay you much in royalties.
So when the folks get out there and look at these sweetheart
transactions from companies which own each other, one to another, they
discover that this oil has been radically undervalued, and the
interests that have been denied the rightful opportunities here are the
American public; the American people haven't gotten their royalties.
They have not received the fair amount of royalties. When the oilers go
look at this, they say, you can't do that, you can't undervalue this,
and therefore cheat the public out of what is theirs.
I guess the dispute here is a circumstance where someday we want that
to continue to exist: Let them continue to sell oil to themselves, and
price the way they want to, and avoid paying royalties.
The Senator from Nevada makes the point that when we do that, we end
up not getting the money we should get for the American public, and
these royalties belong to the public. Second, we don't have the
resources we need, then, to make the investments in children, health
care, and other things. That is the point, I think, the Senator from
Nevada makes.
I find it interesting. I was a State tax administrator in the State
of North Dakota before I came to this body, and I will give you another
example that is almost exactly like this. We had to value railroads. We
had to establish a value on railroads for tax purposes. The railroads
said to the State of North Dakota, well, the value of the railroads is
computed by describing all of the stock and all of the debt, assuming
you bought all the stock and assumed the debt. That is what the
railroads told the State. The railroads said: By the way, the value of
our stock is par value, which is printed on the certificate. Of course,
that is not the value of the stock. But for many years the State of
North Dakota accepted par value on the stock as representative of the
value of the railroad. They radically underpaid their taxes because of
it.
When I became tax administrator, having taken a look at that, I
decided that was not going to stand. Of course, the railroads didn't
like it at all when we changed the method. That is exactly what is at
stake here with respect to the oil companies. They sell oil to
themselves and underprice it so they can avoid paying royalties to the
American people, who are owed these royalties, and they don't want this
interrupted. They say: We don't want to change the way we are doing
this; we like it. Of course they like it, because they are not paying
the royalties they owe to the American people.
The Senator from Nevada makes the point that it is not fair.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time and say to my friend
from North Dakota, as I indicated earlier, the reason I was so
impressed with what the Senator from California has done is that a
portion of these royalties currently goes to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for Federal land acquisition. That is what I have
talked about here. I think it is so important.
I see my friend from Iowa and my friend from North Dakota. I know
they have both been to Lake Tahoe, which the Senators from Nevada and
California share. Now, that is a beautiful place. It has remained as
beautiful as it is because we have been able to take money in years
gone by from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to buy land around
there. As a result of that, we are making progress and saving that
pristine land. It is not pristine now, but we are saving that beautiful
lake, and we want to stop degradation from taking place. That is why,
from my standpoint, these royalties are so important, because they go
into land and water conservation moneys which for us in the State of
Nevada are so important.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I have a statement and then a question. I thank the
Senator for what he said about the land and water conservation funds
because we use those in Iowa, too. Every dollar taken out, by losing it
to the oil companies, is something we don't get to use to save some of
our hunting grounds and fishing grounds.
Mr. REID. I want to say one other thing to my friend. I know he has
another question or two he wants to ask. When we don't have money in
that Land and Water Conservation Fund, that makes for difficulty in
other areas. I mentioned briefly that we only have one national park in
Nevada, and in Iowa I doubt if you have one.
Mr. HARKIN. We don't even have one.
Mr. REID. You know, the national parks all over America--and I know
the Senator has traveled to them and has seen them--need restoration;
they need to be refurbished. We need to rebuild. Every year that goes
by and more people visit them, there is more wear and tear on them.
That is why the land and water conservation money is an offset. It is a
tremendous help to us.
Does the Senator have another question?
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I especially want to thank the
Senator from California for her great leadership, and the Senator from
Illinois who was making statements earlier. The Senator from Nevada has
again put a finger on why we need to close this loophole and why what
is happening right now is grossly unfair. It has come to my attention.
I am not an expert on oil and all that kind of stuff. At least it is my
understanding.
Mr. REID. We have more oil in Nevada than in Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I am sure.
Mr. REID. We don't have much.
Mr. HARKIN. But we have a different form. It is called ethanol. I
will get to that in a second.
Let me ask the Senator, I understand this loophole that allows a
handful of oil companies to keep from paying their fair share of taxes
for what is owed the Government--it is only just a few, and most of the
oil companies pay their fair share. Is that right?
Mr. REID. I have listened to the debate. I heard the Senator from
Illinois and the Senator from California enter into an exchange saying
that it is only about 5 percent of the companies that do not pay the
right amount of money.
Mr. HARKIN. Doesn't it strike us as odd that 95 percent of the oil
companies are good citizens? They pay their honest taxes. There are
honest royalties. Yet we get 5 percent of the largest who are skirting
the law, who are doing this, and keeping us from collecting the
royalties that help us with our Land and Water Conservation Fund. So we
are talking about 5 percent, a handful of the largest of all the oil
companies.
I ask my friend from Nevada, what sense does this make? Why would we
excuse 5 percent of the largest when we stick it to the smaller oil
companies and make them pay their royalties? If we are going to do
this, why not do it for all of them?
Second, we heard the Senator from North Dakota talking about how the
railroads were putting up their value as par value, and he changed that
when he became tax commissioner. I was thinking about that. I wonder if
anyone has ever offered to buy a railroad at par value and whether they
would sell it. I want to ask the Senator from Nevada, as to these oil
companies, does the Senator think I could as a private individual--if I
wanted to get an oil jobber and go buy oil--buy oil from those
companies at the value they placed on this, at which they paid
royalties?
Mr. REID. I think not.
Mr. HARKIN. I don't think so. If I am wrong, someone please correct
me because I would like to go out and buy some of that oil. I think I
could turn it into a pretty handsome profit. I believe in the profit
incentive. But you know darned well that you can't bill that oil at
that price. They sell it to themselves at that price, and that is how
they are getting out of paying the Government their fair share of
royalties.
I also have to ask the Senator from Nevada, I understand what the
Senator

[[Page 22343]]

from California is attempting to do is not to impose any kind of new
tax--this is not a new tax, as I understand it--on the oil companies.
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right.
Mr. HARKIN. It is not a new tax. It is a matter of having a handful
of these companies pay what they owe. Is that correct?
Mr. REID. That is absolutely true.
Mr. HARKIN. It is not a new tax. It is something they have known that
they have had to pay all along and that they are supposed to pay.
All, I guess, the Interior bill does is clarify the rules so they
will pay their fair share, as I understand it. The amendment of the
Senator from Texas stops this from happening. It lets the oil companies
continue to underpay their royalties. Is that right?
Mr. REID. That is right.
Mr. HARKIN. I saw this figure. I can't attest to this. I thought this
was pretty interesting--``Big Oil's Big Rip-off.'' The Hutchison
amendment has already cost us $66 million in lost royalties, according
to the Interior Department. Is that right? Already, to date, according
to the Interior Department, taxpayers have lost $88 million. When you
add the Hutchison amendment on that, it will cost us $154 million,
according to the Interior Department. Is that correct?
Mr. REID. The reason I came, I say to my friend, and the reason I am
so interested in this is that we are desperate for money in the West. I
am sure it is accordingly so in other places. We have so much in the
way of public land. We are desperate for money to make sure some of our
nice places remain that way.
In all due respect to my friend from Iowa, his State was settled long
before Nevada. The reason he does not have national parks and
wilderness areas is because it is all private land. I don't in any way
denigrate what has happened to the State of Iowa. But we in the West
still have public lands that we want to try to add to and protect. We
are having difficulty doing that because we don't have the money as the
Federal Government, which is the caretaker. We don't have the money to
not only add to it a little bit but take care of what we have.
Mr. HARKIN. Where do these royalties go? They don't go into the
general coffers.
Mr. REID. They go to a number of places. But the track of money I
have followed goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which the
President, thank goodness, is fighting to put some money into.
We have not had enough money for the Federal Government to stop
development in Montana. There was an agreement made to buy a large mine
there because they thought it would be detrimental to the national park
that is right there. Yellowstone, they thought, didn't need that there.
As a result of that, the Federal Government didn't have any money to
buy it, even though they made the deal to buy it. This $154 million
would allow them to do that. A lot could be done with that.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator that we in Iowa are trying now to
reclaim some of the Loess Hills. It is a wonderful natural phenomenon.
It takes place in only two areas on Earth--here and in China. We are
trying to reclaim these and make them a preserved area.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator explain what has happened in China and
Iowa?
Mr. HARKIN. This is over centuries, thousands of years ago, tens of
thousands of years ago, the winds blew and they blew up these huge
mounds of fine dirt. There are only two places to this extent. One is
here and one is in China. These are a natural phenomenon. They are
beautiful, very scenic, and we are trying to reclaim them and preserve
them for future generations. This money could help do that.
I guess that is why I wanted to ask the Senator the question because
he caught my attention when we talked about parks. We don't have
national parks in Iowa. But we do have things such as the Loess Hills,
Effigy Mounds, and some fishing and hunting areas that get money from
the Water and Conservation Fund--and historic preservation.
I am constrained on this. I am a big supporter of ethanol because
ethanol is clean. We grow it. It is renewable. We don't have to import
it from other countries. I have always thought that ethanol could
compete fairly with oil. There is a provision in the law that gives a
certain tax credit for the use of ethanol in gasoline.
One of the Senators from Texas has always gone after it saying
ethanol should not get any tax breaks; it should stand on its own two
feet and compete against oil. I took the floor one time, I say to my
friend from Nevada, and I said: Fine. Let's go back and recapture all
of the tax breaks that all of the oil companies have gotten for the
last 50 or 60 years. And how about the tax breaks they get now? How
about this? If this doesn't amount to a tax break for big oil, I don't
know what does. They want to keep that but they want to take away the
small amount of tax credit that we have for ethanol.
I want to get that off my chest because I hear these oil State
Senators coming in here all the time telling me that we can't provide
any kind of tax incentive for the use of ethanol because we don't for
oil. Nonsense. This proves it right here.
Mr. REID. Let me say to my friend, as someone from the State of
Nevada, we don't grow a great deal. We grow alfalfa. We are the largest
producer of white onions in the United States. But other than that, we
don't produce a lot in the way of agricultural products--certainly a
lot less than we used to because of the growth in the Las Vegas area.
So it was a hard sell to me to accept ethanol being something that was
good for our country because it was hard for me to accept that we could
grow something and stick it in a car and burn it.
But what persuaded me--I am now an advocate for ethanol--is that it
is renewable. We have this ability in the United States to grow crops.
We don't grow crops in Nevada as they grow them in the Midwest, in
Iowa. But if we burn up a tank of ethanol this year, then next year
there is some more ethanol and we can burn up some more. It is not the
same as fossil fuel. That is a selling point to me.
I say to my friend from Iowa that another reason I was willing to
come here on the Boxer postcloture activities is that we don't get
enough opportunity around here to talk about things.
I am happy to hear the Senator from Iowa talk about some areas in the
State of Iowa that are environmentally important. The Senator has
talked about them. I would love to visit Iowa. I came to the floor
today to talk about the beauty in the State of Nevada. I invite the
Senator from Iowa to spend a few days with me in Nevada. We will go on
a pack trip; we will go into some of the beautiful wilderness areas.
People fly over the State of Nevada. It looks like one big desert. It
is not. We have wilderness areas. In the Reno newspaper, they talk
about one wilderness area called Arc Dome. We have heard about mountain
sheep, but in Nevada we have mountain goats. We have beaver. We have
eagles floating through the valleys, antelope, elk.
People don't realize Nevada is more than the bright lights of Las
Vegas and Reno. We need more time to talk about our various States. We
tend to come to the floor and get involved in things that do not allow
Members the opportunity to educate each other about their States.
Mr. HARKIN. Today, I learned a lot about the beauty of Nevada. I will
take the Senator up on his offer to visit.
Mr. REID. The invitation is open, and I hope my friend will invite me
to Iowa to look at the natural phenomenon in his State.
Mr. HARKIN. Secretary Babbitt came to Iowa and visited the Loess
Hills area. He never knew they were there. No one ever talked about it.
We are trying to preserve them.
Let me, again, ask the Senator from Nevada, there was an editorial in
USA Today.
Mr. REID. I have the time. Please proceed. I yield for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. There is an editorial in the USA Today, August 26 of last
year, entitled, ``Time to clean up Big Oil's slick deal with
Congress.'' They are

[[Page 22344]]

talking about this very item, ripping off the taxpayers. ``According to
the watchdog project on government oversight, there is more than $2
billion in uncollected Federal royalties at open market prices, and the
total grows by more than $1 million every week.''
This editorial, along with an editorial that appeared in the Los
Angeles Times of July 20 of this year, gave an indication of how much
money was given by the oil companies in campaign contributions. Big oil
contributed more than $35 million to national political committees and
congressional candidates in this time over the last 12 years.
I question no one's motives on this floor. I never question anyone's
motives. I say this is another indication of why we need campaign
finance reform.
Mr. THOMAS. I raise a point of order it is not germane to what we are
talking about. It is not germane to what this discussion is about.
Mr. REID. I have the floor and I am happy to respond to that.
We have at great length here today talked about the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, how it is tied into the question of royalties.
Certainly that is about as germane as it could be.
Mr. THOMAS. Campaign finance reform----
Mr. REID. I have an hour's time, and I have spoken in germane terms
to the matter now before the Senate. If the question is asked and goes
on to some other subject matter, we can't be----
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order. Could I have a
determination?
Mr. HARKIN. May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada does have the floor,
but I think he has a responsibility to make sure the questions that are
being raised in this colloquy are relevant to the issues before the
Senate today.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the statement.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I say it is absolutely
relevant to the issue of oil companies, royalties, and how much they
are paying, to say that Senators ought to have the right to defend
their interests and to defend companies in their States.
I don't question Senator Hutchison or anybody else is doing this in
good conscience. They have their case to argue. That is fair. What I am
saying, when we get editorials such as this that point out how much
money has come from oil companies to the campaign coffers of the people
making this debate, it demeans the whole debate. That is my point. I
think the Senator would agree with me on that.
My question is, this is tied into this debate. We could have a much
better debate if we had that.
Mr. REID. If I can respond to the question, the subject matter of
that editorial is the amendment that is now before this body. It is not
on another subject. That is the subject matter of this editorial, on
the matter now before this body.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the
Record.
Mr. THOMAS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in the
Los Angeles Times dated July 20--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial,
dated Wednesday, August 26, entitled, ``Time to clean up Big Oil's
slick deal with Congress,'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From USA Today, Aug. 26, 1998]

Time to Clean Up Big Oil's Slick Deal With Congress

Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and
grocery bills, giving your-self a 3% to 10% discount off the
market price. Over time, that would add up to really big
bucks. And imagine having the political clout to make sure
nothing threatened to change that cozy arrangement.
According to government and private studies, that's the
sweet deal the oil industry is fighting to protect the right
to extract crude oil from public land and pay the government
no the open market price but a lower ``posted price''--based
on private deals the oil companies can manipulate for their
own benefit.
States, Native American tribes and landowners are suing for
the full open-market-price fees, and a few oil companies have
begun to cut settlement deals from Alabama to New Mexico
rather than face trial. Accordingly to the watchdog Project
on Government Oversight, there's more than $2 billion in
uncollected federal royalties at open market prices. And the
total grows by more than $1 million every week.
No wonder the industry is pouring money into the campaign
coffers of senators and congressmen willing to help protect
the status quo. Oil-patch lawmakers have been playing tag
team with amendments that bar the Interior Department from
implementing new rules to require payment at the open market
price.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, for one, is so valued
by the industry that even though she's only been in
Washington five years, she's already the No. 2 recipient of
oil-producer cash over the past 12 years.
Big Oil has contributed more than $35 million to national
political committees and congressional candidates in the
time--a modest investment in protecting the royalty-pricing
arrangement that's enabled the industry to pocket an extra $2
billion.
That's millions missing in action from the battle to reduce
the federal deficit and from accounts for land and water
conservation, historic preservation and several Native
American tribes. In addition, public schools in 24 states
have been shortchanged: States use their share of federal
royalties for education funding.
Meanwhile, the industry seeks to change the subject,
lobbying to force Uncle Sam to take royalties in oil instead
of dollars. That would put the government in the oil
business, where it doesn't belong, but not change the
slippery method of figuring companies' bills.
Having profited so long by being able to fiddle with the
price, now the companies and their congressional pets
complain that paying what they really owe would be unfair.
But the taxpayers have been getting the unfair end of this
deal for far too long. One major producer, Atlantic
Richfield, has already adopted market pricing for calculating
its royalty payments. Congress, instead of protecting
industry recalcitrants and campaign contributors, should
protect the public interest.

Big Oil's influence

Top congressional recipients of oil-producer political
action committee contributions between January 1987 and March
1998:
Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas: $198,337.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: $175,199.
Sen. John Breaux, D-La. $174,800.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla: $171,999.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska: $171,025.

Mr. REID. I do want to say we are very proud of the wilderness areas
we have in Nevada. Let me name them: Alta Toquima Wilderness, 38,000
acres; Arc Dome Wilderness, which is the largest, it covers 150,000
acres; Mount Charleston Wilderness, right outside the city of Las
Vegas, covers the Spring Mountain Range and is almost 11,000 feet high;
Mount Rose Wilderness, likewise, located just outside Reno. You can see
it from Reno when you go there. Table Mountain Wilderness, and I have
traveled almost every bit of that, is a wonderfully unique place.
Currant Mountain Wildness is near the Great Basin National Park. The
East Humboldts Wilderness is 37,000 acres. Here we have a herd of
shaggy mountain goats which you can see there, with a small cirque lake
and the 11,000 foot peak. Grant Range Wilderness, not far from Las
Vegas, is a 50,000 acre area; Jarbidge Wilderness, a beautiful,
wonderful area, you can still go there and pick up flint stones. You
can pick up arrowheads. I went there for the first time in August, and
the snow had not melted yet. It was beautiful.
Mount Moriah Wilderness is located near the Utah border; Quinn Canyon
Wilderness is located in eastern Nevada, 27,000 acres. Ruby Mountain
Wilderness has skiing. Land at the top in a helicopter, ski down the
mountain, and come out where there is no wilderness. Santa Rosa
Mountain Wilderness, also very remote; and finally, Boundary Peak
Wilderness on the California-Nevada border is a mountain more than
13,000 feet high, which is the highest mountain in the State of Nevada.
My friend from Massachusetts has a question, I understand.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will be kind enough to yield for a
question.
Mr. President, as I understand, half of the royalty is returned to
the States. Is the Senator familiar with

[[Page 22345]]

the fact that the amounts that are actually returned to the States go
directly for the cause of education, the education funds of these
States?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, who is the ranking member of the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and who has spent so
much time working on education issues, trying to find money, as I know
the ranking member has done--trying to find money to fund education
programs all over America--yes, $66 million. As the Senator from Iowa
indicated, it could go up to $154 million. Think what we could do with
that share of education moneys, with the programs he has authorized in
his committee but we have no ability to fund.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to just raise this issue since, by and large, the
majority of the States use the resources that come from this royalty
for education. If the amendment of the Senator is carried, then they
are going to be denied funding in a number of these States, some 24
different States. I think it is important to recognize--
Mr. THOMAS. I raise a point of order. Would the Senator please
explain the question exchange? I am sorry, I don't understand this.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to be heard on this.
Mr. REID. Would the Senator complete his question to the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. The point is, if the royalty money is not available to
the States, does the Senator understand that money is going to have to
be made up in some other way and otherwise we are going to have
cutbacks in education in the States?
Mr. REID. I have been waiting for the Senator from Massachusetts to
come because I was hoping he would ask this question.
We in Nevada know more than anyplace in America how difficult it is
to fund education. I say to my friend, does he realize in Nevada we
hold the record? In Clark County, we dedicated and built 18 schools in
1 year. No school district in America has ever come close to that. We
need schools. I say to my friend from Massachusetts, in Las Vegas we
have to build one school every month to keep up with the growth. We are
the eighth largest school district in America. We have well over
200,000 kids in our school districts.
So I say, absolutely, the money that would come from this would help
the people in Nevada and the rest of the people in the country. I don't
know how I could be more direct in my answer to the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. I again want to ask the Senator: As I understand it, for
example, the total share of the royalty funds that goes to the State of
California, 100 percent, goes to public education of children in
California. Does the Senator understand in Colorado it is some 60
percent, 100 percent in Louisiana? Those would be funds, if this
amendment were carried, that would be directly denied to the public
school system in those States and would have to be made up, or
otherwise there would be cuts in those particular States. Does the
Senator understand the relationship between what we are talking about
here and the issue on education? It is very significant.
Maybe $60 million does not make a lot of difference to some Senators.
But it could make a lot of difference if we were talking about the
Reading Excellence Act which has just been cut over in House
Appropriations. It makes a difference to 330,000 children--whether they
are going to learn how to read.
We have those examples across the board: Colorado, 60 percent; North
Dakota, 57 percent. Has there been any discussion on the floor of the
Senate by those Senators on how they are going to make up the money? It
seems to me we ought to have at least that kind of information. If you
are going to cut out that funding for public education in the schools--
and that is what this amendment does--we ought to understand where the
other money is going to come from because you are taking it right out
of public school education.
I do not know what the Senator's conclusions are, but when we realize
we are dealing with the appropriations bill that is the last bill on
the agenda, it maybe doesn't have a very high priority. Maybe that is
one of the reason it has not been talked about very much by the
Republicans, those on the other side. But this is money that comes
right out of public education. It comes right out of support for public
education in a number of these States.
Mr. REID. I say, in answer----
Mr. KENNEDY. I was just asking the Senator how these States are going
to make up for it. Can the Senator help us?
Mr. REID. The Senator has asked a couple questions.
First of all, no, there has not been a single word on this Senate
floor about where the makeup would be for this money. The fact is, as
with most education issues that have come up since the majority has
been controlling this place, they just ignore it. They don't worry
about it.
I say, in answer to my friend from Massachusetts, yes, we have a lot
of children--more children who are not going to be able to read, the
more we cut back on these moneys. But I say to my friend, we have 3,000
children dropping out of high school every day in America. Couldn't we
use a few of these dollars to come up with some programs to keep these
kids in school?
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
Mrs. BOXER. Because I think it dovetails with the Senator's question
about the States.
I say to my friends from Massachusetts and Nevada, maybe some
Senators on this floor do not care about this, but the States do care
about this. The States have sued the oil companies because of this
continuous undervaluation of these oil royalty payments. I say to my
friend, it is outrageous that we do not fix this problem today. The
States have sued to the tune of $5 billion because they need this
money.
What we will do, if this amendment is agreed to, I say to both of my
friends, is continue this undervaluation, continue these lawsuits where
the States have to sue, rather than allow Secretary Babbitt and the
Interior Department to fix this problem.
I am so glad the Senator has yielded to my friend from Massachusetts.
I wanted to know if he was aware of these valuations and if he would
ask unanimous consent to have these facts printed in the Record.
Mr. REID. I would have to say to my friend from California, I knew of
dollars but I did not know of the tremendous amounts: The State of
California, $345 million, unbelievable; Texas, $30 million; New Mexico,
a small State, think of what could happen in the State of New Mexico
with $6 million; Alabama, $15 million; Louisiana $400 million.
As I understand, these moneys come from lawsuits where the oil
companies settled. There was not a trial where a verdict was rendered
or a judgment rendered. They paid up when they found that they were
doing wrong. And all this money, based upon what the Senator from
California has so aptly described earlier in her statements on the
Senate floor, and what the Senator from Massachusetts said--every
dollar of this money goes to public education. States break it up
differently, the Senator said--California, 100 percent; North Dakota,
56 percent--but that is a lot of money for those States.
Mr. KENNEDY. I was interested in the Senator's viewpoint. At the very
time we are meeting here, this very time this afternoon, the House
appropriators are marking up the education bill. They have just cut $60
million out of the reading programs, the Reading Excellence Act, which
would affect 330,000 children. This is what we are talking about.
Does the Senator agree with me that we have a limited role in public
education? We provide 7 cents out of every dollar in education, but we
provide it in targeted areas to try to begin to make some difference in
local communities and in States so these efforts can be carried on and
expanded if they are worthwhile. We have the Reading Excellence Act,
which is just beginning to take hold, just beginning to make a
difference. Mr. President, $60 million is a big hunk of change, and
that is what this amounts to in total revenues--$66 million.

[[Page 22346]]

I just want to inquire of the Senator so the membership understands.
When we refuse to defeat the Hutchison amendment, we are going to be
disadvantaging States in the public education system.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend in response to the question, he made a
very good point. The Federal Government, in my opinion, does not do
enough to help public education. It does not do enough. Seven percent
is not enough. But at least we do something. Every dollar we send to
the school districts is badly needed.
But in answer to the question of the Senator, this money goes to the
school districts. They can spend it in any way they want. Isn't that
right?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is my understanding.
Mr. REID. The Federal Government is not saying you must spend it in a
certain way. The State of California, by law and regulations of the
State of California, is required to spend this money in any way they
want on public education?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is absolutely correct. If the Hutchison amendment
is accepted here, these will be the results. Effectively, we are going
to be seeing an important source of funding for public education, for
the schools in these several States, being denied.
Does the Senator agree with me that most of the responsibilities we
have are on priorities, on making choices?
Mr. REID. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator understand the choice to be on the
issue of education? If we accept the amendment of the Senator from
Texas, we are going to have, as a corresponding result, important
reductions in support of public education in a number of States; is
that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. REID. And it will not be made up anyplace else.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator think we are going to make it up at the
Federal level in terms of appropriations? Has there been any
suggestion?
Mr. REID. We see what is happening in the House as we speak. We have
seen what has happened in the last several years: Education is being
ratcheted down. There are some, I say to my friend, who want to destroy
public education, and this is a step in that direction.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. It is important the Membership have
a full understanding of the impact of the Hutchison amendment on
education.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the questions from my friend from
Massachusetts. One reason, before the Senator leaves the floor, that I
think this is so important is this money does not go to any one place.
I talked about the importance of the money and doing something about
the natural beauty in our States. The Senator asked a series of
questions that indicated a large chunk of this money will go to public
education, and as far as this Senator is concerned, I do not think
there is anything more important than public education and protecting
our natural resources. That is, in effect, what the Senator from
California is attempting to do: Focus attention on these moneys that
would go to these very important issues, such as the national park we
have in Nevada, such as the 14 wilderness areas we have in Nevada, and
the many educational programs.
I ask the Chair how much of the Senator's hour is remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, while we are talking about education, I say
to my colleagues that I have worked with the Senator from New Mexico,
Mr. Bingaman, on some very important legislation. The Senator from
Massachusetts and I just touched upon it. It deals with dropouts.
As the Presiding Officer has heard me say, every day in America 3,000
children drop out of high school, half a million a year. Every one of
those children who drop out of school are less than they can be. They
are going to be less productive to themselves and to their families.
They are going to add to the cost of Government in education, in
welfare, and our criminal justice system.
Mr. President, 84 percent of the men and women in the prisons around
America have not graduated from high school. So are high school
dropouts a priority? Yes, they are.
The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and I have introduced
legislation to create, within the Department of Education, a dropout
czar who would work on programs around the country to keep kids in
school and not force any of these programs on local school districts,
but have them available with challenge grants and other opportunities
for schools to step in and see if they can help keep some of their kids
in schools. It will cost a few dollars to do this. We need to do it.
This will allow us to have moneys to do that.
I say keeping children in school is important. We have programs
around the country that work. Let's try to pattern what we do after the
programs that work and keep some of these kids in school. I cannot
think of anything more important, as it relates to education, than
keeping these kids in school. We are not going to keep all 3,000
children from dropping out every day, but let's say every day instead
of 3,000 children on average dropping out, 2,800 drop out. We will keep
200 children in high school every day. Think how many that will add up
to in a school year: Kids who have a better opportunity to do what they
are capable of doing and not adding to the criminal justice system, not
being part of the statistics. Eighty-four percent of the people in
prison did not graduate from high school. We need to do better in that
regard.
Also, we need to do better with our natural resources. We need to do
something about the multibillion-dollar backlog in our national parks.
We are closing parts of our national parks because we cannot
rehabilitate them the way they need to be rehabilitated. Some of these
areas are becoming dangerous for people to walk in.
What we do with our personnel in our U.S. park system is something we
should not brag about. Employees of the National Park System are living
in Quonset huts from the Second World War. We have to provide housing
for these people. A lot of these parks, just like Great Basin, are very
remote. The nearest town from the Great Basin is 70 miles away. These
people are living in conditions I do not think you want your children
living in. These jobs are coveted. They go to school to become a park
ranger. They love their work. We should provide adequate housing for
them because a lot of times it does not exist.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I appreciate the
questions from the Senators from North Dakota, Massachusetts,
California, and Iowa. I hope this debate has been educational to other
Members of the Senate.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the situation with regard to time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has an hour.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I want to make a few comments to see
if we can move this discussion back to the issue. We have been totally
off the issue for the last 2 hours.
The issue really has to do with MMS. It has to do with the
development and enforcement of regulations. Nearly everyone who has
gotten up so far has said: I do not know much about this; our State
does not do this. And they have gone on to talk at length about it.
I have been involved with this. I have been at the meetings with MMS.
Our State is the largest State involved in terms of oil royalties.
We ought to focus on the real issue for a while. I want to do that.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?
Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
Mr. CRAIG. As we refocus this debate on the issue of royalties,
obviously the Senators from Nevada and Massachusetts and California
were focusing the issue of royalties on public land resources on
education. There was a critical vote in the Senate last week which they
strongly opposed--and some of them spoke against it--that directly

[[Page 22347]]

associated resources with education. That was the issue of timber,
timber cuts, stumpage fees flowing back to local schools.
Will the Senator respond to that? We are talking out of both sides of
our mouths if we are saying that royalties are all for education, and
yet just this last week, they voted against education in timber-
dependent communities across this country that have had their budgets
cut 50 and 60 percent. The Senator from California voted that way, and
the Senator from Nevada voted that way. Will the Senator from Wyoming
respond to that?
Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator make it a little clearer as to exactly
how this impacts?
Mr. CRAIG. The point I am making is, every time the Forest Service is
allowed to cut a tree off public lands, 25 percent of that stumpage fee
goes back to the local school district to be spent for schools.
For good reasons, we have reduced the timber program by 70 percent in
the last 7 years. I have a school district in my State that is not
feeding its kids today and asking them to bring brown bags because the
vote of the Senator from California, along with the Senators from
Nevada and Massachusetts, denied them the right to cut trees on the
clear water forests in my State.
Can I get exercised about this? The Senator from Oregon supported me
because he has a school district that is only allowing its kids to go 4
days a week instead of 5. So if we are going to use oil royalties for
that argument, quit speaking out of both sides of your mouth because
just last week you voted that way.
We have always balanced our natural resources for the good of the
environment and for the good of the public that is associated with
them. The Senator from Wyoming knows that. We graze on Wyoming public
lands and we take oil and coal from under Wyoming public lands--State
and Federal lands. Some of that money goes back to the local
communities. Yet this administration wants to decouple that.
I am glad the Senator from California is concerned about public land
resources and local education, but you cannot be selective in this
business. You have to share and associate. What I hear is a
tremendously narrow and selective argument.
I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding because that is a bogus
argument that is being placed by the Senator from California, unless
she wants to stand up with the Senator from Idaho and say: I recognize
the need to balance timber sales in northern California because the
money goes to the schools in northern California, as they do in Idaho.
That is called balance. That is called sharing.
I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding because you just cannot
have it both ways in this business without someone such as me standing
up and saying, foul ball, foul ball, bogus argument, unless you are
willing to say: Wait a minute, I recognize your problem; we have it in
the timberlands of Northern California.
Oil is an issue. It is an important issue. We want a fair return on
that. The Senator from the State of Texas is trying to build that kind
of fairness into this debate.
I thank my colleague from Wyoming for yielding. I yield the floor to
him.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question on
a similar subject?
Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Talking about education, along the lines of what the
Senator from Idaho was just saying, we have another double standard,
and that is, the Senator from California led the effort not to allow
drilling offshore in California that is estimated to have cost the
schoolchildren in the school districts of California over $1 million a
year. That is a California decision.
But the fact is, you cannot talk about losing money for
schoolchildren by raising the taxes on oil companies on the one hand
and then on the other hand say: But we are not going to allow drilling
offshore that would put $1 million into the coffers for the
schoolchildren of California.
Don't you think there is a relationship here and perhaps there are
the same issues but just people taking different sides?
Mr. THOMAS. It certainly seems that way. I think there is a real
paradox here. On the one hand we are talking about more money for
education and at the same time voting to reduce that amount for
education. So I think that is difficult.
Let me go back to the topic that we are really here to discuss and
that is MMS's proposed oil valuation rule. I rise in strong support of
the Hutchison amendment. I have been working on this issue for a long
time. I have been involved in numerous meetings. I have worked with the
oil companies. I have worked with the school districts. I have worked
with the State of Wyoming.
We are working toward find a workable solutions for everyone, which
seems to be ignored by the folks on the other side. We are trying to
find a way, with these regulations, for Minerals Management to make
them work better. We have met with them. The oil companies want to make
it work better. We want to give the Congress an opportunity to
participate in this matter of making regulations.
So that is where we really are.
The domestic companies, of course, already pay significant amounts of
money. Someone was saying here that 95 percent pay but the others do
not. That is simply not true but if it were, that is an enforcement
issue. We have regulations now. The problem is, the regulations and the
proposed regulation are not workable.
Talking about having a price that is posted, that fits everywhere,
that is not the way the oil business works. It is quite different in
Wyoming than in Oklahoma. The idea of, where do you take the value? do
you take it at the wellhead? that is what the contract says. But if you
have to carry it, as an oil producer, out 10 miles to where it can be
sold, it is quite a different cost that goes into it. These are the
kinds of issues that are involved.
These folks who have been talking this afternoon would make you think
people were trying to do away with this. That is not the case at all.
It is terribly unfair. It is not the issue. The issue is to work
together with MMS and get these regulations enforced. It is relatively
simple, frankly.
I have to tell you, we talked some about the impact it has on Iowa,
which is nothing; talked about the impact it has on Nevada, which is
almost nothing because there is no production there.
Let me tell you a little about our counties. We have 23 counties in
Wyoming. Here is one, Park County: 82 percent Federal land. We have
another one that is 80 percent Federal land: Big Horn County. These are
places where jobs, where the tax base, where schools are financed
largely by mineral production.
We have mineral production now. Do we want to change the method of
taxing? Fine. But we want to do it along with the Congress. We want to
do it along with the producers. We want to make it work and not just be
something that is to be done by MMS without consultation with industry
and other involved. That is really quite simple.
With regard to the editorial that was put in the Record, I have a
rebuttal that also appeared in the LA Times, that I think would be fair
to have in the Record, written by the vice president of the American
Petroleum Institute, Chuck Sandler. I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(By Charles E. Sandler)

Among the hallmarks of America's great opinion-shaping
industry has been its insistence on the swaying of hearts and
minds through the use of reasoned and finely crafted argument
based on sound information, not inflammatory rhetoric and
baseless accusations.
Perhaps it is because I've always placed The Los Angeles
Times among the ranks of this country's great newspapers that
I find myself perplexed over what could possibly have led to
the publication of a shrill editorial about a complex subject
that cries out for dispassionate discussion--the Interior

[[Page 22348]]

Department's proposed new rules governing the payment of
royalties by oil companies for oil they produce on federal
lands. What could have been a piece that shed light on the
issue's complexities instead came across as nothing more than
illogic-capped mountains of scurrilous accusations and
misinformation.
We cannot expect the entire world to agree with us on all
issues that are important to us. But we do not see it as
unreasonable to expect a fair shake and a fair hearing from
those who write about us in respectable forums.
These are the facts:
First, oil companies are not promoting the use of posted
prices to compute future royalties, and in fact have not done
so for at least two years.
Secondly, the editorial implies that only large producers
are concerned about the proposed rule when the truth is that
all oil producers, from the largest to the smallest mom-and-
pop outfits, are united in opposing the rule.
The oil and gas industry and the MMS are in agreement that
current oil valuation rules must be replaced. In fact, like
the MMS, the industry is seeking improved rules that are
fair, workable and free of the uncertainties and ambiguities
that make the current regulations a costly bureaucratic
nightmare, both for the oil companies and the federal
government. However, we oppose replacing the current system
with an even more flawed, more complex and more burdensome
set of regulations that fail to accurately take into
consideration a number of crucial and relevant expenses--
transportation and other post-production costs, for
instance--in computing royalties.
We have repeatedly urged the Interior Department's Minerals
Management Service (MMS) to establish a system that avoids
the complications of valuation altogether through the use of
a royalty-in-kind (RIK) program under which the government
takes its payement in oil, not dollars (an alternative
permitted but not required under current law).
Under such a system, producers tender the government its
royalty share of production and it would in turn contract
with marketing companies to sell the oil at the fair-market
price, as other producers do. It would simplify the system,
eliminate the need for armies of accountants and lawyers (and
their fees), and it would provide an opportunity for the
federal and state governments to increase revenues. A similar
system has been used in Alberta, Canada, and resulted in
increased oil production and royalty payments, fewer
disagreements between the government and oil producers, and a
smaller bureaucracy. The government, unfortunately, has yet
to adopt such a proposal although a pilot RIK project is
being planned for this fall in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Times editorial's unfair comparison of the current
situation to the Teapot Dome scandal--which involved fraud--
ignores the significant fact that Democratic and Republican
members of Congress who have joined to prevent Interior from
unilaterally imposing its will on the industry have very
legitimate concerns. To suggest that a lawmaker from a state
that is a leader in oil and gas production is unduly
influenced by the oil and gas industry because she has taken
campaign contributions from that industry is ludicrous. It's
like saying that no Silicon Valley lawmaker who's received
campaign contributions from the high-tech industry should
ever lift a finger to help that sector of California's
economy.
Contrary to the editorial's allegation, producers are
playing by the existing rules, as established by the
government. The fact that new rules have not been made final
as a result of Congress's decision to exercise its lawful
right to review policy does not alter that fact.
Finally, if Interior were truly concerned about increasing
revenue from the land the federal government leases to oil
companies, it should give serious consideration to the tried
and tested royalty-in-kind proposal.
Much work remains to be done before this matter is
resolved. Legitimate differences of opinion exist. In the
end, the issue will be settled by reasonable minds employing
reasoned arguments, both to promote their views and to secure
an agreement. The Times, unfortunately, missed a great
opportunity to be a part of that sober discussion.

Mr. THOMAS. There is a great deal of involvement here. We have to
talk a little bit about this industry. We have now, what, approximately
55 percent of foreign oil that comes into this country. Our oil people
are stressed to keep it going. The oil business has been in something
of a depression. We had oil down in the $6-, $7-, $8-a-barrel range in
Wyoming. That is not to say there ought not to be regulations, that
there ought not to be the kind of royalty rules that can be lived by.
That is what we are working for.
If you came in from Mars and listened to what has been talked about
over the last hour, you would think we did not have anything except a
bunch of robber barons. That is not true--absolutely not true.
So I hope we can go forward with this, we can go ahead and work in
the next year to put these royalty rules together, as it should be, to
put it together in a way that is fair.
We have proposed regulations. We now have some changes in personnel
in MMS that I think might make it work quite a bit better. We have some
changes now coming forth at the Assistant Secretary's level.
We really need to get down to some facts and get away from all this
hyperbole about what people are not paying, and people are cheating,
and all these things. If that is true, that is an enforcement issue
that ought to be dealt with by the Federal Government.
The West does have a unique relationship with the Federal Government.
As I mentioned, all of us have a great deal of our land that is there,
a great deal of our resources. We are dependent largely on mineral
resources, along with agriculture and tourism, for our economy. So we
need to have an economy that has jobs, that creates a tax base, that
does the kinds of things that this industry does.
So I am really interested in us moving forward beyond these types of
arguments brought up by the other side of the aisle and get something
accomplished. We have talked about this now, and we have had several
votes on this, as a matter of fact. We had 60 votes to move forward. We
are ready to go forward with the Interior bill and do some things that
have to be done in the next week and a half. We owe it to the American
people.
I am really distressed by the idea of standing around wasting time on
an issue that has pretty well been summed up and should be completed.
We have already finished it, but we continue to go on and on here on
the floor, I guess for political reasons. I cannot think of any other
reason we continue to go on as long as we have.
One of the things, of course, that is most difficult from time to
time in dealing with the Federal Government is the Federal regulations
that are onerous and difficult. They make it very hard for businesses.
By the way, many of the businesses in Wyoming--and the oil business--
are small businesses, independent producers. Many of them are stripper
wells and down to 15 barrels or so per day. These are not all the
mammoth companies, and so on, they talk about. This is an industry that
is tremendously important to our State.
By the way, our students do receive a great deal of support from this
source, which is our principal source, of course, for funding schools
and doing the other things we do in our State.
Efforts will go forward to continue to complete the regulations and
the rules. That is really what we are aiming toward. That is really
what we ought to do. MMS needs to work with industry and come up with
some workable regulations. Talking about schools not having the money--
the money is there now. As the Senator from Idaho indicated, there have
been diversions from that pot of money by the very people who are
continuing to talk about needing more. It seems to be something of an
irony to do it that way.
I guess I have been particularly concerned about shifting the focus
of our discussion today on an MMS proposed rule over to campaign
finance, which we heard talked about for 30 minutes this morning. It is
not relevant at all to what we are doing. And the implication that
everyone who is for a workable rule is somehow a product of the
contributions, I am offended by this. I am. I think it is a very
unproductive kind of an argument.
I hope we can move forward, get this behind us, that we can get this
job done. We can do it, and it can be done. By working with MMS, we and
industry can come up with a workable rule. We are on our way to doing
that now.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is our hour, if I understand
it correctly.

[[Page 22349]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming had the floor. Did he
yield the floor?
Mr. THOMAS. I yielded the floor to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot yield the floor to another
Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota was recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will Senator Wellstone yield, without losing his right?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question, without losing
my right.
Mr. DOMENICI. How long will it be in terms of the remarks the Senator
will make before he yields the floor?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, probably about an hour.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, I
understand the point he is making about the connections to money at an
individual level. I am not here to make that argument. I think there is
a different argument that could be made about the need for reform.
What I want to do is go back to what I think is the issue. To me, the
issue is that the Hutchison amendment is an outrageous provision. The
reason we are out here on the floor is, we want people in the country
to know about it. We all have to be accountable.
It was offered to the Interior appropriations bill. Now, because of
this successful effort to get cloture, this amendment, if it goes into
law, which it will, will restrict the Interior Department from doing
its job, which is to make sure that the oil companies pay their full
royalties. I thank the Senator from California for having the courage
to come out and take on this effort and for having the courage to make
this an issue, a very public issue in the country.
The reason we are out here is that behind this amendment lies an
unbelievable story. The Interior Department's Mineral Management
Service, MMS, simply wanted to collect the money that these oil
companies owe the public. Many of the industry's largest companies have
been consistently underpaying their royalties. They are not paying
their taxes. Ordinary people, which I mean in a positive way, in
Illinois or Minnesota, they pay their taxes. These companies have not
been paying their taxes, not the fair share.
Last year, Mobil Oil agreed to a $56.5 million settlement of Federal
and State lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties. They agreed to
the settlement. Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, not exactly
a bastion of liberalism, Chevron Corporation has agreed in principle to
pay approximately $95 million to resolve a civil lawsuit charging that
Chevron shortchanged the American public. That is what has been going
on.
There have been a flurry of other settlements--$2.5 billion in
Alaska, $350 million in California, $17.5 million in Texas, $10 million
in Louisiana, and $8 million in New Mexico. Remember, this oil belongs
to the public. What we have been saying to these companies is: Go
ahead, take the oil, but all we ask, as the public, is for you to pay
the market value. I don't think that is too much to ask, nor do the
people of this country think it is too much to ask. Apparently, the big
oil companies do. If there was a poll in the country, 99 percent of the
people would be with my colleague from California.
Let me be clear about one thing: We are not talking about all of the
oil companies. We are not talking about the mom and pop independents.
We are talking about large integrated companies that sell to affiliates
at undervalued prices. They make up only 5 percent of the oil companies
drilling on the Federal land, but they account for 68 percent of the
Federal production.
The Interior Department, up to the time of this Hutchison amendment,
was developing regulations to stop this highway robbery. People get
angry. People work hard. They pay their taxes. Then they see these big
oil companies that say: We don't have to pay our taxes.
This is not new authority. Interior always had the statutory
authority to collect royalties on the fair market value. But what the
Hutchison amendment would do would essentially negate what the Interior
Department was trying to do. What was the Interior Department trying to
do? These new regulations would keep the oil companies from
manipulating ``fair market value'' to underpay their royalties.
That is what they have been doing. They have been cheating. This is
the question I ask my colleagues: Do these companies, these large
integrated oil companies, deserve our sympathy? I don't think so. They
have been caught. Let me repeat that. They have been caught. They have
been caught underpaying their royalties. They have been cheating the
public. That is what they have been doing.
My colleague from Texas and some other Senators come to the floor and
they want to do a special favor for the big oil companies. The reason
we are out on the floor is, even if we lost on the cloture vote, I say
to my colleague from California and other Senators, we don't lose this
vote, not really. We don't lose this fight, not really, because I think
people in the country are absolutely outraged.
We are talking about $66 million a year that could be going to the
environment, to schools, to our children. We are talking about big oil
companies that basically seem to think--my colleague from Wisconsin was
out here on the floor, and I guess other Senators didn't appreciate
what he was doing. But with all due respect, this is a reform issue.
How is it that we have so much sympathy, how is it we care so deeply,
how is it we feel the pain of these oil companies, how is it we are so
much at their service, and yet, when it comes to families that can't
afford child care, we don't have the same sympathy? When it comes to
making sure we make the investment in education for our children, we
apparently don't have the same sympathy.
I was at a press conference with my colleague from Vermont, Senator
Jeffords, a Republican. We were talking about the current course, which
is going to be about a 12- to 14-percent cut in low-income energy
assistance in a cold weather State. We are talking about grants of
maybe $285, but it makes a huge difference. Do my colleagues know that
for around 85-, 90,000 households in Minnesota, a third of them are
elderly; 70 percent of them are working poor?
This means there is a grant so that during the cold winter months in
Minnesota--we have a few of those months--we make sure those families,
in trying to pay their heat, are still also able to afford food, or
elderly people don't give up on prescription drugs.
What do we have here? We have a Senate, by virtue of the vote on the
floor of the Senate, which basically does the bidding for these big oil
companies. All of our sympathies are for these companies. My colleague
from California has had the courage to confront this, to take this on.
The reason we are taking our time this afternoon, I say to the Senator
from California, is that we want as many people in the country as
possible to know about this. That is right; absolutely, that is right.
I said, when the Senator was out, I have no doubt--and I thank her
for her effort; I know she must be getting tired--I have no doubt that
99 percent of the people in this country are on your side. I say that
to the Senator from California. People are outraged by this. This is
another example of too few people, with too much power, having too much
say over how the Senate operates, and the vast majority of the people
are left out.
It is interesting; my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy,
just gave me a summary of what happened today on the House side in the
Subcommittee on Education of Appropriations. Unbelievable. They cut
$1.2 billion in money that would have gone to reduce class size. My
daughter is a Spanish teacher. I asked her the other day, ``What size
classes do you have this year?'' She said, ``36 and 38.'' Those are two
of her classes. Those classes need to be smaller.
Then I was talking to my son, who has two small children in
elementary

[[Page 22350]]

school. In the third grade class, there are 28 students. We know if we
reduce class size, teachers would have more time to spend with these
kids, and they can do better. Today, on the House side, our Republican
colleagues cut this--title I funding, $264 million below the
President's request.
I have to talk about this for a little while. This is unbelievable.
Albeit, I was literally on this one, in a minority, but we had all this
discussion about Ed-Flex and all that we were going to do with title I.
At the same time, our title I funding for low-income children in our
country is about a third of the level of what it should be if we were
to reach all the kids. This is money that is used for teaching
assistants, more teachers, more parent outreach, higher standards, and
making sure that kids who fall behind can meet those standards. Today,
we are essentially cutting title I. How could the $66 million be used?
We can hire a thousand teachers; we can put 44,000 new computers in the
classrooms; we can buy textbooks for 1.2 million students; we can
provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren.
So I can't understand when some of my colleagues come out on the
floor and say this is not the issue. This is the issue. These oil
companies have been cheating. They haven't been paying their fair share
of taxes. They were able to get some Senators to come out here as a
favor to them and make sure they are able to continue to basically not
pay their fair share of taxes. We give up $66 million, and the choice
becomes not the mom-and-pop operations, but huge, big, integrated oil
companies.
Do I have sympathy on the side of big oil companies, or am I on the
side of children? That is an easy question for me and the vast majority
of people in this country to answer. It is interesting; when we talk
about the whole issue of cheating the public, I want to point this out
on the floor of the Senate. Now we are talking about cheating the
public. Now we are talking about the Interior Department wanting to
basically put into effect the regulation that makes sure the big oil
companies could not cheat the public. Now we are talking about an
effort that basically is an effort to undo this regulation, undo the
work of the Interior Department.
The Interior Department is essentially saying to people: You know
what. We, as a Government agency, are going to make sure the oil
companies pay their fair share, which is what people believe in. People
get angry because they think we are well-connected, and if you make
huge contributions--which is what my colleague from Wisconsin was
talking about--and you are a heavy hitter and you have lobbyists, you
can get special deals. People hate that. They get furious about it. I
don't blame them.
I heard a lot about cheating and all the rest when we had the welfare
debate. It is interesting. We have all this sympathy for the ``poor,''
large oil companies. They come in here and, apparently, for some of my
colleagues, we can't do enough for them, even when they are not paying
their fair share. But you know, it is interesting; we never have any of
the same sympathy for poor mothers and children.
I have been out on the floor of the Senate trying to get at least
some honest policy evaluation of how this welfare bill is working. I
get something passed on the Senate floor, and it is taken out in
conference committee. As I was saying, how about some sympathy for
others? Maybe if they are not as well connected, or maybe if they don't
have all of the income, we still ought to care about them.
So if we hear from Families USA that since that welfare bill passed,
there are 670,000 fewer children who have medical coverage, we ought to
be concerned. If we hear from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that
there has been a dramatic rise in the number of hungry and food-
insecure families in the country, maybe we ought to be concerned. And
if we know there has been about a 25-percent drop in food stamp
participation, maybe we ought to be concerned.
If we hear that most of these mothers are getting jobs that are
barely above minimum wage, and then they lose health care coverage and
they don't find good child care for their children, maybe we should be
concerned. If it is the case, as it is the case in Minnesota--and I
will bet in a lot of other States as well--that we can't even make the
rent subsidy program work any longer because there is no affordable
low-income housing, so the fair market value is above what would make
anybody eligible, and that people can't even find housing and they
can't cash-flow--they would have to make $12 or $13 to be able to cash-
flow to afford any affordable housing for themselves and their
children, and if the most dramatic rise in the homeless population is
women and children, maybe we should have the same concern. But we
don't.
We are concerned for these oil companies that have been caught
cheating, but we are not concerned for low-income women and children.
We are concerned for these oil companies that have been caught
cheating. There is not enough we can do for them, but we are not
concerned about funding title I. We are not concerned about making sure
we fund low-income energy assistance. We are not concerned about making
the investment to reduce class size. We are not concerned about
affordable child care. We are not concerned about making sure that we
fully fund and make the investment we ought to make in veterans' health
care.
But we can't do enough for these oil companies that have been caught
cheating.
I think this debate we have been having, this sort of fight on the
floor of the Senate speaks volumes on what is at stake. Let me simply,
one more time, repeat what I said earlier. This amendment is an
outrageous provision offered to the Interior appropriations bill. What
it does is it basically restricts the Interior Department from doing
its job. What the Interior Department was trying to do was make sure
the oil companies pay the full royalties for the oil they are drilling
on Federal or Indian land. Therefore, we lose, roughly speaking, $66
million a year. Therefore, the choice becomes: Do you hire a thousand
teachers? Do you put 44,000 new computers into the classrooms? Do you
buy textbooks for 1.2 million students? Do you provide 53 million hot
lunches for schoolchildren? Or do you basically come down on the side
of the big oil companies?
Well, I am proud to say on the floor of the Senate that I am not the
Senator for the big oil companies or the big insurance companies or the
pharmaceutical companies. They already have great representation in
Washington, DC. It is the rest of the people who need it. That is what
Senator Boxer has been trying to do--represent the rest of the people
in this country. That is what I am proud to do out on the floor of the
Senate.
It is interesting. October is going to be Domestic Violence Awareness
Month. It is so important that in October we focus on the violence in
families. About every 13 seconds a woman is beaten and battered in her
home. A home is supposed to be a safe place. About every 13 seconds,
that is a conservative figure. All too many children witness this
violence, as well.
As it turns out, we also at this time are recognizing the 25th
anniversary of Women's Advocates, which was the Nation's first battered
women's shelter located in St. Paul, MN. I have a lot of pride when I
talk about the staff and when I talk about the volunteers and the
supporters of Women's Advocates.
In 1974, the doors of this shelter first opened for women and their
children who were seeking some respite from violence. It took a lot of
courage and for women to stand up to this.
To date, this wonderful, special place has provided advocacy shelter
and advocacy and support services to over 25,000 women and children.
They spend countless hours teaching our schoolchildren and community
members about the impact. Women's Advocates stands as a pillar of grace
and triumph. I hail executive director, Elizabeth Wolf, and all the
courageous women.
But what is interesting to me--I raise this question because, again,
I come out on the floor of the Senate and I say: Can't we do more to
try to stop

[[Page 22351]]

this violence? Can't we have more safe visitation centers to protect
children and women? Can't we make sure we do more by way of supporting
children who witness this violence in their homes--some 3 to 5 million
children? Can't we do more to make sure these women who have been
battered and who have experienced this violence can afford housing when
they leave these shelters? Do you know what the answer is from my
colleagues? No. We can't make that investment. We don't have the money.
But when the oil companies that have been cheating and have been caught
cheating come here and they say, please give us a special break, please
give us a special favor, we find it easy to give them our sympathy and
to give them what they want.
How interesting it is. This is an issue of representation. How
interesting it is that when we are talking about children in our
schools, when we are talking about working families that can't afford
child care for their children, when we are talking about men and women
who work in our child care centers and have to leave because they can't
make a living wage, therefore, there is all this turnover--the
Washington Post had an excellent piece about this not too long ago--and
when we are talking about whether or not people who work almost 52
weeks a year, 40 hours a week, shouldn't be able to have a living wage
and we should raise the minimum wage, or when we are talking about
whether or not can't we do more by way of affordable houses, or when we
are talking about how we can't expand the Pell grant program to make
sure higher education is more affordable, we don't have any sympathy;
we don't have any resources; there is nothing we can do.
But when it comes to these big oil companies, when they come here and
they say, please give us a special favor, we have been cheating and now
the Interior Department is going to say we can't cheat any longer and
we have to pay our fair share of taxes, we ask you to fix that. That is
exactly what the crux of the amendment is. That is exactly why we are
speaking on the floor with a tremendous amount of indignation.
The question becomes one of representation. I think this actually is
what my colleague from Wisconsin was trying to speak to. Why do the
wage earners, these working families, these children and women who are
experiencing violence, children who witness that violence, why don't
their concerns seem to carry any weight and yet the concerns of the
poor large oil companies that have been caught cheating seem to matter?
What is going on here?
I think this is a huge problem. I think this has everything in the
world to do with the need for reform. This has to do with a mix of
money and politics. This has to do with: Who are the players? Who are
the contributors? Who are the heavy hitters? Who are the well
connected? Who can get Senators to do their bidding?
I tell you, it is outrageous. That is why I am on the floor to say it
is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous.
I have another question. I have a different question. This one is
very near and dear to my heart.
Why do we have all of this concern for these poor big oil companies
that have been caught cheating and don't want to pay their fair share
but we don't have the same concern for family farmers who right now are
going under? We are going to lose another 6.57 percent of our family
farmers in Minnesota. These producers are going to go under. We want to
come out here and we want to say raise the loan rate.
I say to my colleague from Michigan, I would be pleased to finish up
a little bit earlier. I will finish up in a few minutes. I have other
colleagues wanting to speak. I will make one final point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from
Michigan be allowed to follow me. I still have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take my time.
Let me simply raise another question, which is if we have all of this
concern for these big oil companies, and we want to prevent the
Interior Department from making sure they can pay full royalties, then
why don't we have the same concern for family farmers in the State of
Minnesota? Why don't we have the same concern for the producers in my
State? Many of us from the farm States want to come out here and we
want to talk about raising the loan rate. I have a proposal that I want
an up-or-down vote on to put a moratorium on these acquisitions and
these mergers.
We want to talk about antitrust action. We want to talk about fair
trade policy. We want to know why the conference committee can't even
get the emergency assistance to our farmers who are going under.
But it seems as if when it comes to family farmers in Minnesota, or,
for that matter, Illinois, or in our country, or when it comes to
education for children, or when it comes to veterans' health care, or
when it comes to low-income energy assistance, or when it comes to
affordable housing, or when it comes to what we can do about reducing
violence in homes, the brunt of the violence directed at women and
children, we don't have very much sympathy. But we have all of the
sympathy in the world for these poor oil companies that have been
caught cheating because, after all, they are the ones that are the well
connected. They are the ones that have the resources. They are the ones
that seem to make a difference.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota will
yield for a unanimous consent.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question. I would like to
keep the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to keep the floor and yield for a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--if the Senator
from Minnesota would be able to do this--that the Senator from
Minnesota yield within the next few minutes to the Senator from Texas
for 10 minutes, and then to the Senator from Michigan for 10 minutes,
and then, if the Senator from Minnesota is still on the floor after
giving us the time, the floor go back to the Senator from Minnesota
until 4:15, at which point the floor would be yielded to the Senator
from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, or her designee.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is so much more I want to say
right now, but I am pleased to yield to that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, at 4:15 Senator Domenici or I will be
recognized and we will use approximately 45 minutes of our time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. And I have how much time after?
Mr. LEVIN. Let me state the unanimous consent request.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Fifteen minutes, from 4 to 4:15, is what the Senator
would have.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me state the unanimous consent request. I ask
unanimous consent that Senator Gramm have 10 minutes at this time, then
I have 10 minutes, the floor go back to Senator Wellstone until 4:15,
then it go to Senator Hutchison or her designee at 4:15, and any time
remaining to Senator Wellstone on his hour at 4:15 that he retain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I take 30 seconds to summarize?
Mr. LEVIN. I add that Senator Wellstone take whatever number of
minutes he wishes to summarize. That comes off my 10 minutes.
I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I know how difficult it is. He is
into some very important material, and it is an intrusion, but it
accommodates a number of Senators.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the question, How does it come to
be that these large oil companies have generated so much of our
sympathy, have enlisted so much of our sympathy? They have been caught.
Let me repeat that: They have been caught

[[Page 22352]]

underpaying their royalties. They have been cheating. And we have all
of the sympathy for these big oil companies.
But when it comes to children, when it comes to family farmers, when
it comes to doing something about reducing violence in homes, when it
comes to raising the minimum wage, when it comes to affordable child
care, when it comes to affordable health care, when it comes to so many
of the issues so important to families in our country, we don't seem to
have the same sympathy.
This debate goes to the heart of what is at stake in the Senate. What
is at stake is, Whom do we represent? Are we Senators for the big oil
companies or are we Senators for the vast majority of citizens in our
country who are asking Senators to get serious with good public policy
that will make a difference for them, make a difference for their
children, make a big difference for our communities?
That is what this is about. Do we have representative democracy where
the vast majority of people are heard or do we have a system where we
have democracy for the few, where the big oil companies come here and
work out their special deals? That is what they have done, America.
That is so outrageous. That is what is so unconscionable. That is why
we are taking the time this afternoon to make sure every single citizen
in this country understands what has happened here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Gramm of Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what a pity it is that America today is
focused on the fact that the President has vetoed the tax bill and is
not paying a bit of attention to this debate. So much passion, it is a
shame it is wasted, but it is.
The President has vetoed the tax bill. It means the average working
couple in America will bear $1,400 a year of marriage penalty because
the President doesn't believe they ought to get relief. It means all
over America people who inherit family farms and small businesses from
their parents, who worked a lifetime to build the farms and businesses
up, will have to sell them to give the Government 55 cents out of every
dollar of value for which their parents worked a lifetime.
Because the President has vetoed the tax bill, it means we are not
going to have a small across-the-board tax cut for every working
American who pays income taxes. Because the President vetoed the tax
bill, we are not going to make health insurance deductible for Joe and
Sarah Brown, the same as it is deductible for General Motors or General
Electric.
We know, based on the makeup of the House and Senate and based on the
votes of our Democrat colleagues who have been steadfastly opposed to
cutting taxes for working families, that we can't override the
President's veto. So the tax debate is over.
Thank goodness we will have a new President in 15 months. The
American people are going to get to vote in part on whether or not
Government ought to spend a surplus or give part of it back. When they
vote, we will vote again.
I say this to the President: I hope the President will not send down
to Congress more spending bills, because they will pass over my cold,
dead political body. I hope the President is not going to propose
raising taxes and spending money because they are going to pass over my
cold, dead political body. We can't make Bill Clinton cut taxes, but we
can stop him from spending the Social Security surplus. That is exactly
what we are going to do.
We are going to hear all kinds of whining from the White House about
how the President has ``got to, got to, got to'' have more money, even
though we are spending more than ever in American history. He has to
have more, and we have to steal it from Social Security or raise taxes
to pay for it. It is not going to happen. End of that debate.
Now, I want to say I have never, since I have been in the Senate,
seen a debate so out of kilter with the real issue that is before the
Senate. Quite frankly, I have seen few debates that are as mean-
spirited as this debate.
Here is the issue in a nutshell: For 4 years, the Congress has
decided, when we wrote a law setting out royalties on oil production
that would be paid to the Federal Government and establishing a system
to collect them, we meant what we said; that when the Government
entered into contracts with people, that those contracts were binding;
and that if people wanted to raise those royalties, that ought to be
voted on in Congress. After all, we went to the inconvenience to run
for public office, and the Constitution says Congress shall have the
power to raise taxes and to spend money.
It must be wonderful to have all these things my colleagues hate--big
oil, big medicine, big pharmaceuticals--but we are talking about $22
million a year worth of royalties. This is not about money, this is
about principle. It is about whether or not Congress ought to set the
law and whether Congress has the power to tax, or whether the Federal
bureaucracy, through its own power and by its own agenda, with no
support from Congress, can override Congress' will and make law.
I am proud of my dear, wonderful colleague from Texas. I love my
colleague from Texas because she is tough. I have never seen an issue
so demagogued as this issue. I have to say to her, she has not backed
up an inch and she has won. I think it is a great testament to her
courage and to her toughness. I congratulate her on both.
The issue is not big oil versus schoolchildren. If the Federal
Government raises royalties and therefore raises the deliverable price
at the filling station, or when you buy home heating oil, who pays for
it? Who pays for it is working men and women. That is food, clothing,
shelter, and education they take away from their children.
This is not an issue about oil companies versus children; this is an
issue of whether we want to take an action through regulation on which
Congress constitutionally should be voting.
Second, do we want to raise those prices? I do not. In terms of all
of this stuff, big oil and political power, they do not have anything
to do with this debate. This debate is about whether or not the Mineral
Management Service should have unilateral powers to change royalty
rates, or whether Congress, which set the rates to begin with,
established the process, should have the power to make those changes if
they choose.
Our Democrat colleagues use terms such as ``fairness'' and ``big
oil'' and ``excess profits.'' It all reminds me of when their policy
was in effect under President Carter, and we all waited in line to buy
gasoline; when their policy was in force under President Carter and we
had double-digit inflation. Maybe they want to go back to that. I do
not. But to turn this into some kind of political shouting match when
we are talking about a debate that involves $22 million a year, which
is a small amount but a fundamental principle of American government
which is beyond setting a price on, and that is who makes the law in
this country? Does the bureaucracy make law or does the Congress make
law?
Our colleague from Texas has, for 4 years in a row, set out in law
the principle that Congress made the law to begin with, and when we are
ready to change it, we will change it. We do not need the Clinton
administration acting as executive branch, legislative branch, and
regulator all combined.
So I say to my colleague, I am proud of what she has done. I am proud
that she has won, and all the whining and all the moaning and all the
groaning does not change the fact that the Senator from Texas stands on
the firmest ground that you could stand on, on the floor of the Senate.
The Constitution, in article I, gives Congress the power to impose
taxes. It does not give the Mineral Management Service the power to
impose taxes. Nor will we ever give them that power. That is what this
issue is about. I think we demean the legislative process and demean
debate by trying to turn this into something that it is not.
I know someone from the Mineral Management Service has said --and our
colleague from Texas is going to give

[[Page 22353]]

the exact quote --that we need this issue to demagog. Maybe they need
this issue to demagog. But this is the greatest deliberative body in
the history of the world. Here we are supposed to be debating real
issues.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the Senator referring to the quote from Michael
Gaudlin of the Department of the Interior, Communications Director,
quoted in Inside Energy magazine, November 2, 1998, in which he said,
``We're sticking to the position we've taken.'' ``It gives us an issue
to demagog for another year.''
Is that what he is referring to?
Mr. GRAMM. Will my colleague read what the quote said again? I want
to be sure that is what I was referring to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Michael Gaudlin of Department of the Interior,
Communications Director, quoted in Inside Energy magazine, November 2,
1998, in which he said, ``We're sticking to the position we've taken.''
``It gives us an issue to demagog for another year.''
Mr. GRAMM. That is the quote I am talking about. I thank our
colleague for using it.
Let me say this. He can demagog all he wants to. But if he wants to
raise taxes, let me suggest to him he quit his job, go back wherever he
is from, and that he convince millions of people to elect him to the
Senate. Then he can come up here and vote to raise taxes. But as long
as he is there and not here, I do not care what he thinks about taxes.
It is not his duty to raise them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes of the Senator have expired.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very interesting that we have had
such a focus on Congress having the power rather than the bureaucracy
having the power. Many of us worked very hard in this body, including,
I believe, the Senator from Texas, to make sure Congress would have the
power to review regulation and to review rules. We have a Congressional
Accountability Act. It is pretty new. We do not use it very often, but
it is there. For 60 days after the Interior Department adopts a rule,
if we will let them adopt the rule, we have the power to override that
rule by expedited procedure.
So if my good friend from Texas really wants Congress to be in the
position that we can override the rule if we ever permit the rule to be
adopted, we have that power. We worked hard to get that power in law.
It took us many years to get that power in law. It is called
congressional accountability, congressional review, and the rulemaking
process that the Interior Department is following is a rulemaking
process that we told them to follow. We are not going to let them
finish it, apparently. The argument we now hear is we are not going to
let them finish it because we have the power. We should have the power,
not the bureaucracy.
The problem with that argument is it ignores the fact that if we did
let them finish, which we should, their rulemaking process, we would
have the power to override a rule of the Department of the Interior.
For 60 days we have expedited procedures that will permit us to
override their rule. So that argument does not wash.
The part of this that really intrigues me the most is what so-called
integrated oil companies have been able to get away with by basically
setting their own prices instead of using market price. I was really
intrigued by this. I was not into this issue until a few months ago,
really. I started reading some editorials. I started reading the
congressional speeches here in the Senate of Senator Boxer and others.
I asked the Interior Department. I said: Can you give me some
examples where you have an integrated oil company and an independent
oil company that are drilling the same oil from public lands and paying
us different royalties; where the price they are setting in an
integrated company on the one hand, and an independent company on the
other hand, are different for the same oil from adjacent lands, both
being public lands, of course? Because then, if you have different
prices being set for the same oil, you have overwhelming evidence that
we are being cheated. Either that or the independents are paying more
than they should, which is a pretty unlikely thing because they are
going by the market price. They are going by what they get for the oil
in an arm's length transaction.
So on the one hand, you have independents with an arm's length
transaction, which is what the law is. Then we have the integrateds
coming along, saying the prices are going to be a lot different based
on what they are charging themselves.
So I asked the Department of the Interior to take a look at areas on
public lands where you have independents and integrated oil companies
right next to each other drilling for the same oil. Is there a price
differential?
Here are the numbers they give me. It is to me powerful evidence that
we are being cheated because from the same lease, the same oil field,
the same oil, in 6 months in 1999, we get different prices, and in
every case the price that is being set by the integrated company is
less than the market price which was established by the independent in
its arm's length transaction.
How do we justify this? How does an integrated company justify that?
In January 1999, three different fields: Colorado, New Mexico, and the
Gulf of Mexico. Sales price, dollars per barrel, the independent:
$12.43. That was the market price. That was the price they were paid on
the market for that oil. The same lease, same oil field, same oil the
integrated company is basing their royalty to us on: $11.83.
February, the independent, arm's length transaction, getting $11.97
and paying a royalty based on that. What does the integrated company
base its royalty on? When it sells it to itself: $11.36.
March of 1999, Colorado, same lease, same field, same oil in terms of
quality, you have the same oil. The independent, he is basing the
royalty to us on $14.60. The integrated company is basing its royalty
to us on $14.08.
April, same story; May, same story; June, same story. That's
Colorado, the first 6 months of 1999.
I asked them to give me some examples. I told them not to pick and
choose; give me examples which are typical examples where you have oil
sales, same lease, same field, same quality oil next to each other.
That is in what I am interested.
This is the New Mexico field. It has the same kind of price
structure. The independent sells it for $11.74. The integrated company
is paying us on $9.83.
In February, New Mexico, the independent company paid, arm's length
transaction, $11.53. The integrated company is basing a royalty to us
on $10.16.
Something is fundamentally wrong here. The Senator from California
and others, it seems to me, have demonstrated in a very clear, dramatic
fashion that something is wrong, but when you break it down and ask the
Interior Department to give us some more evidence, give us evidence of
the differences in the amount on which royalties are based, where the
field is the same field, where the lease is the same field--these are
public lands. This oil does not belong to the oil companies; it belongs
to the people of the United States. They are on our land. This is not a
tax; it is a royalty for our property. We own it. It is ours and we let
the oil companies drill on it.
What did they come up with? Gulf of Mexico, same field, same lease,
the independent company, arm's length transaction gets $11.19. The
integrated company, selling to itself, is basing its royalty on $10.49.
There is a lot of evidence of these miscalculations by these integrated
companies so they pay less royalties.
What could be more compelling evidence when you have oil being drawn
from the same field, the same lease right next to each other on a
public land? How much more compelling evidence do we need before we
finally say to the Interior Department: Go ahead, do your rule.
In closing, I remind our colleagues of one other thing and it is
where I started. What we hear from the Senator

[[Page 22354]]

from Texas is we should do this, not the bureaucracy. We have the power
to override the bureaucracy under this new process which so many of us
worked so hard to put in place so we are accountable, not the
bureaucracy. It used to be called legislative review. Before that, we
thought we had a legislative veto, but that was overridden by the
Supreme Court. Now it is called the Congressional Accountability Act.
For 60 days, if we will let the Interior Department follow the process,
we then have the power, under expedited procedures, to override any
final rule they may adopt.
This effort is to truncate that, to cut it off so they cannot follow
the rulemaking process. That is what this effort is all about.
What it will stop is the elimination of this absurdity. It is absurd
for the same oil, for the same field to be charged at different
amounts. It is obvious what is going on. The independent companies,
because they are selling on the market, have a very clear objective,
outside way of determining market value.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that Senator Wellstone was going
to be here at 4. He has yielded the extra time until 4:15 to the
Senator from Michigan. I want to engage him in a couple questions, if
there is no objection, and then at 4:15, we will go to Senator Domenici
or Senator Hutchison's person of choice.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California,
I certainly will not object, but I have one other Senator who has also
asked for time.
Mrs. BOXER. Go right ahead and make a UC request.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock I have 5
minutes for Senator Brownback and 5 minutes for Senator Enzi, and then
perhaps Senator Graham can come after that.
Mrs. BOXER. I agree, if we can say after the Senators have spoken
then we go to my designee for a period of up to 30 minutes. Is that all
right, since the Senator is going to have the next hour?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that I have the hour from
4:15 to 5:15, and then the Senator from California will have the next
30 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I propose that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. We are winding down.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
chart be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

AN INDEFENSIBLE GAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of
Colorado New Mexico Mexico
Sales month and company sales price sales price (sales
($/barrel) ($/barrel) price ($/
barrel)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1999
Independent.................... 12.43 11.74 11.19
Integrated..................... 11.83 9.83 10.49
February 1999
Independent.................... 11.97 11.53 10.93
Integrated..................... 11.36 10.16 10.35
March 1999
Independent.................... 14.60 14.09 13.01
Integrated..................... 14.08 11.13 12.77
April 1999
Independent.................... 17.28 16.43 15.44
Integrated..................... 16.61 14.00 15.34
May 1999
Independent.................... 17.80 17.20 16.65
Integrated..................... 17.11 15.83 15.94
June 1999
Independent.................... 18.16 (\1\) 16.21
Integrated..................... 17.31 16.62 16.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not reported.

Oil Sales are from the same lease, same field, and same oil for six
months in 1999, for Colorado, New Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico,
respectively.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, understanding the Senator from Michigan
now has about 9 minutes remaining, I want to ask him a couple of
questions.
First, I thank him very much for his contributions to this debate. I
know my friend from Michigan is very meticulous. He was interested in
finding a specific case to point to where oil was drilled on very
similar lands very close to each other where the oil companies listed
different market prices. He asked the Interior Department for that. It
was a struggle to get it, and he got it.
I say to my friend, if he can hold up the ARCO chart, I want to try
to translate what he has taught us in the specifics to the more
general, which is this: Does my friend from Michigan not conclude,
after his presentation, there is convincing evidence that a small
percentage of the oil companies--namely, those that are integrated and
wind up having the first point of sale essentially with themselves--
have been consistently undervaluing the price of the oil on which they
pay their royalties, and that, in fact, what happens then is that the
taxpayers who, as my friend has pointed out, own this land, it belongs
to the people of the United States of America, thereby get cheated by
that differential? And that is explained on the chart. In other words,
the market price is continuously higher than the oil company's posted
price, the price on which these 5 percent of the companies pay the
royalties. Is that not a fair summary of what is happening?
Mr. LEVIN. That is what is happening. What the Interior Department
has done for me at my request is to take a look at situations, as the
Senator from California said, where we have oil being drilled under the
same lease, the same field so we know it is the same quality oil, next
to each other by two different companies, one of which is the 5
percent, the integrated company which is setting its own price, and the
other by one of the independents, and to compare the market prices
which are set on which the royalty is based.
I told them to give me typical examples. Do not pick and choose. Give
me typical examples. The typical examples are on the chart. They show a
range of differences in sale prices from 10 cents minimum to $2.99 per
barrel. When you put that over the entire country for one company, you
come up with this kind of a situation where you have a market price the
independents are paying and then you have a posted price by an
integrated company, which is below that consistently.
It is wrong, and we have to end it. The Senator from California is
leading an effort to end that. We ought to permit the Interior
Department to complete its rulemaking process, and then, if a majority
of this Congress thinks they have not done this properly, we have a way
to override it. We are the final determinants, not the bureaucracy, and
we have that power.
We, obviously, do not want to see what this will result in because
some of us very clearly want this situation to continue. It is an
unfair situation to the taxpayers. It is discriminatory against
companies that pay royalties, by the way, based on arm's length market
price setting. It is not even fair to them. It is not fair to the
States that also get part of these resources.
We are not talking about a tax. This is not a business or an
individual being taxed. This is oil that is owned by the public.
The business is owned by an individual. It is a private business. The
oil being drilled is publicly owned oil. So there is a major difference
between this and a tax.
Mrs. BOXER. I know my friend needs to run off. I ask unanimous
consent that I can finish up this portion of my time, and at 4:15 go to
Senator Hutchison, if there is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend, again, as he runs off to a very
important meeting, and say he is so right. A royalty is not a tax; it
is an agreement. It is a payment made by oil companies that have the
privilege of drilling on the property which belongs to the United
States of America. Those funds go to the Federal Treasury. Part of them
go to the State treasury, and they are used for environmental purposes
and for purposes of education.
I would like to complete my time that remains at this point--
reserving the remainder that I have. I have a long time left. I do not
intend to use all of that time. I hope soon we will have a chance to
make an agreement when this would come to an end, this whole debate. We
are not there yet. We are finding out how many colleagues want to come
over.
But there was a comment made on the floor about the Senator from
California by a few of my colleagues. I do

[[Page 22355]]

not mind them saying whatever they wish. I do not have any desire to
stop them because I can take care of myself. But I want to respond to
the statements that were made.
The point we have been making consistently on our side is that when
the oil companies do not pay their fair share of royalties, the
Treasury is robbed of funds that are necessary for the environment and
for education. My colleagues said--particularly Senator Craig said; and
he did not give me the chance to respond, so I want to respond now--
that Senator Boxer here is complaining that the oil companies aren't
paying their fair share of royalties, and yet she leads the fight
against offshore oil drilling in her State--which, by the way, I am
extremely proud he mentioned--and she does not want to cut down our
trees--which I am very happy to mention because I think that is our
heritage.
The point is, that is not what this is about because this Senator
from California wants a strong California economy. What that means is,
you preserve the forest, you preserve the beautiful redwood trees, you
preserve the beautiful environment. Because if you allow indiscriminate
and additional offshore oil drilling--we have plenty going on right
now. How many leases? Forty leases are being drilled. If we allow more,
it destroys our economy.
Tourism is our No. 1 important economic resource, so if we destroy
that, we are done for. So by my fighting to limit offshore oil
drilling, by my fighting not to allow indiscriminate cutting down of
beautiful old-growth trees, I am, in fact, preserving the economy and
increasing the revenues that go to my State.
What are we left with? We are left with what the oil companies have
to pay for the offshore oil tracts that they are drilling and the
onshore oil tracts that they are drilling currently. This isn't an
argument about new drilling. This isn't an argument about new cutting
down of trees. This is an argument about the status quo. We have many
leases in California that are being drilled.
We expect the oil companies to be good public citizens. We expect the
oil companies to pay their fair share. The good news is that 95 percent
of them are paying their fair share. Good for them. They are good
corporate citizens. They are doing the right thing. There are about 777
oil companies that are doing the right thing, that are paying the fair
market value. Unfortunately, there are about 44 companies that are not.
The Hutchison amendment, which is supported by the Senator from New
Mexico, and many others, allows those 44 companies to continue to
underpay this royalty payment. It is time to put a stop to this, my
friends. I hope we will do that. I am not very hopeful, in essence,
that this will happen, but maybe some people listening to this debate
will have a change of heart, and maybe in the vote we will get into the
40s today. Maybe that will send a signal that this is a tough call.
I see my friend from New Mexico has come to the floor, and under the
unanimous consent agreement, my friend from Texas now has full right to
give her time to anyone she wants at 4:15. So I yield the floor and get
it back at 5:15.
I thank my colleagues for their patience.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 15 minutes to my colleague from New
Mexico, who is the cosponsor of this amendment and who is doing a super
job of not only explaining this but also working on the balanced budget
that is so important for our country. In fact, the reason he has not
been on the floor with me today is because he is working so hard to
make sure we do keep the balanced budget, that we do try to make sure
we are responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars.
I commend him for all he does for our country and yield him up to 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Hutchison for her
kind remarks. I tell her, as cosponsor, what a pleasure it is to work
with her. We have been sponsor or cosponsor--depending on the year--of
this measure for the last 3 years. Hang in there, I say to the Senator.
We have not lost yet. We will not lose this time either because we are
right.
I want to give a quick summary of the issues, as I see them. When you
get right down to it, it isn't all that complicated.
First, we need to have new MMS regulations, but the regulations they
steadfastly insist on putting forth are fatally flawed. During the
moratorium that the Congress has imposed, several of us--Senators
Landrieu, Nickles, Thomas, Hutchison, Enzi, Breaux, Murkowski, and
others--have tried to get the agency to fix the regulations, and they
stubbornly refuse. In fact, at the request of the administration, we
have all sat around the table on at least two occasions, if not more,
with the MMS people and the oil people, sitting around talking about
the flaws in it, as the industry sees it. But they refuse to take care
of the real problems and stubbornly insist they are right.
Procedurally, the regulation writing process has been tainted. Let me
make sure everybody understands that. People involved in writing the
regulations were taking $350,000 payments from the Project on
Government Oversight, POGO. When the procedure is contaminated, the
best way to proceed is to discard the tainted work product and start
over. That is why we have a country with laws. Process is important.
People writing regulations are not supposed to be paid by someone who
has an interest in the outcome.
Can you imagine if the Senate were debating an issue and the shoe was
on the other foot what we would be hearing here on the floor? If
somebody had taken money, in this case, from the oil or gas companies,
think where we would be. The whole process would be thrown out. We need
to get to the bottom of the $350,000 payments from the Project on
Government Oversight, which is known as POGO.
Senators Murkowski, Hutchison, Nickles, and I have written several
letters to Secretary Babbitt on this issue. Because of the procedural
irregularities alone, the moratorium should remain in place until
satisfactory answers are provided regarding the wrongdoing. It has been
months, and we really have no satisfactory explanation.
That is absurd. No other description is accurate. These MMS
regulations are unworkable, arbitrary, complicated, and beyond what
they ought to be. One producer with one well with one kind of oil would
have to value his oil in 10 different ways. There is no justification
for such complexity. It can only be labeled an abuse of power.
In addition, the MMS could even second guess, audit, and sue that
producer on seven different theories. This is a scheme that is
unnecessarily complicated and plainly unworkable. We ought to be able
to do better. Regardless of which industry is on the other side of
this, we ought to be able to do it better and make it workable. My
conclusion is that these regulations are borderline absurd.
The proposed rules exceed the MMS authority. These regulations raise
royalty rates by imposing a nonexistent and recently quasi-judicially
rejected duty to market. The proposed rules are premised on a rejected
legal theory called duty to market.
The relationship between the producer and the MMS is spelled out in
the lease. It is a concise document defining the responsibility and
duties of the producer and the MMS. Oil is valued at the lease, period.
That is what the lease says. The lease is based upon statutory language
in the law.
The Mineral Lands Act, 30 USC 226(b), which governs leases for
onshore Federal lands, specifically states:

A lease shall be conditioned upon the payment of a royalty
rate of not less than 12.5 percent of amount or value of the
production removed or sold from the lease; [that is] at the
time the oil is removed from the well.

That is the definition.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 USC 1331, et seq., governs
Federal leases for drilling offshore. The act requires offshore leases
to pay:

[[Page 22356]]

A royalty to the lessor on oil and gas . . . saved, removed
or sold from the lease.

By regulation, MMS wants to unilaterally rewrite the leases and the
law and create a duty to market out of thin air. Duty to market is
Government mooching because it wants to increase the royalty amount
owed but will not allow a deduction for the costs incurred in getting
the higher price.
In other words, they would like the higher of the prices at the
wellhead or at some other point. And if the higher one happens to be
downstream with a lot of costs involved in getting it there, they don't
even want to permit you to deduct the cost of getting it from the
wellhead to the downstream or upstream source. They want to get the
highest royalty and, thus, make the business swallow, without
deductibility, the cost of getting it there.
We don't do that anywhere in American capitalism. We don't do it in
our IRS. We don't do it in simple, good CPA accounting procedures.
By analogy, under today's law, the MMS bases its royalty valuation on
essentially the wholesale price for the oil. Under the proposed rule,
they are basing the royalty on the retail price, which is not
authorized by Federal law. The rule does not allow certain
transportation and other costs necessary to get the higher price to be
deducted from the royalty payment.
When I went to law school, I was taught that one party couldn't
unilaterally change a contract. When I went to law school, regulations
were to implement, not rewrite, the law. Regulations were to be
consistent with the law. I was taught that agencies did not have the
authority to rewrite contracts through regulations. MMS lawyers must
have missed that week of law school because that is exactly what they
are trying to do now. If MMS can change contracts through regulation,
in direct violation of the law of the land, why can't other agencies do
the same?
For example, why can't Medicare unilaterally, without congressional
approval, change its contract with Medicare recipients and say: You
have a duty to stay well; Medicare won't pay your Medicare bills
because you breached your duty to stay well? That would be absurd, just
as this new way of charging royalties is absurd.
If we allow MMS to change the royalty rate, there is nothing to keep
the IRS from saying: We want to get more money from American families.
So they will issue some complicated regulations and raise their taxes.
That would be a usurpation of the exclusive role of Congress. What MMS
is trying to do is a usurpation of the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Congress.
There is no duty to market in the lease. There is no court-ordered
duty to market in the law of the land. It is a figment of the ``tax-
raising imagination'' of MMS. They want to raise royalty rates, and
that is it. Creating a duty to market when none exists usurps the
prerogatives of the Congress and ignores the precedents set by the
Department's own review board.
In May, the Interior Board of Land Appeals, known as the IBLA, ruled
that there was no duty to market in a case known as Seagull Energy
Corporation, Case No. 148 IBLA 3100 (1999). The IBLA has the expertise
in these royalty cases. This was a 1999 case before the IBLA.
Secretary Babbitt reversed that in a case involving Texaco, Case No.
MMS-92-0306-0&G. The Secretary unilaterally, and in direct
contravention of the moratorium imposed by this committee, overruled
its own Board of Land Appeals.
I want to commend Senator Nickles for developing legislation to
clarify the authority MMS has regarding oil royalty valuation. Simply
stated--and I believe he is right--it stands for the proposition that
there has never been, is not, nor ever shall be a duty to market. If
you read a Federal oil and gas lease, there is no mention of a duty to
market. It has been the Mineral Management Service position that the
duty to market is an implied covenant in the lease. This legislation
says the MMS is wrong. That is what the legislation Senator Nickles has
introduced, working its way through Congress, says.
Let me back up and explain the issue and why this legislation is
needed. Oil and gas producers doing business on Federal leases pay
royalties to the Federal Government based on fair market value. Under
this administration, this is easier said than done.
One of the longstanding disputes between Congress and the MMS has
been the development of workable royalty valuation regulations that can
articulate just exactly what fair market value is.
Cynthia Quarterman, former director of MMS, set out the Interior
Department's position that fair market value includes a duty to market
the lease production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the
lessor but without the Federal Government paying its share of the
costs. Many of these costs are transportation costs, and they are
significant. MMS calls it a duty to market. I believe it is the Federal
Government mooching, trying to get paid without bearing its share of
the cost.
The bill states congressional intent: No duty to market; no Federal
Government mooching.
Let me be clear: Where there is a duty to market, it is a matter
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Congress. It is not the job
of lawyers at MMS to raise the congressionally set royalty rate through
the back door. The so-called duty to market is a backdoor royalty
increase, and there can be no doubt about it. The MMS has been unable
to develop workable royalty valuation rules, and Congress has had to
impose a moratorium on these regulations. The core issue has been the
duty to market, and I believe I have explained why this is a serious
problem.
Nobody is attempting to do anyone a favor. Nobody is attempting to be
prejudicial toward the MMS and the Federal Government's tax take. What
we are talking about is simple, plain fairness. I won't say equity,
because as a matter of fact it is law, not equity, that sets this. It
is probably equitable also.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico
because we have talked earlier about taxing expenses. That is exactly
what he is talking about. The idea that we would introduce into tax
policy in this country the taxation of expenses is, A, outrageous, and,
B, if it is going to be done, let us do it straight up; let us let
Congress pass a law saying we are going to tax expenses. It won't just
be oil companies; it will be other companies as well.
Of course, I think that is a bad policy because I can't imagine we
would do something that would hurt our economy anymore. Nevertheless,
if we are going to do it, it certainly shouldn't be done by a Federal
agency that isn't accountable to anyone. I don't think Congress would
be doing its responsibility if we allowed that to happen without our
imprimatur.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for clarifying the duty to
market.
It is a very important technical point that is just one more showing
of why this is so unfair and why we must do something to correct it.
I want to make a quick announcement, and then I am going to yield up
to 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Louisiana.
For the information of all Senators, the Senator from California and
I have talked about how much longer this debate would go. It appears
that we have an agreement that we would be looking at two stacked votes
between 6 and 6:15 tonight, one on the Hutchison amendment, and one on
final passage of the Interior appropriations bill, which has been so
ably led by the occupant of the chair.
With that, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana,
who has been a great ally in this fight. There is nobody who
understands the importance of oil jobs to our country and the stability
of energy in our country than the senior Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for
yielding. I appreciate it very much. I really

[[Page 22357]]

wasn't going to say anything again. I thought I said enough on this
issue. I think the Senate probably has debated far too long on this
issue.
What is surprising to me is what the arguments have been about. I
don't think they are directly related to the issue at hand. I think it
is important for us to try to understand what the issue is. Is it that
we don't like oil companies, or is the issue that we like the
environment, or is the issue that we don't like education, or that we
do like education? No.
The issue is very simple and not complex at all. The law that was
passed by the Congress--I was on the committee in the House that wrote
the bill in 1976. We wrote the OCS Lands Act of 1976. We determined at
that time that offshore oil companies that produce oil on Federal lands
and the OCS would pay the General Treasury one-sixth of the value of
the oil. That is the law; it is one-sixth of the value of the oil.
We established that back in 1976. It was one-eighth before that.
Companies, every year, pay one-sixth of the fair market value of the
oil. That doesn't go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It goes
to the General Treasury. Congress then appropriates that money to the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, appropriates it for defense purposes,
appropriates it for health purposes, and everything else Congress does.
That is what the companies have been paying every year--one-sixth of
the fair market value of the oil. Last year, they paid about $4.7
billion, I think, in royalties for the right to produce that oil on
Federal lands in our country.
Now, the issue is a very narrow issue. How do you determine what the
fair market value of the oil is? It is even more narrow than that. It
is what a company is entitled to deduct in determining that fair market
value.
I listened intently to my good friend, the Senator from Michigan,
with his chart showing why independents paid one price and integrated
major companies paid a different price for producing oil on the same
adjacent leases. There is a very simple explanation of why that is the
way it is. The Senator from Michigan would never argue with the fact
that if a Michigan automobile company built a car in Detroit and then
sold that car in Louisiana, that Michigan automobile manufacturer would
not be able to add the cost of transporting that car to New Orleans to
the price he got for the vehicle. Of course, the big company would be
able to do that. That would be part of the cost of doing business. He
would build the car in Michigan, transport it to New Orleans, sell it,
and add the transportation cost to the price of the car. No one would
think that would be unusual.
The same principle affects oil companies, as well. In determining the
fair market value, you find out where they sell it. A legitimate
deduction is transporting it to the place of the sale. The difference
between the independent companies and the major companies in the same
area is they sell it at different places. The independent will sell it
when it comes out of the ground. He will sell it at the wellhead. An
integrated company would not sell it at the wellhead but would put the
oil in a transportation pipeline and send it to a point where it is
sold down the line.
Would anybody argue that the cost of transporting the oil from the
time it is brought out of the ground to the time it is eventually sold
is not a legitimate cost of producing and selling that product? Of
course, not. Just as the cost of transporting that car from Michigan to
New Orleans is a legitimate cost of producing and selling it the first
time you have a sale; it is a legitimate add-on to the price of the
product. So, too, is the cost of transporting the oil from the well to
the place of the first sale. It is a legitimate deduction for the cost
of producing that product.
That is really what we are arguing about. The Department of the
Interior and Minerals Management say they don't agree that a cost of
transporting it should be a legitimate deduction, or maybe some of it
should but not all of it. The companies say they think it all should be
deductible. The MMS says just part of it. That is the fight.
This fight is not about education or welfare or defense. It is a very
narrow issue. The Senator from Texas is merely saying: Please, let's
make them talk a little bit more about trying to resolve this very
narrow issue. Oh, we can let the rule go through, and it is going to be
litigated from here to who knows where. That is going to cost the
Government and the taxpayers and the companies a lot of money, and it
is not going to resolve anything--certainly not in 12 months. We will
be in litigation in courts all over the country litigating what they
think is a legitimate deduction versus what the company thinks.
The Senator from Texas has suggested we pause for 12 months and say
negotiate out what is a legitimate deduction for transporting the oil
from the time it is brought out of the ground to the time it reaches
its first sale. There is nothing mysterious about that. We always argue
with companies about what is and is not legitimate. My State has sued
oil companies right and left, disagreeing on the interpretation of a
legitimate deduction. The issue is whether you are going to allow
transportation costs to be deducted or not. It is not whether or not
you like oil companies. Hate them; I don't care.
The question is simply fairness about what a legitimate deduction
should be with regard to determining the fair market value of the oil.
Oil companies have said: Let's put an end to this. We will give you the
oil and you sell it and determine the fair market value. The Government
says: No, we don't want to do that; we want you to market it and get a
fair market value for it.
It is not a question about anybody lying, cheating, stealing, or
trying to rip off the Government, or anything else. Companies have an
obligation to represent their stockholders and the millions of
employees they have. The Government has an obligation to be fair. The
only thing the amendment of the Senator from Texas says is, let's avoid
litigation and quit fighting.
It is unfortunate that we got into a debate about whether we like oil
companies or not. That is not the issue. Oil companies have paid ever
since they have had production on Federal lands. Like I said, $4.7
billion was paid just last year to the General Treasury, and rightfully
so, as the cost of being able to produce energy on Federal lands. In my
State and on other Federal lands around the coastal areas of this
country, it will continue to be paid. It is a very narrow issue. This
is not a monumental deal that we should be talking about. We should not
be involved in cloture votes and arguing about something that is
relatively so small.
Some of the Senators say $88 million is being lost. It is not being
lost. It is a dispute as to whether it is a legitimate deduction or
not.
I think we eventually will pass the amendment and, hopefully, the oil
companies will sit down in the offices of the Interior Department and
negotiate instead of meeting in courthouses and having to litigate. I
just hope we can move on--adopt this measure and get on with the many
other things that are more pressing than whether we should deduct
transportation costs or not.
That is the only issue that is on the table. You can talk about
anything else, but the issue is only what are legitimate transportation
costs from the time the oil comes out of the ground to the time it is
sold at the first sale. I suggest that this is not something that you
tie up the Senate for as long as it has been. It should be negotiated
out by technicians, lawyers, but it should be negotiated, not
litigated.
I thank the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I
think he has shown exactly what the problem is, why what is being
proposed is so unfair, and why we on a bipartisan basis have said to
the MMS: We want you to go back to the drawing board, and we want you
to do something that is fair, simple and understandable, and then we
will be supportive.
I thank him for his leadership in this area.
Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes for the distinguished Senator
from

[[Page 22358]]

Oklahoma, the assistant majority leader, Mr. Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleague from
Texas, Senator Hutchison, for outstanding work on this issue, and also
several other people who have spoken on the issue, including Senator
Domenici and Senator Gramm from Texas.
I have been a little disappointed in the tenor of the debate by
people on the other side of this issue. In the Senate, we certainly
have the right to have disagreements on issues, but in some cases
sometimes debate is not a credit to the Senate. Everyone is entitled to
their own opinion. But certainly some of the insinuations that have
been made on the floor today--that people are doing this because they
owe big oil or they received contributions--is very offensive to this
Senator. I think Senators need to be very cognizant of the rules of the
Senate not to impugn the integrity or the intentions of Senators.
In 1996, this Congress passed legislation called the Royalty Fairness
and Simplification Act by an overwhelming margin with bipartisan
support in the Senate. I sponsored the bill and it was supported by
Democrats and signed by President Clinton. The purpose of that
legislation was to simplify the royalty process.
The MMS rule proposal flies in the face of that action. The President
signed the bill in 1996. The proposal now put out by the MMS is the
opposite, it is not a simplification.
If you look at this chart, you can see that this rule is not
workable. To insinuate that people who oppose this rule are beholding
to big oil, or they are against schoolkids is wrong.
The MMS proposal on royalties simply will not work and to state on
the floor that it is going to waste millions of dollars, and we are
depriving kids is not factual.
If this rule goes into effect, it will be an invitation for
litigation. Instead of the States getting more money, or cities getting
more money, they will get more litigation. The attorneys handling the
cases might make more money.
Then they imply that maybe they have evidence from whistleblowers
showing intent to deceive. We know there are whistleblowers. In the
recent case where one ``whistleblower'' testified, I hate to tell you
that before a jury trial in Long Beach it was decided against the
plaintiffs, against the city of Long Beach against the supposed
whistleblower. That was a 14-year case. There have been three
decisions, all of which big oil won. I doubt that the jury was trying
to decide the case in favor of big oil. It so happens the jury decided
that the claimants in this case were wrong.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question
on that very point?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have heard so much rhetoric on the
Senate floor about a former ARCO employee who testified that the oil
companies were trying to cheat the State of California and the Federal
Government. In fact, that ARCO employee was the very same person who
was involved in the Long Beach lawsuit about which the Senator is
speaking. I ask the Senator if it isn't true that the jurors rejected
his testimony?
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is exactly right. I appreciate the
clarification. That is the point I am making. When you hear the
opponents of this amendment basing almost everything on this
disgruntled employee, it just doesn't make sense. I didn't sit in on
the case. I wasn't a juror. I was not involved in this case of 14
years. But I know the Exxon company won. Big oil won. The jurors
decided that this disgruntled employee wasn't telling the truth, or
didn't have a case.
When you look at the MMS proposed royalty scheme, you can say
mistakes have been made. I will promise you that if we pass this MMS
proposal as it now stands before us, you will have more litigation,
more mistakes. It is an invitation for litigation. Sure, there will be
some settlements and some wins and some losses. But this is not a
workable situation.
I will mention that the present law is not as good as it should be
and we certainly shouldn't make it worse. You shouldn't be changing the
rules of the game and changing contracts. Every law of the land says
royalty is based on the value of oil at the lease. Now you have the MMS
saying: Let's include ``duty to market.'' What does that mean? We have
had 50 years or more of experience--ever since we have been producing
oil. We have the experience of collecting royalties based on the value
of the oil at the lease. We don't know what ``duty to market'' means.
This is something new from the Clinton administration that I will
assure you, if it becomes law will create more problems. If it does go
into effect, two things will be wrong: One, MMS is not supposed to make
law. We are the legislators. We are supposed to be the ones who make
the law and not some unelected bureaucrat at MMS. It shouldn't become
law, period. If this rule becomes final and is implemented, it wouldn't
raise more money. It would create more litigation.
What I want on royalties is for them to be fair and simple and for
the companies to pay exactly what they owe--no more, no less. The
royalty rate is 12\1/2\ percent. If we want to raise it to 13 or 14
percent, that is a decision this Congress can make.
But to say we are going to keep the same percentage, yet we are going
to have a new obligation called ``duty to market,'' which includes
marketing the oil away from the lease and other new obligations--which
are kind of hard to define--but, we will try to work that out. There is
some ambiguity. It is an invitation to litigation. All that will happen
is that the lawyers will make more money.
Speaking of lawyers, I want to raise one other thing. It is very
troublesome to me to think that you have two Federal employees--one now
a former Federal employee--actually getting paid $350,000 for their
involvement in this issue. They were somewhat involved in implementing
this rule.
Think of this. Here you have individuals involved in writing the
rule. These same people help groups that sue these companies, or sue on
behalf of the Government, and get paid a bunch of money--Federal
employees. Are we going to allow IRS agents to get a percentage of the
take if they go after some big company? If they get a big settlement,
are two or three employees supposed to get a percentage of that? That
sounds like corruption to me. We have had two people that received
$350,000 and we have an administration that wouldn't even say it was
wrong.
This is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Yesterday we
had the FBI testify that this administration completely thwarted their
efforts to investigate campaign finance abuses. We had an FBI agent who
served for 25 years who said never in his history did he have an
investigation in which he was not thwarted, time and time again, by the
Justice Department during this administration.
In addition to that we have an administration that grants clemency to
16 terrorists, while the FBI and others said: Don't do it. These are
terrorists. They are a threat to the United States.
Did the administration listen to the FBI? No. Did they even consult
with the FBI? The FBI said no.
That was a mistake. This administration's corruption, including two
employees who were involved in this rulemaking and ended up getting
paid $350,000, is deplorable. It is despicable. It shouldn't be
applauded. It shouldn't be rewarded.
But most importantly, article I of the Constitution says that
Congress shall pass the laws and says Congress shall raise the taxes.
It doesn't say unelected bureaucrats at MMS can rewrite the rules,
raise royalty rates, or raise taxes. They do not have that right. That
belongs to elected officials. Then if we do a bad job, people can kick
us out. They can vote us down. They can say: We don't like the laws you
passed. What recourse do they have against unelected bureaucrats? None.
There is a reason our forefathers gave us this system of government.

[[Page 22359]]

They gave us a good system of government, and we should never allow
some bureaucracy the opportunity to set rules and regulations that
gives them the force and the power to raise taxes.
Should we have royalties that are fair? Yes. Should we have royalties
that are accurate and a royalty system that people can understand? You
bet. Should people pay exactly what they owe? Certainly.
Members might wonder where I am getting my information. I am chairman
of the subcommittee, and we held a hearing regarding this issue. We had
a lot of experts in the field saying this is not workable. It is not
the money. It is not the money in any way, shape, or form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I
am very pleased he covered some of those issues.
We have heard a lot about the lawsuit and especially the employees of
the Federal Government directly involved with this rulemaking taking
$350,000 each from an organization called POGO. That does not pass the
smell test. I am very pleased the Senator from Oklahoma pointed that
out. That is another reason this rule needs to go back to the drawing
board. That is not the American way.
I am happy to yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from Montana,
Senator Burns, who has been very active in this debate and who
understands from a small businessman's point of view how important it
is we have fairness in taxation in our country.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas. I also want
to say it might not pass the smell test; it doesn't even pass the
giggle test.
I want to drop back a little bit, away from the rhetoric we have
heard, and look at it from a practical point of view. We have heard a
lot about big oil ripoff. What are folks in California paying for
gasoline today? Do you think the oil companies are going to pay that?
No, they are not going to pay it. The consumer is going to pay it. The
people who buy the gasoline and the petroleum products are going to pay
it. Big oil, little oil, or whatever is not going to pay that. Do you
think they will eat this and swallow it? Get a life.
One of these days, we are going to be hit by a big bolt of common
sense around here and we will not be able to handle it.
Let's step back and think. I know the Senator from California is
concerned about schools and children. I want her to come to
Musselshell, MT. The first oil was discovered in Montana in that
county--very active. A lot of it is on public lands. Then we kept
getting tougher and tougher, and pretty soon the oil industry left the
county. We are closing schools because there are no kids to attend.
Nobody is making a paycheck.
Let's take a look and see what happens. Yes, the Government holds
those lands in trust. They are public lands. Does the Government invest
one penny in the drilling or the exploration of that resource? It does
not. Does it buy any of the licenses? Does it offer any of the
equipment? Does it pay any of the people to drill and to take the
chance there may be oil here and there may not be? If there isn't, does
the Government pay for the loss? Not a penny.
A deal was struck. If we find oil there, the companies say: We will
give the Government one-eighth ownership in that well. That means one
out of every eight buckets that comes out of the ground in crude
belongs to the Government, and it sells it wherever it wants to sell.
If they don't like the price they are getting from the refinery, I
suggest they can take a truck out there next to the well, and every
eighth bucket that comes up, put that eighth bucket in their truck, and
they can take it anywhere and sell it anywhere they want, and they will
get market for it. There are a lot of buyers for it.
That was the deal. That is getting your product or your royalty at
the wellhead, as called for by law.
Now we have some folks who say: That is not good enough; we want the
retail price. In other words, we don't want to pay any of the
transportation, we don't want to pay any of the refining, we don't want
to pay all of the costs, but we want the end result.
That is not the deal. This other is put together by law. That law is
being changed by an unelected representative who wouldn't be known to
my constituency if he or she walked out today.
Who gets hurt by this change? It is not big oil. They don't get hurt
because they will pass the cost on to the consumer.
Again, I want to know what they are paying per gallon of gasoline in
California. It is pretty high out in my State, too.
Do you know who gets hurt? It is the little guy. It slows down their
ability for capital formation, for exploration, and then when they find
it, they are taxed more for it. They want to rewrite the law.
An independent producer will have to pay a higher tax. I want that in
all capital letters--T-A-X. That is what royalty essentially is. Then
they will still have to compete with the low price of foreign oil.
America, if you think you are secure tonight, 55 percent of our oil
comes now from offshore. More and more public lands are being cut off
from exploration due to some whacky laws and some people who do not
understand the business. They do it in the name of the environment. Use
common sense. Those folks who want to shut off the oil supply in this
country don't know what lines are and don't know what an economy can't
do if we have no oil.
A while ago they talked about ethanol. I support the ethanol
situation. It is renewable. It is clean. We still have some problems
when temperatures get extremely low, as they do in Montana, but
nonetheless it is an alternative. I support the tax credits for
ethanol.
A tax is essentially what a royalty is. The end result is that the
little man can't do it; he simply cannot make a living. When times are
looking better for domestic oil, the Federal Government comes rushing
in and raises the cost of production.
I can remember when Billings, MT, was pretty active with independent
oil people, from land leasers to exploration to drillers. Those folks
are just about all gone, because they have driven all of the little
people away. They have closed off the lands that might have, and do
have, great prospects for oil and gas reserves.
Oil prices are not that strong. Have they stabilized? No, I don't
think so. In fact, I will tell you now, no commodity is making money in
this country. I don't care if you are talking about oil or products
that come from mining or timber or farms; it does not make any
difference. The spread between what we get at the production level and
what is happening at the retail level is unbelievable.
I will give you an example. If you want to go buy some Wheaties in
your grocery store, it will cost you $3.75 to $4 a pound for Wheaties.
Think about it. We cannot get $2.25 for a 60-pound bushel of wheat.
Something is wrong.
The same thing happens here because everybody has to have a little
bigger piece in the process from where you take it from Mother Earth,
who gives us all new wealth. The only place new wealth is produced is
from Mother Earth. That is true to the time it gets to the consumer.
Everybody has to have a bigger piece. Now the Federal Government comes
along and says: I think we need a little more, too, because we need to
collect some more taxes. We need to build a bigger bureaucracy. That is
not the way we do business.
Let's look at the royalty increase and put it in perspective of the
entire industry. Oil prices still are not strong. Domestic oil
production is still down. The industry is still hurting. Jobs are still
being threatened. But our paycheck does not come from the oil patch, so
we do not get excited. Our check comes every 2 weeks, just like
clockwork. We risk not much--a little time. That is about all. Then all
at once we are insensitive to those people

[[Page 22360]]

who really power our economy--tax them again.
I want to bring back to our attention what Senator Hutchison pointed
out earlier. This cost will be passed on to the American consumers. You
are kidding yourself if you do not believe it. Montanans rely on their
private vehicles to get around. It is 148,000 square miles from Alzada,
MT, to Eureka, MT. It is further than from here to Chicago, IL. We know
what spaces are and we also know what it costs to drive them.
We also have reserves in oil and gas, and if you keep raising these
costs, the opportunity to get those reserves becomes more diminished
every day. So while the Senator from California contends she is saving
all this royalty money for the taxpayer, the person who actually knows
the system tells us they will get less revenues during the period of
chaos that will ensue as they try to sort out the flawed MMS proposal.
Our income to the Treasury will go down; it will not be more.
I have a letter from the Office of the Governor of Montana. I ask
unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

State of Montana,

Office of the Governor,

Helena, MT, September 13, 1999.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: I am writing to express this
administration's support for the Hutchinson amendment to the
Department of Interior Appropriation Bill which would extend
the moratorium on Minerals Management Service (MMS) rule
making.
The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS
rules may be a disincentive for industry, especially
Montana's independent producers, to lease and produce oil and
gas from federal lands. Such a disincentive will negatively
impact the production of oil and gas, within Montana,
resulting in less royalty revenue for the state.
The moratorium will provide additional time for all
interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient
plan to collect federal royalties. During this additional one
year moratorium, all parties must work in earnest toward the
successful conclusion of this issue.
Thank you for your support and understanding.
Sincerely,
Mick Robinson,
Director of Policy.

Mr. BURNS. Reading a portion:

The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS
rules may be a disincentive for the industry . . .
The moratorium will provide additional time for all
interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient
plan to collect federal royalties.

In the meantime, royalties are lost. So let's get struck by a bolt of
common sense. Let's quit being moon-eyed horses and jumping at shadows
and the paper bag that blows out from the fence row. This is bad policy
and we should not allow this to happen. I do not think the Senate
should. I congratulate my friend from Texas for being the champion on
this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana
because he has made a very important point from the independent
producers' standpoint. We have seen independent producers go out of
business at a greater rate than ever in the history of our country in
the last year because oil prices were so low they could not keep their
employees and they had to go out of business. They could not afford to
drill because their costs were higher than the price they could get.
The Senator from Montana so ably represents that small businessman,
that small businesswoman who is out there in the field, working so hard
to make ends meet, trying not to let his or her employees go in a bad
time.
Now we have a situation where we could be putting the last nail in
the coffin of those who are left. So I am very pleased he talked about
the independents and small producers. I am going to talk a little bit
more about that because it has been said in this debate that we are
only talking about 5 percent, the big oil companies. But that is not
the case.
In fact, the small oil companies, the independent producers, have
written letters to us, to me, saying: Please do not let this happen.
This is going to affect our ability to say the price we are actually
getting at the wellhead will not actually be what we are taxed on. That
is what the new rule would do. It would say to the independent producer
that it doesn't matter what you actually are getting at the wellhead,
if someone pulls up and takes their oil right out of the ground. You
have to pay a tax on what we say is the market price. We are going to
go to the New York Mercantile Exchange to determine the price. We do
not care if it is Odessa, TX. If we say the price is $22 and you are
getting $21, you are going to pay a tax on $22. Is this America? My
heavens.
These are the companies affected by this new MMS rule, and it is 100
percent of every company drilling, every company, small and large, that
is going to have second-guessing of the prices, that is going to have
indexing to the New York Mercantile Exchange, regardless of where they
are, in Arkansas or West Virginia or Texas or Arizona. They will not be
held to the determinations they make. So a small, independent producer
who doesn't have a staff of lawyers isn't going to be able to say: OK,
we have sold for $21 at the wellhead in Odessa, TX, and therefore,
anyone else selling at the wellhead in Odessa, TX, take your chances.
We may or may not say it is the same price. So every independent is
affected.
I appreciate the Senator from Montana pointing that out. Now I yield
up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hutchison
amendment to continue the moratorium on the Minerals Management Service
rule. I thank her for the courageous work she has been doing on this
issue. I want to speak to this from the standpoint of a State that has
a number of small, independent oil producers. That is what we have in
Kansas.
I want to address a couple issues: No. 1, the perspective of the
small, independent oil producers. I guess the dominant debate has been
about big oil. I want to talk about small, independent oil producers
such as we have.
The second issue is we not become more dependent on foreign oil. We
get 60 percent, actually more than 60 percent, from foreign sources,
and we do not want to drive more of that production overseas.
A third issue is a matter of priority to this body, and that is that
we not let our duty to legislate be overtaken by a nonlegislative body.
I appreciate the Senator from Texas bringing these issues to the
forefront so we could debate them and talk about them on the Senate
floor and, hopefully, get some sanity in this system.
Our oil producers are just recovering from some of the lowest prices
in 30 years. That has cost the oil and gas industry more than 67,000
American jobs, a number of those in Kansas, and saw the closure of more
than 200,000 oil and gas wells. That is the recent situation.
A hike in the royalty rates will make a bad situation worse and could
cause more domestic oil production to go overseas. At a time when we
already are getting so much of it from overseas, to increase our
dependency even more is a really ridiculous idea.
It is up to Congress and not Federal agencies to establish public
policies is my second point. The MMS clearly exceeded its authority by
proposing to raise royalty rates without congressional authorization.
No congressional committee or affected industry groups were notified
before the final version of the rule was announced. The MMS has also
tried to get around the congressional moratorium by changing Federal
lease forms and taking other measures that are similar to the
prohibited rule. These reckless actions have led me to believe that
this agency is out of control, and it has led a number of our small,
independent producers in Kansas not to trust this agency, or the sort
of template they are setting up in the industry that is going to cost
them more and cost more jobs and cost more oil production in this
country and in Kansas.

[[Page 22361]]

I do believe the current royalty rate valuations are fundamentally
flawed and should be changed.
The regulations proposed by the MMS will increase the amount of the
royalties to be paid by assessing royalties on downstream values
particularly, without full consideration of the costs on that small
independent producer in Kansas who is just now digging out of some of
the lowest prices in 30 years, all the jobs they have lost, and all the
wells that have been plugged. And we are saying at this point in time:
We really do not care for you; we want to just shove these additional
costs on you and hurt you more, even though you are just now starting
to climb out of the worst situation in 30 years.
Goodness, we ought to think a little bit down the road ourselves and
say: Is it wise that we do this on the small independent producer
struggling to make a living, who wants to help support the United
States and our energy needs of this country, and we do this now? I do
not think that is wise at all.
Finally, my point is, it is the responsibility of Congress to make
policy decisions, not the MMS. Royalty rates are our responsibility.
We, the Senate, have been elected by our constituents to make these
difficult decisions, and we should not have our authority preempted by
Federal bureaucrats. Some people may not like that conclusion, but that
is the way it is. We are the policymakers. We are the people who should
set these rates, not a Federal bureaucracy that is not elected, that is
a nonlegislative body. That is what is taking place.
In the short time I have, I thank my colleague from Texas for the
great work she is doing on defending freedom, defending small
independent oil and gas producers, defending us from becoming more
dependent on foreign oil, and also defending the Senate's right to
establish public policy, and not a nonlegislative body.
I hope as well that people who are debating and tying notions of
other considerations into this issue will step back and think for a
second. Everybody I know in this body acts with integrity and honor,
and that should not be attacked on some sort of unsubstantiated basis.
People here do act with honor and with integrity.
There are differences of opinion on this issue. Mine, from the
perspective of Kansas, is that we need to be setting this, and not the
MMS.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement I have the
time now for 30 minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, at 5:15. There are 3
minutes remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am prepared to let the Senator start
her time now. For Senators who are looking at our timetable, we have
pretty much agreed we are looking at perhaps a 6 o'clock vote; 6 to
6:15, but we are pushing closer to 6.
Mrs. BOXER. I think we can get this done. Let me start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have seen so many tears on behalf of the
mom-and-pop oil companies that will be impacted if the Department of
the Interior can do their job and collect the fair royalties. I looked
at my chart again to make sure I was not misunderstanding. I will talk
about the top seven companies that will be impacted by this rule:
Shell: Their total revenues are $29 billion. I cannot remember when
they were mom and pop. Maybe someday way back they were.
Exxon: The real mom and pop, $134 billion in revenues.
Chevron: $43 billion in revenues.
Texaco: $45 billion in revenues.
Marathon: $16 billion in revenues.
Mobil Exploration and Production, U.S.: $81 billion.
Conoco: $20 billion.
And it goes on.
The good news is that the small oil companies my friend from Kansas
talked about are doing the right thing. Ninety-five percent of the oil
companies are doing the right thing and paying their fair share of
royalties. It is 5 percent of the companies, the largest companies, the
vertically integrated companies, that are failing to pay their fair
share.
When we see these tears for the oil companies, I assure my friends,
the small companies are doing the right thing; they are paying their
fair share. It is the big ones that are not. We know they are involved
in a deliberate scheme. We have that in testimony. All we are trying to
do is stop them from continuing to rip off the taxpayers.
The Hutchison amendment so far has lost taxpayers $88 million. This
one will lose them $66 million. That is $154 million, and there is no
end in sight. If you think this one will not be back next year--I don't
know. We know the Senator originally had a much longer period of time
on her amendment. She cut it back to about a year, but this thing has
no end. This is the fourth time it has come up. There is no effort to
resolve this situation.
I want to talk about some of the comments made by some of my
colleagues, and I ask that the Record show Democrats lodged no
objection when the Senator from Oklahoma started to talk about the
Presidential pardon of a few weeks ago. What does that have to do with
this? We did not object. He made his point. It was fine. We know when
you start talking about something off the topic, it is because you
really are using the debate time. We are happy. You can talk about what
you want.
But five times the Senator from Wisconsin was interrupted when he
tried to tie this amendment to oil company contributions. He did not do
that; the New York Times did it. USA Today, which I would like to show,
did it. The Los Angeles Times tied oil contributions to this amendment.
And then, oh, they were shocked and Republican colleagues tried to stop
Senator Feingold from talking about it.
I will read what USA Today says. They say:

Big oil has contributed more than $35 million to national
political committees and congressional candidates . . . a
modest investment in protecting the royalty-pricing
arrangement that's enabled the industry to pocket an extra $2
billion.

Senator Feingold was simply talking about what USA Today talked about
and what the New York Times on September 20 talked about. I will read
what they say. New York Times:

Battle Waged in the Senate Over Royalties by Oil Firms

Oil companies drilling on Federal land have been accused of
habitually underpaying royalties they owe the Government.
Challenged in court, they have settled lawsuits, agreeing to
pay $5 billion.
The Interior Department wants to rectify the situation by
making the companies pay royalties based on the market price
of the oil, instead of on a lower price set by the oil
companies themselves.

They say:

A simple issue? Not in the United States Senate.

And they track oil company contributions.
All I can say is, it is a legitimate thing to talk about, but five
times the Senator from Wisconsin was interrupted making the point.
I also want to respond to the fact that royalties are not a tax. If
they were a tax, they would be in the Finance Committee. Royalties are
an agreement the oil companies sign voluntarily for the privilege of
drilling on land that belongs to the people of the United States of
America.
And for that privilege, they pay a small portion over to us, the
taxpayers, to be used for parks and recreation, historical
preservation, and in the States for education. Royalties are not a tax.
If they were a tax, it would be in the Finance Committee.
Let me also thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for
bringing up the States. They argue for States rights day in and day
out. You know what. I agree with them on this one. Let's hear what the
States are saying.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I just
received--or that just came to my attention--from the Western States
Land Commissioners Association.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page 22362]]

The Western States

Land Commissioners Association,

July 29, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lott and Daschle: We, the undersigned members
of the Western States Land Commissioners Association, urge
you to assure that the Interior Appropriations Bill, S. 2466,
will allow the Department of Interior to Implement new
federal royalty crude oil pricing regulations. The
Department's proposed regulations would ensure that oil
companies would pay no more and no less than fair market
value for federal royalty oil. S. 2466 includes a provision
that would continue the ban on implementing the proposed
regulations until after June 30, 2001. This delay is costing
taxpayers $5 million per month.
Most of the state agencies that are members of the Western
States Land Commissioners Association have a strong interest
in ensuring that oil companies pay the market value of
federal royalty oil. The member states of the Association use
their share in the revenues to support schools and other
beneficiaries. The failure of the oil companies to pay market
value for federal royalty crude reduces the revenues obtained
by the federal government and the states.
The Department's Mineral Management Service (MMS) has been
eminently fair in proposing its new regulations. MMS has held
numerous public and private meetings for over two and a half
years to allow the industry to comment and the industry has
filed over two thousand pages of comments. Based on industry
concerns, MMS has revised its proposed regulations a number
of times to take into account industry's suggestions and
criticisms. For example, MMS has revised its proposed
regulations to recognize regional differences, particularly
for the Rocky Mountain Area.
The proposed MMS regulations are very reasonable. If oil
companies sell royalty crude on arm's-length transactions,
they pay on the basis of prices they receive. If they do not
sell the oil on arm's-length transactions, they pay on the
basis of prices at market centers, adjusted for location and
quality differences, which are universally recognized to
result from competition among innumerable buyers and sellers.
Oil companies presently use their posted prices to value
royalty oil. Posted prices are unilaterally set by individual
oil companies less than the market value of those crudes. In
contrast, the market prices proposed by MMS to value royalty
crude not sold by arm's-length transactions are set by
innumerable buyers and sellers and are publicly reported on a
daily basis.
MMS' proposed switch from posted prices to market prices is
not a radically new concept:
1. The State of Alaska uses the spot price of Alaska North
Slope crude oil quoted for delivery in the Los Angeles Basin
as the basis for royalties;
2. ARCO, since the early 1990s, uses spot prices as the
basis of payments of royalties throughout the country; and
3. The State of Texas/Chevron and State of Texas/Mobil
settlements rely on the use of spot prices for royalty
valuation purposes. Mobil settled for $45 million--a case
brought by the United States Department of Justice that Mobil
had underpaid federal royalties throughout the United States.
The Department's comprehensive proposal is the logical
alternative to posted prices.
Sincerely,
Paul Thayer, Executive Officer, California State Lands
Commission; Ray Powell, M.S., D.V.M., Commissioner of
Public Lands, New Mexico State Land Office; M. Jeff
Hagener, Trust Land Administrator, Montana Department
of Natural Resources and Conservation; Curt Johnson,
Commissioner, South Dakota Office of School and Public
Lands; Charlie Daniels, Commissioner, Arkansas
Commissioner of State Lands; Robert J. Olheiser, North
Dakota Commissioner of University and School Lands;
Jennifer M. Belcher, Commissioner, Washington State
Department of Natural Resources; Douglas LaFollette,
Board Chair and Secretary of State, Wisconsin Board of
Commissioners of Public Lands; Mark W. Davis, Minerals
Director, Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners.

Mrs. BOXER. This letter is signed by the State Lands Commissioners
from these States: California, South Dakota, New Mexico, Arkansas,
Montana, Washington State, Colorado, and Wisconsin. That is a sample.
That is just this letter.
What do they want? They want the Interior Department to be able to
correct this problem. They oppose the Hutchison amendment, these people
from these States.
We also have comments by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, who says:

The approach taken by MMS [Department of Interior's
Minerals Management Service] . . . will better protect
Alaska's interests.

They oppose the Hutchison amendment.
We heard from the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands in a letter to
Senators Lott and Daschle:

The Department's comprehensive proposal is the logical
alternative to posted prices.

They oppose the Hutchison amendment.
California, the city of Long Beach:

I urge you . . . to support [MMS] regulations . . .

They oppose the Hutchison amendment.
Colorado, Mark Davis, Minerals Director:

This delay is costing taxpayers $5 million per month.

He opposes the Hutchison amendment.
Louisiana:

To sum up, [the department in Louisiana] is supportive of
MMS' attempt to value . . . production in a more certain,
timely, and accurate manner. . . .

Montana, a letter from the Supervisor of the Federal Royalty Program:

. . . Montana believes that the rule is ready and should be
finalized.

That was in 1998.
New Mexico:

It is our fervent hope that Congress will act so as not to
extend the current moratorium prohibiting the Department of
Interior from issuing a final rulemaking.

North Dakota: This is from Robert Olheiser, North Dakota Commissioner
of University and School Lands, in a letter to Senators Lott and
Daschle:

The Department's Minerals Management Service has been
eminently fair in proposing [these] regulations.

It goes on.
We have a letter from Texas. We have a letter from South Dakota,
Washington, Wisconsin.
I see that my friend from Florida is on the floor. I will stop when
he is prepared to begin his remarks.
Let me just say at this time--and then I will make concluding
arguments when the Senator from Florida has completed in the remainder
of the time--that we have a problem on our hands with 5 percent of the
oil companies.
We have to do justice. We have to do what is right. We have to listen
to the whistleblowers who are risking themselves to come out and tell
us there are schemes going on to deprive taxpayers of these royalty
payments. We have to do the right thing. We have to listen to the
States, the Consumer Federation of America--and how many groups? more
than 50 groups--that stand in the public interest and say no to the
Hutchison amendment.
Now I yield the remainder of the time until a quarter of to the good
Senator from Florida, Mr. Bob Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
I appreciate this opportunity to make a few remarks on the issues
before us today, which I think has three component parts.
The first relates to just what is involved in the change that has
been recommended by the Department of the Interior, the change the
amendment offered today would frustrate.
I see we have the principal author of the amendment on the floor, and
so I might ask a short series of questions, and hopefully, before we
conclude this debate, we can have some further information.
Based on the statement that was made earlier today, this increase
that would be the result of the Department of the Interior's new
regulatory change was characterized as a tax.
It has been my understanding that what we are talking about is a
contractual royalty payment; that is, a payment that is made by the
user of this Federal resource--petroleum--as the economic condition of
gaining access to that Federal resource.
This is not a tax in terms of an imposed burden upon a commercial
transaction. This is in the nature of a payment for a product which
belongs to the people of the United States which is now going to be
used by a specific private firm. I would like some discussion as to why
the word ``tax'' is being used to apply to this transaction.
A second concern I have from the earlier discussion of this amendment
is

[[Page 22363]]

the issue of effect on consumers. It was inferred that the effect of
this would be to directly increase the price of the petroleum that was
used by the American consumer.
It had been my understanding that the way in which the price of
petroleum was controlled was in a world marketplace of petroleum and
that individual companies did not have the power to pass on their cost
to the ultimate consumer. If they do, then that infers a level of
monopolistic control of the petroleum economy which raises its own set
of concerns.
So I would like to know by what economic relationship this particular
group of oil companies would be able to pass on to their consumers
whatever was ultimately considered to be the appropriate royalty level
for their access to the resource that belongs to the American people.
There has been a chart displayed which shows at the bottom the cost
of the petroleum product itself, and then at the top the taxes which
are levied.
I would assume we are now talking about the bottom part of that chart
because we are not talking about taxes, we are talking about royalties
that are being paid.
I would like to have some discussion as to just how much of that
bottom portion of the chart is the issue that is at debate today.
Clearly, no one says there should be no royalty paid to the taxpayers
of America for the use of their resource. How much, therefore, of that
total cost is what is at controversy.
Finally, there is the issue of regulatory complexity. I have seen the
chart that shows a rabbit warren of boxes and arrows and relationships.
I would be interested in seeing a similar chart as to what the status
quo is.
Is the process by which we are arriving at the pricing mechanism for
petroleum under the new Department of the Interior regulations
significantly more complex than those which are being used to arrive at
the method of pricing petroleum under the current standards? If so,
where are the particular areas of increased or altered or even reduced
complexity?
So those would be three questions. I hope the proponents of this
amendment will use some of their time to illuminate. So that is the
first question.
The second question is the effect of this debate on the Congress
itself.
I am a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the
committee that has basic jurisdiction over this issue. There has been
an inference that the Department of the Interior has gone beyond its
rulemaking authority in adopting this provision. It has even been
implied that maybe the Department of the Interior has been tainted by
some of the activities of its individual personnel and the way in which
this new rule was developed. Those are serious charges.
As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--and I will
be prepared, if the chairman or others will point out where I am in
error--I do not believe we have held any hearings on this issue. Yet we
have allowed this matter to now come to the Senate floor as a
nongermane amendment to an appropriations bill, a position which is
basically in conflict with our recently adopted rule that says we
cannot offer matters of general legislation on appropriations bills.
But by some relatively clever drafting--and I extend congratulations to
those smart people--we have been able to evade the clear intent of the
rule that says no legislation on an appropriation.
In fact, this issue, the way in which it is being handled, makes the
case as to why our rule is wise, that we ought to be dealing with
legislation through committees that have responsibility for
legislation, such as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; we
should not be doing it on an appropriations bill.
It does raise the question of why we are doing this. There is a
certain unseemliness to bringing up this issue in this manner. It
raises the question our colleague from Wisconsin discussed earlier
today; that is, Is this going to be the poster child for the mixture of
decisions made by Congress and the economic influence, through campaign
finance, of those industries that will be the clear beneficiary of
those decisions?
I personally have resisted those kinds of linkages because that puts
everything we do under a cloud of suspicion. But the way in which this
is being handled will give ammunition to those who wish to attack the
basic integrity of this institution.
It is unnecessary for us to lay ourselves open to that attack. What
we ought to do is have a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, invite in all the people who are knowledgeable, have a
serious public airing of this question, and then see if legislation
should be passed to rein in excessive or inappropriate behavior by the
Department of the Interior. We should not be doing this, passing
legislation on an appropriations bill.
The third issue is, What is at stake? The resources that will not
become available as a result of the passage of this amendment, how
would they otherwise have been deployed? The royalties that come from
the Federal Government's leasing for oil and gas production are a key
part of our public land trust. Currently, a portion of these royalties
goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund which provides the means
by which a variety of Federal, State, and local activities have
traditionally been funded.
The Energy Committee is currently considering legislation that would
expand and make permanent the use of other portions of this royalty
program for a variety of uses. The Senator from Louisiana has
introduced legislation that would have it used to offset some of the
adverse impacts along the coastal areas of those States which are the
principal offshore oil and gas production areas. Others would have the
funds used for public acquisition of lands that would be significant
for a variety of public purposes, including environmental and
recreational. Others would have them used for coastal protection
purposes.
I will talk today about legislation that has been introduced by
Senator Reid of Nevada and my colleague, Senator Mack, which would have
a portion of these royalty funds used for the protection of our
National Park System. There has been an increasing recognition that our
national parks are in serious trouble. I will offer to be entered into
the Record, immediately after my remarks, an article from the New York
Times of July 25, 1999, entitled ``National Parks, Strained By Record
Crowds, Face A Crisis.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. What is at stake is, will we have adequate resources,
properly directed, to deal with these national issues, including the
crisis that is in our national park system.
The question we must ask ourselves as we vote on this amendment and
as we vote on the underlying legislation to which it is being offered
is, Can we live up to the legacy of our forefathers and mothers and
protect our Federal land trust?
We are about to begin the fourth century of our Nation's history. We
were formed at the end of the 18th century, had our maturation in the
19th century, and now, in the 20th century, have grown to the great
power and source of influence for values that we consider to be
fundamental--human rights, democracy--in the 20th century.
The first two of our centuries that were full centuries, the 19th and
now the 20th, were highlighted by activism on public lands issues. The
19th century began with the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas
Jefferson's most renowned action as President was the purchase of
Louisiana from France. That single act added almost 530 million acres
to the United States. That action changed America from an eastern
coastal nation to a continental power.
This century, the 20th century, was marked by the addition to the
public land trust led by President Theodore Roosevelt. While in the
White House, between 1901 and 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt
designated 150 national forests, the first 51 Federal bird
reservations, 5 national parks, the first 18

[[Page 22364]]

national monuments, the first 4 national game preserves, the first 21
reclamation projects. He also established the National Wildlife Refuge
System, beginning with the designation of Pelican Island in my State of
Florida as a national wildlife refuge in 1903.
Together, these projects equated to Federal protection of almost 230
million acres, a land area equivalent to that of all the east coast
States from Maine to Florida and just under half of the Louisiana
Purchase. That is what the first President in the 19th century, Thomas
Jefferson, and the first President in the 20th century, Theodore
Roosevelt, did for America. That was their legacy.
Clearly, the question we are going to have to answer to our children
and grandchildren is, Did you live up to the standards of Thomas
Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt? Roosevelt said: We must ask ourselves
if we are leaving for future generations an environment that is as good
as or better than what we found. Can we meet that test?
As we enter the 21st century, the fourth century of our Nation's
history, we must again ask ourselves this question. We must be prepared
to take action to meet the challenge. I argue that the underlying bill
to which this amendment is attached and to which this amendment would
further delete resources to meet that challenge of Theodore Roosevelt,
while it takes some steps towards meeting his challenge, fails to fully
commit to the protection of our Federal land trust.
In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service. In doing so, it
stated that the purposes of the National Park Service were:

To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic
objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations. ``. . . will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.''
That is what our predecessor said in 1916 was the purpose of the
National Park System.
Today the unimpaired status of our national parks is severely at
risk. On April 22 of this year, the National Parks and Conservation
Association identified the 1999 list of the 10 most endangered national
parks. In his opening remarks, Mr. Tom Kiernan, the President of the
National Parks and Conservation Association, stated:

These parks were chosen not because they were the only
parks with endangered resources, but because they demonstrate
the resource damages that are occurring in all of our parks.

These parks demonstrate the breadth of the threats faced by our
National Park System. For example, Chaco Culture National Historical
Park in Chaco Canyon, NM, contains the remains of 13 major structures
that represent the highest point of pueblo pre-Columbian civilization.
In the words of the National Park and Conservation Association:

It is falling victim to time and neglect. Weather damage,
inadequate preservation, neglected maintenance, tourism
impacts, and potential resource development on adjacent lands
threaten the long-term life of these pre-Columbian
structures.

All of the parks in the Florida Everglades region were included on
the list of the most endangered. In this area, decades of manipulation
of the water system has led to loss of significant quantities of
Florida's water supply to tide every day; it has led to a 90-percent
decline in the wading bird population; it has led to an invasion of
non-native plants and animals and to a shrinking wildlife habitat. The
National Parks and Conservation Association calls Yellowstone National
Park the ``poster child for the neglect that has marred our national
parks.''
We have all heard Senator Thomas and others speak about the
degradation of the sewage handling and treatment system at Yellowstone
National Park, a situation that caused spills into Yellowstone Lake and
nearby meadows, sending more than 225,000 gallons of sewage into
Yellowstone's waterways, threatening the water quality of this
resource.
It is not just these beautiful natural areas that are threatened. One
of the areas on the 10 most-endangered list, not far from where we
stand this late afternoon, is Gettysburg National Park, the site of one
of our greatest historic moments. There, because of inadequate
maintenance and attention, we are losing some of the most precious
historical artifacts of our Nation.
These are illustrative of what is occurring across our National Park
System. Estimates of the maintenance backlog of the National Park
Service range from a low of $1.2 billion to $3.54 billion. The National
Park Service developed a 5-year plan to meet this deferred maintenance
obligation. It was based on its ability to execute funds and its
priorities within the National Park System. In this year's
appropriation process, the House and Senate have modified the national
parks' request of $194 million. The House, for instance, reduced the
request by almost $25 million. If we are to ever make a dent in our
enormous backlog, we must support the national park plan to
systematically reduce this accumulation of deferred maintenance.
In addition, if we are to prevent the backlog from growing, we must
support periodic maintenance on the existing facilities in the park
system. The Senate reduced both cyclic maintenance and repair and
rehabilitation in the operation and the maintenance account of the Park
Service by $3 million and $2.5 million, respectively. While you may say
these are small dollar amounts in the large budget of the National Park
System, failure to meet these basic annual maintenance requirements
will cause our backlog to grow in the long run and will cause the
severity of the threat to our national parks to increase.
Neither the operation and maintenance account nor the construction
account is designed specifically to meet the natural resources needs of
the park system.
This year, the National Park Service is seeking to change this with
the Natural Resource Challenge, announced earlier this year by National
Park Service Director Bob Stanton.
This plan will change decisionmaking in the Park Service as manager's
make resource preservation and conservation an integral consideration
in all management actions.
To support this program, the National Park Service requested $16
million in the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill.
During this fiscal year, these funds will be focused on the
completion of natural resource inventories to be used by park managers
in decisionmaking.
These funds will support large-scale preservation projects and target
restoration of threatened areas damaged by human disturbance.
After considering the National Park Service's Natural Resource
Challenge appropriations request, the House fully funded the base
program with $16.235 million.
The Senate significantly reduced the funds for this program,
providing a total of only $6 million.
This shortfall will extend the time period for completion of baseline
inventories for all 260 park units from 7 to 14 years, delaying the
time period when the Park Service will be able to identify a ``natural
resource backlog'' similar to the construction backlog it currently
uses.
The actions taken by the Senate and the House do not meet the
challenge posed by Theodore Roosevelt to leave our environment in a
better state than we found it.
I sympathize with the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I
respect the actions they have been able to take over the last several
years to support the needs of the National Park System.
However, there is a limit to what the Appropriations Subcommittee can
do given the tools they have.
They are working to fund 20th century needs for construction and
natural resource preservation using a 19th century funding mechanism.
The National Park Service needs a sustained, reliable funding source
that will allow it to develop intelligent plans based on prioritization
of need, not availability of funds.
Last year, Senator Thomas led the way with his landmark legislation
on the National Park Service, Vision 2020.

[[Page 22365]]

This legislation adopted, for the first time, both concessions reform
and science-based decisionmaking on resource needs within the park
service.
We took a big step forward last year with the extension of the fee
demonstration program.
This allows individual parks to charge entrance fees and use a
portion of the proceeds for maintenance backlog and natural resource
projects.
This action generates about $100 million annually throughout the park
system. It is time for the next step.
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and
Mack, S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide
dedicated funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve
the natural resources within our park system.
This legislation seeks to address the long-term efforts required to
truly restore and protect our natural, cultural, and historic resources
in our park system.
The legislation would reallocate funds derived from the use of a
nonrenewable resource--offshore drilling in the outer continental
shelf--to a renewable resource--restoration and preservation of
natural, cultural, and historic resources in our national park system.
These funds provided by our bill would ensure that each year the
National Park Service will have the resources it needs to restore and
prevent damages to the natural, cultural, and historic resources in our
park system.
I am working with the members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to include a version of this legislation in the final package
of the ``Outer Continental Shelf Revenue'' legislation under
consideration by that Committee.
Last week, I circulated a dear colleague requesting that each of you
join me in this effort.
As we move to final passage on the Interior appropriations bill and
final negotiations on the OCS revenue legislation, I urge you to
remember this quote from Theodore Roosevelt quote,

Nothing short of defending this country during wartime
compares in importance with the great central task of leaving
this land even a better land for our descendants than it is
for us.

We have serious needs in many areas of our national land trust. If we
are to meet the standard set by Theodore Roosevelt almost a century
ago, we must not be depleting our capacity to do this by underfunding
and by reducing the funds that are available to meet these national
park and other national land demands. We must be looking, creatively,
for ways to provide sustained, adequate funding sources. That is what
is at issue in this debate.
Are we going to succumb to the request of a floor amendment to an
appropriations bill to reduce the funds available to meet our national
land trust responsibilities or are we going to both defeat this
amendment and then step forward in the underlying bill to provide the
resources necessary to meet the crisis that exists in our national
parks and in many of our other national land trusts?
I hope we will hear the call from a century in the past of Theodore
Roosevelt, that we be prepared to be judged by whether we have left to
our children and our grandchildren a better America than our parents
and grandparents gave to us.
Thank you, Mr. President.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, July 25, 1999]

National Parks, Strained by Record Crowds, Face a Crisis

(By Michael Janofsky)

Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., July 22--In growing
numbers that now exceed 3.1 million a year, visitors travel
here to America's oldest national park to marvel at wildlife,
towering mountains, pristine rivers and geological
curiosities like geysers, hot springs and volcanic mudpots.
Yet many things tourists may not see on a typical trip
through Yellowstone's 2.2 million acres spread across parts
of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could have a greater impact on
the park's future than the growl of a grizzly or spew of Old
Faithful.
For all its beauty, Yellowstone is broken. Hordes of summer
tourists and the increasing numbers now visiting in the
spring, fall and winter are overwhelming the park's ability
to accommodate them properly.
In recent years, the park's popularity has created such
enormous demands on water lines, roads and personnel that
park management has been forced to spend most of
Yellowstone's annual operating budget, about $30 million, on
immediate problems rather than investing in long-term
solutions that would eliminate the troublesome areas.
Yellowstone is not the only national park suffering. With
the nation's 378 national park areas expected to attract
almost 300 million visitors this year, after a record 286
million in 1998, many parks are deferring urgently needed
capital improvements.
For instance, damaged sewage pipes at Yellowstone have let
so much ground water from spring thaws into the system that
crews have had to siphon off millions of gallons of treated
water into meadows each of the last four years.
And with budget restraints forcing personnel cutbacks in
every department, even the number of park rangers with law-
enforcement authority has dropped, contributing to a steady
increase in crime throughout Yellowstone.
``It's so frustrating,'' Michael V. Finley, Yellowstone's
superintendent, said. ``As the park continues to deteriorate,
the service level continues to decline. You see how many
Americans enjoy this park. They deserve better.''
Over the last decade the annual budget of the National Park
Service, an agency of the Interior Department, has nearly
doubled, to $1.9 billion for the fiscal year 1999 from $1.13
billion in 1990, an increase that narrowly outpaced
inflation.
But in an assessment made last year, the park service
estimated that it would cost $3.54 billion to repair
maintenance problems at national parks, monuments and
wilderness areas that have been put off--for decades, in some
cases--because of a lack of money.
The cost of needed repairs at Yellowstone was put at $46
million, the most of any park area in the system. But the
park service report shows that budget limits have forced
virtually all national parks to set aside big maintenance
projects, delays that many park officials say compromise
visitor enjoyment and occasionally threaten their health and
safety.
Senator Craig Thomas, a Wyoming Republican who is chairman
of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and Bob Stanton,
director of the park service, negotiated a deal this week to
spend $12 million over the next three years for Yellowstone
repairs.
Other parks may have to wait longer. The Grand Canyon
National Park depends on a water treatment system that has
not been upgraded in 30 years, a $20 million problem, park
officials say. Parts of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historical Park along the Potomac River are
crumbling, another $10 million expense. The Everglades
National Park in South Florida needs a $15 million water
treatment plant.
Even with a heightened awareness of need among Federal
lawmakers and Clinton Administration officials, money to
repair those problems may be hard to find at a time when
Congress is wrestling over the true size of a projected
budget surplus and how much of it will pay for tax cuts. If
billions were to become available for new spending, the park
service would still have to slug it out with every other
Federal agency, and few predict that parks would emerge a big
winner.
It is a disturbing prospect to conservationists, parks
officials and those lawmakers who support increased spending
to help the parks address their backlog of maintenance
problems.
``It's kind of like a decayed tooth,'' said Dave Simon, the
Southwest regional director for the National Parks and
Conservation Association, a citizens' group that is working
with Yellowstone to solve some of the long-term needs. ``If
you don't take care of it, one day you'll wake up with a
mouthful of cavities.''
The parks' supporters like Representative Ralph S. Regula,
an Ohio Republican who is chairman of Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Interior, concede that budgetary
increases as well as revenue from new programs that allow
parks to keep a greater share of entrance fees and concession
sales have been offset by inflation, rising costs and daily
operational demands that now accommodate 8.9 percent more
people than those who visited national parks a decade ago.
With few dollars available for maintenance programs, the
parks suffered ``bengin neglect,'' Mr. Regula said, adding:
``It's not very sexy to fix a sewer system or maintain a
trail. You don't get headlines for that. It would be nice to
get them more money, but we're constrained.''
Denis P. Galvin, the deputy director of the National Park
Service, noted that only twice this century, in the 1930's
and in 1966, has the Federal Government authorized money for
systemwide capital improvements, and he said he was not
expecting another windfall soon.
``Generally,'' Mr. Galvin said, ``domestic programs come at
the back of the line when they're formulating the Federal
budget, and I just don't think parks are a priority.''
Perhaps no park in America reflects the array of hidden
problems more than Yellowstone, which opened in 1872, years
before Idaho, Montana and Wyoming became states.

[[Page 22366]]

Park officials here say that the longer problems go
unattended, the more expensive and threatening they become.
The budget restraints have meant reducing the number of
rangers who carry guns and have the authority to make
arrests.
Rick Obernesser, Yellowstone's chief ranger, said the
roster had dwindled to 112 from 144 over the last 10 years,
which often means leaving the park without any of these
rangers from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M.
Next year, Mr. Obernesser said, the park will have only 93
of these rangers, about 1 for every 23,000 acres, compared
with 1 for every 15,000 acres when his staff was at peak
strength.
That has not only led to slower response times to
emergencies, like auto accidents and heart attacks, he said,
but also to an increase in crime. Since the peak staffing
year of 1989, he said, the park has experienced significant
increases in the killing of wildlife, thefts, weapons charges
against visitors and violations by snowmobile drivers.

* * * * *

Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes, following which Senator Boxer
from California would be recognized for up to 10 minutes, after which
Senator Murkowski would be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes, and
then I will close for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not, I thank my colleague. It has been a long day, and we are about to
end this. Will that take us to 6:10 or 6:15?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, it will.
Mrs. BOXER. I will not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to take 5 minutes at this time
to answer what questions were asked by Senator Graham from Florida.
First of all, he asked: Why are we calling this a tax? This is really a
lease payment, a condition for a lease.
What I am concerned about is that he is willing to say we will change
the terms of the lease during the term. If that is not an increase in a
tax, I don't know what it is. It is a tax increase during the term of a
lease. It changes the conditions of the lease, and it will raise the
costs to oil companies. Who is going to pay the increased costs? Who
always pays the increased costs on business? I am always amazed that
people talk about taxing business and making business pay their fair
share. When the business is going to sell the product, the business has
to have a certain margin in order to stay in business and keep the jobs
that it is creating. Of course, they have to raise the price of the
product. That is exactly what is going to happen.
This is the chart about which the Senator from Florida spoke. There
is no question that the taxes at the top of the chart are 56 cents for
a gallon of gasoline, and the oil is 64 cents. If you add more to the
taxes, you are going to add more to the price of gasoline.
This is a tax increase on the people who are going to pay for
gasoline at the pump.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have 5 minutes under a unanimous consent. I didn't
interrupt the Senator from Florida, and I would like to finish my 5
minutes, if I can.
The Senator from Florida talked about the ``rabbit warren'' of
regulation.
I want to put that chart up because it is a valid question.
Is this the same as, or any worse than, the regulations that we have
today? In fact, this whole segment of this chart isn't there today
because today, if oil is sold at the wellhead, the Federal Government
recognizes that is the price. Under the new regulation, we have this
theory of procedures that would be required for a person who is selling
at the wellhead to prove that was really the price because the Mineral
Management Service reserves the right to second-guess the price that is
actually paid.
I say that there is a good case to be made that this is actually more
complicated than it is today. I hope that we will not allow that to go
forward.
The third area that was mentioned by the Senator from Florida is, why
is this coming up in this bill? He said: Why don't we have hearings?
Why is this coming up in this bill?
It is coming up in this bill because the Federal regulators are
spending taxpayer dollars to perpetrate a tax increase on the hard-
working people of this country who buy gasoline at the pump, and they
are doing it with the appropriations that we are passing tonight.
Of course, if we are going to have any say, if we are going to have
the ability to exercise the responsibility of Congress to set tax
policy in our country and determine that we are going to raise gasoline
prices at the pump, we must act on the bill that gives them the money,
and direct them as a Congress to not raise taxes on the people of
America who buy gasoline for their cars every day.
Last but not least, the Senator from Florida raised the question: Are
we living up to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt? I think it is
important that we look at the money that we are spending to preserve
our wildlife and preserve our natural habitat. I think that is a valid
question. My answer is yes. That is not an issue in anything we are
talking about tonight because if these companies don't agree to take
care of the environment and clean up anything that might be built, then
they will not get the lease.
That is part of the least arrangement. So protecting the environment
is not an issue, and, of course, we want to protect the legacy that we
have been given by our forefathers and mothers of this wonderful
country.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison,
for working so well with me so we can, in an orderly way, get this
vote.
I want to say to my friend from Florida before he leaves the floor
that I know he has more to say on this, and that he has raised issues
that are so important to this debate.
First, he raised the issue of process. He raises the point that this
amendment doesn't belong here. It certainly does not.
As a matter of fact, originally it was stripped from the bill, and it
came back in a rather clever way.
I give my colleague credit for passing the test. But it is making
appropriations on a bill. My colleague makes that point.
Second, he makes a very important point on the substance. This issue
about whether a royalty is a tax, he knows. He is on the Finance
Committee. If this was a tax, he would be dealing with it.
He himself raises a crucial issue that was given short shrift by my
friend from Texas, and that is, why are we here? Who do we fight for?
And shouldn't it be for our children, our grandchildren, and their
children? I think he says it in very sweeping terms.
He also points out very clearly the specific problems that we face in
the shortfall of our national parks, and the fact that these funds,
when collected from the oil companies, go into the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
I thank the Senator.
I also want to thank Senators Durbin, Feingold, Reid, Wellstone,
Dorgan, Levin, Harkin, Kennedy, Daschle, Byrd, Akaka, Cleland, and
Conrad for yielding me time. This has meant a lot to me personally.
But it also is telling that Senators would take their time and come
to the floor to speak from their heart. And they did.
I believe at the end of the day we have shown that the facts are on
our side. I believe we have the arguments on our side that have been
made by the consumer groups. I think the people who care about the
environment are on our side. The legal precedents and settlements are
on our side. Most of the States that are affected by this are on our
side. I have read them into the Record. So if it is about States
rights, we have the Record. The former oil executives under penalty of
perjury and putting themselves on the line testified

[[Page 22367]]

that we are right, and that there has been not one scheme but seven
schemes to defraud the people of their money from royalties.
I think we have proven that we have the arguments on our side.
I am happy that we had this debate. To me, this is what the Senate
should be about, and one of our colleagues from Oklahoma denigrated
this debate. He said it didn't fit the Senate. He said that, in a way.
I think this debate is important for the Senate.
But I want to wind up by picking up on a statement made by the
Senator from Montana. He is a good debater. And he ``gets with you.'' I
like to hear him. What he said in the debate was basically, to me and
the people on my side, ``Get a life.'' He said, ``Get a life.''
I want to talk about my life for a minute. I want to talk about what
my professional life is about. I want to assure the Senator from
Montana that I have a life. As a Senator, what I try to do with my life
is to find purpose in it by fighting for the people of my State and the
people of this country by taking their side against the special
interests when I believe the special interests are wrong.
If I believe the special interests are right, I will fight for them,
if they are on the side of the people. I said earlier, and I will
repeat now, there are two sides to this debate on this amendment. There
are. The oil company has one side and the people have the other. I
stand on the side of the people.
So I have a life. I try to make my life about justice.
My colleagues could have a different view of justice. I respect them
tremendously if they do. But, to me, this is a matter of justice.
Why do I say it? I say it because we know something bad is going on
when two former oil executives filed a lawsuit and described very
clearly the seven schemes by the oil companies to defraud the
taxpayers.
Quoting from them, they say:

There is a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's
largest oil companies to short change the United States of
America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

That is not the Senator from California. It is not the Senator from
Massachusetts. It is not the Senator from Florida. It is two former oil
executives who spell out the seven schemes of the oil companies.
We know that there have been settlements all over the country--$5
billion worth of settlements by seven States.
Why would these oil companies be settling all over this country? In
Alaska, for $3.7 billion; in California, for $345 million. It goes on--
in Texas, for $30 million. The State of Texas brought suit. The State
of Texas sued the oil companies. And guess what happened. The oil
company didn't want to go to court. They settled for $30 million; New
Mexico, for $6 million. It goes on.
Now these oil companies are settling because they know they don't
have a leg to stand on in court because they signed an agreement to pay
royalties at fair market value. The Mineral Management Service at the
Department of the Interior caught them. They want to fix the problem.
This is the fourth time this Senate is interfering in that. I love
this Senate too much to see that happen. It is the oil companies versus
the people. I want to be on the side of the people.
I think this has been a very good debate. We have covered all the
issues very well. I want to thank the media for getting involved. We
have seen some very strong stories in the last few days on this. I
think the original editorial written by USA Today is still the best.
USA Today said: ``Time to clean up Big Oil's slick deal with
Congress.'' Those are tough words. Those are ugly words. I am sad to
say, I agree. We can clean it up today. We can vote against this
amendment and clean it up and have a good editorial. Wouldn't Members
love to see an editorial tomorrow, ``Congress cleans up its act, tells
the oil companies to pay their fair share of royalties.'' I would be
excited to see that headline. I don't think we will see it.
This issue will not go away as long as my colleagues and I are here.
I think it is clear. The editorial says the taxpayers have been getting
the unfair end of this deal for far too long. Congress should protect
the public interest.
That is what this is about. We have heard every argument in the book:
The Interior Department is terrible, Mineral Management is terrible,
people in the Interior Department are terrible. Everybody is terrible.
Everybody is terrible.
The people who are causing the trouble, the 5 percent of the oil
companies that are not paying their fair share, are robbing this
Federal Treasury of almost $6 million per month. That is a lot of
money. Ask any constituent what they would do with $6 million a month,
and they would have a pretty good list.
Sad to say, this money that is not going into the Treasury because of
this amendment could have gone to the classrooms of the States, could
have gone into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and been spent on
the kinds of things Senator Graham, Senator Durbin, and many of our
colleagues have pointed out need attention.
We are coming to the end of this debate. I urge my colleagues, in the
name of fairness and justice, to vote against the Hutchison amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the amendment
offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and the Senator
from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on oil royalties. It is essential
that we adopt this amendment to prohibit yet another attempt by this
administration to ``tax'' the American people without their effective
representation--without a bill being introduced in Congress, without
its passage by both Houses of Congress, and without the President's
signature.
There has been a lot of talk about whether or not the current
procedures for valuing crude oil for Federal royalty purposes are
working properly. I have been fascinated by this debate. The issue we
are discussing is really more basic than whether the current procedures
need to be modified. The question is at heart a constitutional one--if
we are to change the way the Federal Government has forced oil
companies to calculate Federal royalties for the last 79 years, should
this change come from Congress, or should it come in the form of a tax
scheme dreamed up by a Federal bureaucracy?
Not only do these rules amount to a usurpation of the legislative
function by the administration, but in substance they would allow
tremendous complexity for people in the oil industry. These rules would
require producers to report and pay royalties under three different
sets of rules. Now I've been a small businessman, and I've been on the
receiving end of Federal and State regulations for a good part of my
life. I can tell you, we better have a very good explanation if we are
going to expect small oil companies in Wyoming to dill out a bunch more
paper work just to comply with their lawful obligation to pay Federal
royalties on the oil they drill on Federal lands.
If we are going to change the point at which we determine the value
of the crude oil--from the wellhead to some point downstream or by
reference to a national exchange, we owe it to the small producers in
Wyoming, and throughout the country, to give their suggestions to
Congress on any alternative plan. We need to hear how much more time
and effort this is going to be for folks who are still hurting from
last year's devastatingly low crude oil prices.
I think we owe that opportunity to our Nation's oil producers, so I
am proud to join the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New
Mexico, and others in standing up for the right of Congress to pass
laws that affect the tax burden on our domestic oil industry.
I ask unanimous consent a letter from Wyoming Governor Geringer to
Senator Hutchison be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page 22368]]

State of Wyoming,

Office of the Governor,

Cheyenne, WY, September 8, 1999.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: I ask for your strong support of
the amendment to the Department of Interior Appropriation
Bill which would extend the moratorium on Minerals Management
Service (MMS) rule making. Wyoming, as the largest
stakeholder of federal oil royalty receipts (35%) supports a
fair and workable oil valuation rule. However, the current
proposed rules contain more uncertainty and will diminish
incentives for industry to lease, explore and produce on the
immense amount of federal acreage in Wyoming. Such
uncertainty will lead to additional administrative, audit and
legal activities, which will lead to higher costs for Wyoming
producers, causing their products to be less competitive.
Higher costs to the MMS are then passed on to Wyoming and
other states in the sharing of net receipts. Last year
Wyoming's net receipt share along of MMS activity was $7
million.
Wyoming is currently involved in a pilot project with the
MMS to take its crude oil royalties in-kind (RIK) rather than
in cash. This RIK pilot program has been designed to allow
the state and the MMS to reduce administrative costs,
eliminate legal disputes and test the various methods of
achieving fair market value for our oil. Therefore, the
moratorium extension for two more years would allow such
valuable experience to be tested. Allowing a sufficient
amount of time to finish the pilot will assist in the
development of new rules. Let us keep working cooperatively
with MMS, free of this rule making distraction.
While we continue to object to the implementation of
Interior's rules, Wyoming has participated in every phase of
the rulemaking process. We also have observed the attempts to
craft distracting legislation, which would attempt to address
far too many unrelated aspects of the relationship between
MMS, stakeholder states and industry. We do not support such
efforts. Following our experience with RIK, we believe that a
simple approach establishing a voluntary RIK program for the
states, embodied in no more than two pages of legislation,
will be all that is necessary. Let us go to work on a simple,
but effective bill.
I urge you to support the rulemaking moratorium and
encourage the MMS and royalty receiving states to engage in a
genuine partnership role which will insure a fair, workable
and beneficial plan to collect royalties. Adoption of the
proposed rules would obstruct any opportunity to improve our
royalty collection process.
Thank you for your support and understanding!
Best regards,
Jim Geringer,
Governor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Alaska is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I have listened to
the debate with a little frustration, as I am sure my colleagues have,
regarding the emotional arguments prevailing on an issue that fails to
give disclosure to the public on what this issue is all about.
The Hutchison moratorium amendment keeps the MMS from spending money
for 1 year to implement a new rule that amounts to another tax, a
value-added tax, on oil produced in the United States on Federal
leases. What they don't say in the debate is who pays this additional
tax. It is the American consumer, the taxpayer, the public.
Bureaucrats don't have the right to unilaterally establish a tax.
That is just what this proposal does. That is a right that is reserved
in the Constitution, by the Constitution to this Congress. Existing law
says royalties should be collected at the lease, not after value has
been added downstream as the rule proposed by Department of Interior
would do. This MMS rule, for the first time in history, embraces a
value-added tax concept to oil valuation.
There is little mention about the energy security interests of this
country. We are now dependent upon imported oil. Imported oil is the
No. 1 contributor to our trade deficit. The domestic oil industry is in
tough shape. In 1973, during the oil embargo, we imported 36 percent of
our oil. Today, we import 56 percent. The Department of Energy says
that figure will go up to the 63- to 64-percent area by the years 2005,
2006, and 2007, and over 55,000 American jobs have been lost in the
last 2 years in the oil industry, five times the number in the steel
industry. The MMS rule drives U.S. jobs overseas, increases our trade
deficit, and makes America more dependent on one area of the world that
is very volatile, the Mideast.
This moratorium by the Senator from Texas has been in place for 2
years. The press has reported two Government employees have been paid
$350,000 each from a group associated with the trial lawyers as an
award for pushing for the new rule which benefits--benefits whom? It
doesn't benefit the taxpayer or the consumer; it benefits the lawyers.
The Department of the Interior inspector general and Justice Department
are investigating. Something is rotten around here. It is not in
Denmark. It has something to do with the process.
This has the effect of turning our Government regulation over to the
highest bidder. No rule tainted by payoffs to the rulemakers should be
tolerated. It is interesting to note, as the Senator from Texas has,
they say they want to simplify a process. The chart today reminds me of
the chart Senator Specter presented to this body describing the
simplified health care that had been proposed by the First Lady and the
administration. Again, look at this chart. If that is a simplified
chart on the workable manner in which MMS proposes a value-added method
for determining the appropriate royalty for oil, you and I both know
that won't hold water.
This is a cancer within Government. We talk about whistleblowers and
those who are supporting the proposed MMS gasoline and heating oil tax
which Senator Hutchison's amendment postpones for 1 year. When they
think about a whistleblower, most people think of something someone
sees is wrong, who blows a whistle to draw attention. The Federal
Government has laws on the books to protect whistleblowers who come
forward to report fraud and abuse.
Let's look at this case. This case is a little different. Two Federal
employees, one working for the Department of the Interior and the other
working for the Department of Energy--the two Departments of
jurisdiction; these are supposed to be objective people--worked behind
the scenes and pushed for the MMS rule change. They were paid $350,000
each on September 13, 1999 as rewards for their work. There is a copy
of the check.
The point of this is, they were paid by a self-described public
interest group which has about 200 members. This group, the Project On
Government Oversight, or POGO, has rather curious ties to law firms
which have made millions of dollars from suing oil companies over oil
royalties. Make no mistake about who pays: The public.
As an example, POGO's board of directors has included lawyers who
have worked directly on these cases for years. The City of Long Beach,
CA, lost the most recent case. An attorney for the city said they spent
about $100 million on the case. That is $100 million that could have
been spent on education and was spent on lawyers instead.
The Department of the Interior is investigating, but it is illegal
for Federal employees to be paid for pursuing changes to Federal
regulations by those who benefit from such changes. Our Secretary of
the Interior, what has he done? He has done nothing. The Interior
Department had nothing to do with it.
The Hutchison amendment should be adopted to give time to work on a
fair and simple regulation to States, Federal lessees, and taxpayers.
That chart is not a simplification. I commend my colleague for her
effort to expose the truth behind the fiction we have heard so much
about today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, the
chairman of the Energy Committee, who understands this issue and
understands the importance of a stable oil and gas supply in our
country.
It has been said that the States that have the most at stake are
against my amendment. I submit for the Record a letter from the
Governor of Wyoming, who says:

Wyoming, as the largest stakeholder of federal oil royalty
receipts (35 percent), supports a fair and workable oil
valuation rule.

[[Page 22369]]

However the current proposed rules contain more uncertainty
and will diminish incentives for industry to lease, explore
and produce on the immense amount of federal acreage in
Wyoming.

The Governor of the State of North Dakota wrote:

As a major recipient of income from Federal royalties, the
State of North Dakota supports reasonable rules for the
valuation of federal oil royalties. Unfortunately, the
current version of the rules proposed by MMS does not fit
that description.

The Governor of Montana:

The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS
rules may be a disincentive for industry, especially
Montana's independent producers, to lease and produce oil and
gas from federal lands. Such a disincentive will negatively
impact the production of oil and gas within Montana,
resulting in less royalty revenue for the state.

I think that is a very important point because we have been talking
about losing $60 million from the coffers of the Federal Government.
But in fact, if oil companies cannot drill because they cannot make a
profit because their costs will be higher than the price they can
charge, then they are not going to drill and there will be no money in
the Federal coffers--not $66 million; there will be a diminishing of
the amount of money that will come into the Federal Government.
I will submit these letters along with letters from the Secretary of
Energy of Oklahoma, Commissioner David Dewhurst from the Texas General
Land Office, and the California Independent Petroleum Association. They
write:

Please, Senator Hutchison, pass your amendment.

We have a list of the independents who say the MMS rule will be
harmful to them. These are the small producers, those with 5 or 10 or
15 employees, the families of which depend on this income. This is an
independent producer issue.
It comes down to this. Through the last 10 years, the price of
gasoline at the pump has increased from $1.21 to $1.29 per gallon. But
let's look at where that increase has come from. The increase in taxes
has gone from 26 cents a gallon to 40 cents a gallon. The price of the
crude oil has actually gone down from 94 cents to 88 cents.
So the price has gone up. Why? Because taxes have increased. If we do
not pass the Hutchison amendment, taxes are going to increase again,
and who is going to pay? It is going to be the hard-working American
who fills up his or her gas tank and has to pay a higher price because
there are higher taxes put on them in the name of increased royalty
rates.
If we are going to have a tax increase for whatever purpose --for
more education spending, for the environment, for any purpose
whatsoever--let's call it a tax increase and let's vote on it up or
down. Let Congress take a stand because Congress is the one that will
be accountable to the people. Let's not let a Federal agency raise the
price of gasoline at the pump by raising taxes on oil in the name of
new oil royalty rates. Congress will not stand by and let an unelected
Federal agency raise taxes on hard-working people in this country and
the price of gasoline at the pump.
The Senator from California said she would like to see editorials
tomorrow in the paper saying: Congress cleans up its act. I would like
to see editorials. I would like to see editorials that say: Congress
rejected the rhetoric; it did not listen to arguments about lawsuits on
present regulations as if it would affect the future regulations;
Congress stood up for its right to make tax policy in this country and
not to let tax increases affect the hard-working people of this
country. That is the editorial I hope to see tomorrow.
I ask unanimous consent the letters I referred to and others be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

State of Wyoming,

Office of the Governor,

September 8, 1999.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: I ask for your strong support of
the amendment to the Department of Interior Appropriation
Bill which would extend the moratorium on Minerals Management
Service (MMS) rule making. Wyoming, as the largest
stakeholder of federal oil royalty receipts (35%), supports a
fair and workable oil valuation rule. However, the current
proposed rules contain more uncertainty and will diminish
incentives for industry to lease, explore and produce on the
immense amount of federal acreage in Wyoming. Such
uncertainty will lead to additional administrative, audit and
legal activities, which will lead to higher costs for Wyoming
producers, causing their products to be less competitive.
Higher costs to the MMS are then passed on to Wyoming and
other states in the sharing of net receipts. Last year
Wyoming's net receipt share alone of MMS activity was $7
million.
Wyoming is currently involved in a pilot project with the
MMS to take its crude oil royalties in-kind (RIK) rather than
in cash. This RIK pilot program has been designed to allow
the state and the MMS to reduce administrative costs,
eliminate legal disputes and test the various methods of
achieving fair market value for our oil. Therefore, the
moratorium extension for two more years would allow such
valuable experience to be tested. Allowing a sufficient
amount of time to finish the pilot will assist in the
development of new rules. Let us keep working cooperatively
with MMS, free of this rule making distraction.
While we continue to object to the implementation of
Interior's rules, Wyoming has participated in every phase of
the rulemaking process. We also have observed the attempts to
craft distracting legislation, which would attempt to address
far too many unrelated aspects of the relationship between
MMS, stakeholder states and industry. We do not support such
efforts. Following our experience with RIK, we believe that a
simple approach establishing a voluntary RIK program for the
states, embodied in no more than two pages of legislation,
will be all that is necessary. Let us go to work on a simple,
but effective bill.
I urge you to support the rulemaking moratorium and
encourage the MMS and royalty receiving states to engage in a
genuine partnership role which will insure a fair, workable
and beneficial plan to collect royalties. Adoption of the
proposed rules would obstruct any opportunity to improve our
royalty collection process.
Thank you for your support and understanding!
Best regards,
Jim Geringer,
Governor.
____

State of North Dakota,

Office of the Governor

Bismark, ND, September 7, 1999.
Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pomeroy: As a major recipient of income
from federal royalties, the State of North Dakota supports
reasonable rules for the valuation of federal oil royalties.
Unfortunately, the current version of the rules proposed by
the Minerals Management Service (MMS) does not fit that
description.
The rules currently proposed are vague, complex, and do not
solve the problem of properly determining oil value. If
adopted as currently proposed, the rules will increase MMS
administrative costs and oil valuation uncertainty.
Uncertainty in oil valuation works as a disincentive to
industry in its future efforts to produce oil and gas from
federal lands, resulting in a loss of income for North
Dakota.
Increased MMS administrative costs also harm North Dakota
through increased
billings under the federal government's net receipts sharing
laws.
Because of these considerations, I urge you to support an
extension of the congressionally mandated moratorium
preventing MMS from issuing final rules in the current form.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Schafer,
Governor.
____

State of Montana,

Office of the Governor,

Helna, MT, September 13, 1999.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: I am writing to express this
administration's support for the Hutchison amendment to the
Department of Interior Appropriation Bill which would extend
the moratorium on Minerals Management Services (MMS) rule
making.
The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS
rules may be a disincentive for industry, especially
Montana's independent producers, to lease and produce oil and
gas from federal lands. Such a disincentive will negatively
impact the production of oil and gas within Montana,
resulting in less royalty for the state.
The moratorium will provide additional time for all
interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient
plan to collect federal royalties. During this additional one
year moratorium, all parties must work in earnest toward the
successful conclusion of this issue.
Thank you for your support and understanding.
Sincerely,
Mick Robinson,
Director of Policy

[[Page 22370]]

____
State of Oklahoma,

Office of the Secretary of Energy,

Oklahoma City, OK, September 11, 1999.
Hon. Don Nickles,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: I ask for your strong support of the
amendment to the Department of Interior appropriation bill
which would extend the moratorium on Minerals Management
Service oil valuation rulemaking. Oklahoma and the other oil-
producing states have worked hard to help create a simpler,
fairer method of valuing oil. The proposed MMS rules are
complicated and burdensome, particularly for independent
producers. I believe they will act as a disincentive to lease
and produce oil and gas from federal lands. Additionally, I
believe their complexity and uncertainty will mean increased
costs for the federal government and states.
Therefore, I strongly support extension of the current
moratorium until a valuation methodology can be derived which
satisfies the objective of capturing market value at the
lease in a simple, certain and efficient manner.
Sincerely,
Carl Michael Smith,
Secretary of Energy.
____

Statement of Commissioner David Dewhurst

Texas General Land Office

As an independent oilman who explored on and produced oil
and gas from MMS leases, I know firsthand the business risks
that are required in offshore exploration and production. As
the elected land commissioner of Texas who serves as a
trustee of state lands and waters that benefit the school
kids of Texas, I am committed to ensuring that we maximize
revenue for public and higher education. Therefore, I support
the position advocated by Senator Hutchison. The proposed MMS
rules are complicated and burdensome and would be a
disincentive for industry, particularly independent
producers, to lease and produce oil and gas from federal
lands. I am concerned that the net effect of these rules will
be less oil and gas is produced, and consequently less
royalty revenue for our school kids.
____

Statement from Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Tony Garza regarding
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-Texas) effort to extend the
moratorium on the Mineral Management Service (MMS) proposed royalty
valuation rule.

``With oil imports continuing a dramatic rise, Senator
Hutchison's effort will help guard against the serious
security and economic risks associated with an American
marketplace dominated by foreign crude. It's more than help
for a beleaguered domestic energy industry. It's common-sense
policy that strengthens our commitment to domestic production
and jobs while encouraging the development of a sound U.S.
energy policy.''
____

California Independent

Petroleum Association,

Sacramento, CA, September 13, 1999.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: The California Independent
Petroleum Association (CIPA) represents 450 independent oil
and gas producers, royalty owners and service companies
operating in California. CIPA wants to set the record
straight. The MMS oil royalty rulemaking affects all
California producers on federal land. It is false to claim
that this rulemaking only affects the top 5% of all
producers.
How are California independents affected? The proposed
rulemaking allows the government to second guess a wellhead
sale. If rejected, a California producer is subjected to an
ANS index that adjusts to the wellhead set by the government.
Using a government formula instead of actual proceeds results
in a new tax being imposed on all producers of federal oil.
It doesn't end, if a California producer chooses to move
its oil downstream of the well, the rulemaking will reject
many of the costs associated with these activities. Again, to
reject costs results in a new tax being levied on the
producer.
Senator Hutchison, California producers support your
amendment to extend the oil royalty rulemaking an additional
year. We offer our support not on behalf of the largest
producers in the world, but instead on behalf of independent
producers in the state of California. Your amendment will
provide the needed impetus to craft a rule that truly does
affect the small producer and creates a new rulemaking
framework that is fair and equitable for all parties.
Again, thank you for offering this amendment. We cannot
allow the government to unilaterally assess an additional tax
on independent producers. After record low oil prices,
California producers are barely beginning to travel down a
lengthy road to recovery. To assess a new tax at this time
could have a devastating effect on federal production and the
amount of royalties paid to the government.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Kramer,
Executive Director.
____

National Black Chamber of Commerce,

August 5, 1999.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Senator, State of Texas,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: The National Black Chamber of
Commerce has been quite proud of the leadership you have
shown on the issue of oil royalties and the attempt of the
Minerals Management Service's, Department of Interior, to
levy eventual increases on the oil industry.
The efforts of MMS are, indeed, ludicrous. Collectively,
the national economy is booming and the chief subject matter
is ``tax reduction'' not ``royalty increase'', which is a
cute term for tax increase. What adds ``salt to the wound''
is the fact that despite a booming economy from a national
perspective, the oil industry has not been so fortunate and
is on hard times. We need to come up with vehicles that will
stimulate this vital part of our economic bloodstream, not
further the damages.
We support your plan to re-offer a one-year extension of
the moratorium on the new rule proposed by MMS. We will also
support any efforts you may have to prohibit the new rule.
Good luck in giving it ``the good fight''.
Sincerely,
Harry C. Alford,
President and CEO.
____

Frontiers of Freedom,
Arlington, VA, July 30, 1999.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: Supporting the Hutchison-Domenici Amendment (a
Moratorium on the Proposed Oil Valuation Rule which Prevents
Unauthorized Taxation and Lawmaking by the Department of
Interior).
Dear Senator Hutchison: We are writing to express our
support for the Hutchison-Domenici amendment to the FY 2000
Appropriations bill. The Hutchison-Domenici amendment
prevents the Department of the Interior from rewriting laws
and assessing additional taxes without the consent of the
Congress. This role properly rests with the legislative
branch, not with unelected bureaucrats.
In a misleading letter dated July 21, 1999, detractors of
the Hutchison-Domenici amendment allege it will cost
``taxpayers, schoolchildren, Native Americans, and the
environment.'' That is not so! It's time to set the record
straight--this amendment does not alter the status quo at
all. This amendment says to Secretary Babbitt: Spend no money
to finalize a crude oil valuation rule until the Congress
agrees with your proposed methodology for defining value for
royalty purposes.
We contend that a mineral lease is a contract, whether
issued by the United States or any other lessor, and as such,
its terms may not be unilaterally changed just because a
government bureaucracy thinks more money can be squeezed from
the lessee by redefining the manner in which the value of
production is established. What royalty amount is due is
determined by the contracts and statues, and nothing else.
For seventy-nine years the federal government has lived
according to a law that establishes that the government
receives value at the well--not downstream after incremental
value is added. The bureaucrats at the Interior Department
are in effect imposing a value added tax through the
backdoor.
This is nothing short of a backdoor tax via an unlawful,
inequitable rulemaking which Secretary Babbitt says is
necessary because of ``changing oil market.'' But, we think
his real result, and that of his supporters such as Senator
Boxer, is to cripple the domestic petroleum industry, and
drive them to foreign shores and advance their goal of
reducing fossil fuel consumption. This is why they falsely
claim that green eyeshade accounts somehow are impacting the
environment.
The outcry on behalf of schoolchildren is particularly
hypocritical. Senator Boxer and Rep. George Miller are
responsible for a mineral leasing law amendment in the 1993
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which reduces education
revenues to the State of California by over $1 million per
year--far more than the Department's oil valuation rule would
add to California's treasury (approximately $150,000 per year
as scored by the Congressional Budget Office). So really, who
is harming schoolchildren's education budgets? The oil
industry provides millions and millions of royalty dollars
each year for the U.S. Treasury and for States' coffers.
The ``cheating'' which Sen. Boxer and others allege is
unproven. Reference to settlements by oil companies as proof
of fraud is improper. When President Clinton settled the
Paula Jones lawsuit his attorney admonished Senator Boxer and
her fellow jurors to take no legal inference from that
payment. We agree. As such, oil company settlements cannot be
given precedential value. Who can fight the government
forever when the royalty dollars they have paid in are used
to fund enormous litigation budgets?
Lastly, two employees of the federal government who were
integral to the ``futures market pricing'' philosophy
espoused in the Department's rulemaking have been caught

[[Page 22371]]

accepting $350,000 checks from a private group with a stake
in the outcome of False Claims Act litigation against oil
companies. Ironically, the money to pay-off these two
individuals for their ``heroic'' actions while working as
federal employees came from a settlement by one oil company.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) last fall received
well over one million dollars as a plaintiff in the suit.
Shortly thereafter POGO quietly ``thanked'' these public
servants for making this bounty possible. The Public
Integrity Section of the Department of Justice has an ongoing
investigation. We find it unconscionable the Administration
seeks to put the valuation rule into place without getting to
the bottom of this bribe first. The L.A. Times recently drew
a parallel with the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920's, but
who is Albert Fall in this modern day scandal?
The Department's rule amounts to unfair taxation without
the representation which Members of Congress bring by passing
laws. If Congress chooses to change the mineral leasing laws
to prospectively modify the terms of a lease, so be it. It
should do so in the proper authorizing process with
opportunity for the public to be heard. A federal judge has
recently ruled the EPA has unconstitutionally encroached upon
the legislature's lawmaking authority when promulgating air
quality rules. We are convinced the Secretary of the
Interior, in a similar manner, is far exceeding his authority
unilaterally by assessing a value added tax.
Let Congress define the law on mineral royalties. We
elected Members to do this job, we didn't elect Bruce Babbit
and a band of self-serving bureaucrats. Support the
Hutchison-Domenici amendment.
Sincerely
George C. Landrith, Executive Director, Frontiers of
Freedom; Patrick Burns, Director of Environmental
Policy, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Fred L. Smith,
Jr., President, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Al
Cors, Jr., Vice President for Government Affairs,
National Taxpayers Union; Jim Martin, President, 60
Plus; Grover C. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax
Reform; Chuck Cushman, Executive Director, American
Land Rights Association; Bruce Vincent, President,
Alliance for America; Adena Cook, Public Lands
Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition; David Ridenour, Vice
President, National Center for Public Policy Research.
____

People for the USA, Pueblo, CO,

July 27, 1999.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the 30,000 grassroots
members of People for the USA, I would once again like to
thank you for your diligent efforts to bring common sense to
royalty calculations and payments on federal oil and gas
leases.
In their efforts to balance environmental protection with
growth through grassroots actions, our members (not just
those in Texas) always notice and appreciate strong, common
sense leadership such as you have shown.
We support your fight to simplify the current royalty
calculation system. It is already a burden on a struggling
domestic oil and gas industry, and the Minerals Management
Service proposal simply adds insult to injury. Royalty
calculation is not, as Interior Communications Director
Michael Gauldin remarked, ``an issue to demagogue for another
year.'' With 52,000 jobs lost in just the last year?
Worse, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has suggested that
domestic oilfield workers look to opportunity overseas.
Senator, an Administration that talks about kicking American
resource producers out of the country has a badly skwed set
of priorities.
We appreciate what you are doing to straighten them out,
and will back you up at the grass roots any way we can.
Again, on behalf of thousands of hard-working American
resource producers, Thank you. If you have any specific
suggestions as to how we can assist you, feel free to contact
me any time.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey P. Harris,
Executive Director.
____

Citizens for a Sound Economy,

Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
Dear Senator Hutchison: The 250,000 grassroots members of
Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) ask you to oppose any
attempts in the Senate to strike the provision in the
Interior Appropriation bill that delays implementation of a
final crude oil valuation rule.
The current royalty system is needlessly complex and
results in time-consuming disagreements and expensive
litigation. The Minerals Management Service's (MMS) new oil
valuation proposal is, however, deeply flawed and would have
the ultimate effect of raising taxes on consumers.
The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included moratorium
language concerning a final crude oil valuation rule with the
expectation that the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
industry would enter into meaningful negotiations in order to
resolve their differences. Unfortunately, more time is still
needed for government and industry is required to reach a
mutually beneficial compromise.
CSE recognizes this need and opposes any attempt to halt
the moratorium, or curtail efforts to bring about a simpler,
more workable rule.
Thank you for your attention and efforts, and for your
continuing leadership in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Paul Beckner,
President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1603.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
Mr. WARNER (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced, yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich

NAYS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Warner

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

The amendment (No. 1603) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to state for the record
that, had I been able to, I would have voted against the Hutchison
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, which proposed to
continue a moratorium on revising Interior regulations governing how
much oil companies pay for oil drilled on public lands and resources. I
regret that previous commitments prevented my availability to be in the
Senate for this critical vote.
This issue seems fairly straightforward. Oil companies are required
to pay royalties for on- and off-shore oil drilling. Fees are based on
current law which clearly states that ``the value of production for
purposes of computing royalty on production . . . shall never be less
than the fair market value of the production.'' Revenues generated from
these royalties are returned to the federal treasury. However, for many
years, oil companies have been allowed to set their own rates.
In the past, I have supported similar amendments which extended a
moratorium on rulemaking while affected parties were involved in
negotiations to update the regulations. However, this process has been
stalled for years, with little possibility of reaching resolution
because these legislative riders imposing a moratorium on regulation
changes have created a disincentive for oil companies to agree to any
fee increases, resulting in taxpayers losing as much as $66 million a
year.
Who loses from this stalemate? The taxpayers--because royalties
returned

[[Page 22372]]

to the federal treasury benefit states, Indian tribes, federal programs
such as the Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and national parks.
I supported cloture twice to end debate on this amendment because I
believe we should vote on the underlying amendment to allow a fair and
equitable solution of royalty valuation of oil on federal lands. On the
final vote, however, I would have opposed the Hutchison amendment to
continue this moratorium because I believe we should halt the process
by which oil companies can set their own rules and determine how much
they pay the taypayers for the use of public assets. I do not support a
structure which only serves to benefit big oil companies and allows
them to continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers.
We should seek fairness for each and every industry doing business on
public lands using public assets, and we should insist that same
treatment be applied to oil companies. Fees that are assessed from
drilling oil on public lands are directed back to the federal treasury
and these fees should reflect the true value of the benefit oil
companies receive.
We have a responsibility, both as legislators and as public servants,
to ensure responsible management of our public lands and a fair return
to taxpayers. That responsibility includes determining a fair fee
structure for oil drilling on public lands. Despite passage of this
amendment which continues this moratorium for yet another year, I hope
that we can reach a reasonable agreement to ensure proper payment by
oil companies for utilizing public resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had intended to offer to the fiscal year
2000 Interior appropriations measure an amendment that would have
repealed a provision that the Congress tucked into last year's massive
omnibus appropriations bill.
That provision established a one-year moratorium on any new or
expanded Indian Self-Determination Act contract, grant, or compact
between the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the Indian Health Service, and
Indian tribes.
The establishment of this moratorium was a result of the growing
shortfall between allowable contract support costs and the amounts
appropriated for such costs.
The rationale when we imposed the moratorium was that shortfalls in
contract support costs would continue to increase as long as Indian
tribes entered into new contracts with the BIA or IHS.
Therefore, it was argued that the best way to prevent these
increasing shortfalls simply would be to prevent the tribes from even
entering into new contracts.
Logical as it may sound, the moratorium has had the practical effect
of preventing many Indian tribes from providing their members with the
most basic of services, whether it involves health services, social
services, law enforcement or road maintenance.
Mr. President, while I have withdrawn my amendment at this time, I
would like to emphasize the importance of addressing this issue.
I would note that as we go to conference, the House version of this
legislation does not contain the provision which extends the moratorium
on self-determination contracts.
Mr. President, I ask my friend from New Mexico whether he is familiar
with Section 324 of H.R. 2466, the FY 2000 Interior appropriations
measure, which is currently pending before the Senate.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am familiar with this provision. Section 324 extends
the one-year moratorium established last year prohibiting Indian tribes
from entering into or expanding existing Self-Determination Act
contracts, grants or compacts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the
Indian Health Service.
Mr. REID. I would also ask the Senator to explain the effect of the
moratorium contained within Section 324 of this legislation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Certainly. While this moratorium was established to
address the growing shortfall between allowable contract support costs
and the amounts appropriated for such costs, the practical effect of
the prohibition has been to prevent many Indian tribes from providing
their members with the most basic of services, whether it involves
health services, social services, law enforcement or road maintenance.
Mr. REID. I concur with the Senator.
A prime example of this effect involves the Washoe Tribe of Nevada
and California, which was prevented from entering into a contract for
the most basic service, even though they were willing to proceed
despite the realization that their contract support costs would not be
fully covered.
In the Alpine Country of the Washoe tribal lands, huge amounts of
snowfall are not uncommon. The BIA has a snowplow, and until recently,
also had a snowplow operator who would help clear snow after the lands
were hit by storms. The BIA operator recently retired, however, so the
tribe made plans to contract with the BIA, under the Indian Self-
Determination Act, to take possession of the plow in order to allow a
fully-trained tribe member to operate the truck and clear the snow.
You can imagine their surprise, therefore, when the local BIA office
informed them that they were prohibited by statute from entering into
that contract for such a simple, yet important, task of clearing snow.
The inability to clear snow in a timely fashion created a logistical
nightmare and a safety hazard, not to mention further strains on an
already-strained tribal economy.
For the Washoe Tribe, contract support funds weren't the primary
concern; the safety and well-being of the tribe's members superseded
that concern.
I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he is familiar with these types
of consequences.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I say to the senior Senator from Nevada that I am very
familiar with this reality. In my home State of New Mexico, I have seen
several instances where Indian tribes have been unable to provide their
members with the most basic of services because the moratorium
prohibits them from contracting with BIA or IHS.
Mr. REID. Isn't it also true that the House of Representatives,
during its consideration of the fiscal year 2000 Interior
appropriations measure, removed the moratorium from its version of the
legislation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator is correct. During the debate of H.R. 2466
in the House, Representative Dale Kildee of Michigan raised a point of
order against the provision containing the moratorium on the grounds
that the language violated a rule against legislating on appropriations
bills.
Mr. REID. And, isn't it also true that the Chair upheld that point of
order, thereby striking the moratorium provision from the House
measure.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator from Nevada is correct. The House version
of the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations does not contain a
moratorium prohibiting Indian tribes from entering into or expanding
existing Self-Determination Act contracts, grants or compacts with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from New Mexico and urge my colleagues
to reevaluate this issue as we head to conference with the House.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to support the
fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill which will help preserve
our natural wonders. The bill contains an amendment that I offered
which would direct the forest service to conduct a study of the
severity of Mountain Pine Beetle in the Rocky Mountain Region and
report back to Congress within six months after enactment on how to
address this problem. As adopted the amendment would not have any
budget ramifications.
My amendment is in the interest of our national forests. According to
the Forest Service this outbreak of the Pine Beetle infestation is
similar to the one that occurred in the 1970's. During that period
there were peak annual losses of over 1 million trees as a result of
the beetle. Right now we are seeing the beginning of another epidemic,
which is continuing to grow.
There are a number of factors which contribute to the current
Mountain Pine Beetle problem--the general lack

[[Page 22373]]

of forest management, which includes proper timber harvesting, and
increased susceptibility resulting from the suppression of forest
fires.
The current infestation is in the northern two-thirds of the front
range of Colorado where the largest number of people live in my home
state. Surveys by the Forest Service and Colorado State Forest Service
survey shows 12,891 dead trees detected in 1996; 32,445 in 1997; and
74,288 in 1998. All indications are that we will see a staggering
150,000 trees infested in 1999. It is clear that if this trend
continues we will see an outbreak worse than the 1970's. I am also
concerned about the high possibility that dead timber from the pine
beetle will catch on fire and wreak havoc on Colorado's front range.
It is important for Congress to address this problem now before it
gets out of control and the people of Colorado find themselves with
thousands of dead trees. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the
bill.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for third reading of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read for the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 10, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]

YEAS--89

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner

NAYS--10

Ashcroft
Biden
Boxer
Feingold
Graham
Lautenberg
Murray
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

The bill (H.R. 2466), as amended, was passed, as follows:

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 2466) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

management of lands and resources

For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement,
development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification,
acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and
performance of other functions, including maintenance of
facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands
and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, including the general administration of the
Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands
pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)),
$634,321,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$2,147,000 shall be available for assessment of the mineral
potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010
of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150); and of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be derived from the special receipt
account established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of
1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)); and of which
$1,500,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2000 subject to
a match by at least an equal amount by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundation for cost-shared
projects supporting conservation of Bureau lands; in
addition, $33,529,000 for Mining Law Administration program
operations, including the cost of administering the mining
claim fee program; to remain available until expended, to be
reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited to
this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to
result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than
$634,321,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until
expended, from communication site rental fees established by
the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site
activities: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall
not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted,
wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its
contractors.

wildland fire management

For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression
operations, emergency rehabilitation and hazardous fuels
reduction by the Department of the Interior, $283,805,000, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$5,025,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of
fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available
for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts
from which funds were previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of
amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection''
and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting
Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation:
Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C.
1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost
from funds available from this appropriation: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received
by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for
fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq.,
Protection of United States Property, may be credited to the
appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that
protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation.

central hazardous materials fund

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial
action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste
substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or
paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for
remedial action or response activities conducted by the
Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act,
shall be credited to this account to be available until
expended without further appropriation: Provided further,
That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not
limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or
other personal or real property, which may be retained,
liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and
which shall be credited to this account.

construction

For construction of buildings, recreation facilities,
roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $12,418,000, to
remain available until expended.

payments in lieu of taxes

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20,
1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $135,000,000, of
which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be
made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the
computed amount of the payment is less than $100.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and
318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative
expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests
therein, $17,400,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.

oregon and california grant lands

For expenses necessary for management, protection, and
development of resources and for construction, operation, and
maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other
improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad
grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and
California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent
rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein
including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such
grant lands; $99,225,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all receipts
during the current fiscal year from the revested Oregon and
California Railroad grant lands is hereby made

[[Page 22374]]

a charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund
and shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury
in accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of
title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

forest ecosystems health and recovery fund

(revolving fund, special account)

In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and
Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning,
preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest
ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from
competing vegetation and density control treatments. The
Federal share of receipts (defined as the portion of salvage
timber receipts not paid to the counties under 43 U.S.C.
1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et seq., and Public Law 103-66)
derived from treatments funded by this account shall be
deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund.

range improvements

For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands
and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands
pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any
other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received
during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the
Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount
designated for range improvements from grazing fees and
mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands
transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to
law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses.

service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

For administrative expenses and other costs related to
processing application documents and other authorizations for
use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of
providing copies of official public land documents, for
monitoring construction, operation, and termination of
facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for
rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be
collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law
93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section
305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys
that have been or will be received pursuant to that section,
whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement,
if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of
that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be
expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to
improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands
administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have
been damaged by the action of a resource developer,
purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without
regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action
are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action:
Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of
amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which
funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged
public lands.

miscellaneous trust funds

In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under
existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as
may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October
21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be
advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and
costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section
211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be
available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of
temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of
necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the
United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the
discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence
concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau;
miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement
activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be
accounted for solely on his certificate, not to exceed
$10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the
Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership
arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services
from cooperators in connection with jointly produced
publications for which the cooperators share the cost of
printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau
determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted
quality standards.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

resource management

For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies,
conservation, management, investigations, protection, and
utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales,
seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned
cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general
administration, and for the performance of other authorized
functions related to such resources by direct expenditure,
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable
agreements with public and private entities, $684,569,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2001, except as
otherwise provided herein, of which $400,000 shall be
available for grants under the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Program, and of which $300,000 shall be available
for spartina grass research being conducted by the University
of Washington, and of which $500,000 of the amount available
for consultation shall be available for development of a
voluntary-enrollment habitat conservation plan for cold water
fish in cooperation with the States of Idaho and Montana (of
which $250,000 shall be made available to each of the States
of Idaho and Montana), and of which $150,000 shall be
available to Michigan State University toward creation of a
community development database, and of which $11,701,000
shall remain available until expended for operation and
maintenance of fishery mitigation facilities constructed by
the Corps of Engineers under the Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan, authorized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976, to compensate for loss of fishery
resources from water development projects on the Lower Snake
River, and of which not less than $400,000 shall be available
to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for use in
reviewing applications from the State of Colorado under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1536), and in assisting the State of Colorado by providing
resources to develop and administer components of State
habitat conservation plans relating to the Preble's meadow
jumping mouse: Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 for
high priority projects which shall be carried out by the
Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by the Act of August
13, 1970, as amended: Provided further, That not to exceed
$5,932,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a),
(b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended, for species that are indigenous to the United
States (except for processing petitions, developing and
issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any other
steps to implement actions described in subsections
(c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)): Provided further,
That of the amount available for law enforcement, up to
$400,000 to remain available until expended, may at the
discretion of the Secretary, be used for payment for
information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of
laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and
emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or
approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on
his certificate: Provided further, That of the amount
provided for environmental contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may
remain available until expended for contaminant sample
analyses: Provided further, That all fines collected by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for violations of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362-1407) and implementing
regulations shall be available to the Secretary, without
further appropriation, to be used for the expenses of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in administering activities
for the protection and recovery of manatees, polar bears, sea
otters, and walruses, and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That, heretofore and hereafter,
in carrying out work under reimbursable agreements with any
state, local, or tribal government, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service may, without regard to 31 U.S.C. 1341 and
notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation,
record obligations against accounts receivable from such
entities, and shall credit amounts received from such
entities to this appropriation, such credit to occur within
90 days of the date of the original request by the Service
for payment: Provided further, That all funds received by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service from responsible
parties, heretofore and through fiscal year 2000, for site-
specific damages to National Wildlife Refuge System lands
resulting from the exercise of privately-owned oil and gas
rights associated with such lands in the States of Louisiana
and Texas (other than damages recoverable under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (26 U.S.C. 4611 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act
(33 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), or section 311 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.)), shall be available to the
Secretary, without further appropriation and until expended
to (1) complete damage assessments of the impacted site by
the Secretary; (2) mitigate or restore the damaged resources;
and (3) monitor and study the recovery of such damaged
resources.

construction

For construction and acquisition of buildings and other
facilities required in the conservation, management,
investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and
wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and
interests therein; $40,434,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a single procurement for the construction of
facilities at the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
may be issued which includes the full scope of the project:
Provided further, That the solicitation and the contract
shall contain the clauses ``availability of funds'' found at
48 C.F.R. 52.232.18.

land acquisition

[[Page 22375]]

cooperative endangered species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as
amended, $21,480,000, to be derived from the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and to remain available
until expended.

national wildlife refuge fund

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17,
1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $10,000,000.

multinational species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225,
4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of
1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), and the Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), $2,400,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds made
available under this Act, Public Law 105-277, and Public Law
105-83 for rhinoceros, tiger, and Asian elephant conservation
programs are exempt from any sanctions imposed against any
country under section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2799aa-1).

north american wetlands conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233,
as amended, $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

For necessary expenses of the Wildlife Conservation and
Appreciation Fund, $800,000, to remain available until
expended.

administrative provisions

Appropriations and funds available to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of
not to exceed 70 passenger motor vehicles, of which 61 are
for replacement only (including 36 for police-type use);
repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to
reservation areas caused by operations of the Service;
options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each
option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses
on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary
purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria,
buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the
Service and to which the United States has title, and which
are used pursuant to law in connection with management and
investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That
notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under
cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements
authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators
in connection with jointly produced publications for which
the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing
either in cash or services and the Service determines the
cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards:
Provided further, That the Service may accept donated
aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or
interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the
purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 105-56.

National Park Service

operation of the national park system

For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and
maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the
National Park Service (including special road maintenance
service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and
for the general administration of the National Park Service,
including not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects
within the scope of the approved budget which shall be
carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by
16 U.S.C. 1706, $1,355,176,000, of which $8,800,000 is for
research, planning and interagency coordination in support of
land acquisition for Everglades restoration shall remain
available until expended, and of which not to exceed
$8,000,000, to remain available until expended, is to be
derived from the special fee account established pursuant to
title V, section 5201 of Public Law 100-203.

national recreation and preservation

For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs,
natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership
programs, environmental compliance and review, international
park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other
activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided
for, $51,451,000, of which not less than $1,500,000 shall be
available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.): Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Park
Service may hereafter recover all fees derived from providing
necessary review services associated with historic
preservation tax certification, and such funds shall be
available until expended without further appropriation for
the costs of such review services.

historic preservation fund

For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-333), $42,412,000, to be derived from the Historic
Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30,
2001, of which $8,422,000 pursuant to section 507 of Public
Law 104-333 shall remain available until expended.

construction

For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of
physical facilities, including the modifications authorized
by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989, $223,153,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $1,100,000 shall be for realignment
of the Denali National Park entrance road, of which not less
than $3,500,000 shall be available for modifications to the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, and of which $90,000
shall be available for planning and development of
interpretive sites for the quadricentennial commemoration of
the Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, Maine,
including possible interpretive sites in Calais, Maine, and
of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be available, subject
to an Act of authorization, to conduct a feasibility study on
the preservation of certain Civil War battlefields along the
Vicksburg Campaign Trail, and of which $500,000 shall be
available for the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield:
Provided, That $5,000,000 for the Wheeling National Heritage
Area and $1,000,000 for Montpelier shall be derived from the
Historic Preservation Fund pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 470a:
Provided further, That $1,000,000 shall be made available for
Isle Royale National Park to address visitor facility and
infrastructure deterioration: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
procurement for the construction of visitor facilities at
Brooks Camp at Katmai National Park and Preserve may be
issued which includes the full scope of the project: Provided
further, That the solicitation and the contract shall contain
the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR
52.232.18.

land and water conservation fund

(rescission)

The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2000 by 16
U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.

land acquisition and state assistance

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
National Park Service, $87,725,000, to be derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until
expended, of which $500,000 is to administer the State
assistance program, and in addition $20,000,000 shall be
available to provide financial assistance to States and shall
be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and of
which not less than $2,000,000 shall be used to acquire the
Weir Farm National Historic Site in Connecticut, and of which
not less than $3,000,000 shall be available for the
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, and
of which not less than $1,700,000 shall be available for the
acquisition of properties in Keweenaw National Historical
Park, Michigan, and of which $200,000 shall be available for
the acquisition of lands at Fort Sumter National Monument.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be
available for the purchase of not to exceed 384 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 298 shall be for replacement only,
including not to exceed 312 for police-type use, 12 buses,
and 6 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to
process any grant or contract documents which do not include
the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be
used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the
southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been
submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior
to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day
in which either House of Congress is not in session because
of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day
certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and
comprehensive report on the development of the southern end
of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied
upon in support of the proposed project.
None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National
Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the
United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
The National Park Service may distribute to operating units
based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs
designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to
encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits
pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
return to appropriate positions for which they are medically
able.

United States Geological Survey

surveys, investigations, and research

For expenses necessary for the United States Geological
Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research
covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the
mineral and water resources of the United States, its
territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by
43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their
mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to
power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30
U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the
foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the
economic

[[Page 22376]]

conditions affecting mining and materials processing
industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and
related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and
disseminate data; $813,093,000, of which $72,314,000 shall be
available only for cooperation with States or municipalities
for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000
shall remain available until expended for conducting
inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and
materials processing industries; and of which $2,000,000
shall remain available until expended for ongoing development
of a mineral and geologic data base; and of which
$160,248,000 shall be available until September 30, 2001 for
the biological research activity and the operation of the
Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That of the funds
available for the biological research activity, $1,000,000
shall be made available by grant to the University of Alaska
for conduct of, directly or through subgrants, basic marine
research activities in the North Pacific Ocean pursuant to a
plan approved by the Department of Commerce, the Department
of the Interior, and the State of Alaska: Provided further,
That none of these funds provided for the biological research
activity shall be used to conduct new surveys on private
property, unless specifically authorized in writing by the
property owner: Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the
cost of topographic mapping or water resources data
collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with
States and municipalities.

administrative provisions

The amount appropriated for the United States Geological
Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed
53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement
only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration
for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing
of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or
other specialized surveys when it is administratively
determined that such procedures are in the public interest;
construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and
appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging
stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States
National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation
and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly
appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation
and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That
activities funded by appropriations herein made may be
accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.:
Provided further, That the United States Geological Survey
may contract directly with individuals or indirectly with
institutions or nonprofit organizations, without regard to 41
U.S.C. 5, for the temporary or intermittent services of
students or recent graduates, who shall be considered
employees for the purposes of chapters 57 and 81 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to compensation for travel and
work injuries, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to tort claims, but shall not be considered to
be Federal employees for any other purposes.

Minerals Management Service

royalty and offshore minerals management

For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and
environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and
collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing
laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other
minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts;
and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including
the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles
for replacement only; $110,682,000, of which $84,569,000
shall be available for royalty management activities; and an
amount not to exceed $124,000,000, to be credited to this
appropriation and to remain available until expended, from
additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in
effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee
collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over
and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from
additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided,
That $3,000,000 for computer acquisitions shall remain
available until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That
funds appropriated under this Act shall be available for the
payment of interest in accordance with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and
(d): Provided further, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be
available for reasonable expenses related to promoting
volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$15,000 under this heading shall be available for refunds of
overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases in
which the Director of the Minerals Management Service
concurred with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to
Indian allottees or Tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable
erroneous payments: Provided further, That not to exceed
$198,000 shall be available to carry out the requirements of
section 215(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999.

oil spill research

For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016,
title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII,
section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,118,000,
which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, to remain available until expended.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

regulation and technology

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to
exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only;
$95,891,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior,
pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants
to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2000 for civil
penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to
reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices
after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for
the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal
personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement sponsored training.

abandoned mine reclamation fund

For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87,
as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $185,658,000,
to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to
$7,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of
the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the
reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage
from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants
to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in
fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That of the funds herein
provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency
program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as
amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for
emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for
federally administered emergency reclamation projects under
this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further,
That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the
emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25
percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal
year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further,
That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the
Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the
recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States
Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts:
Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of
Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal
share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal
Government for the purpose of environmental restoration
related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from
abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be
consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That
the State of Maryland may set aside the greater of $1,000,000
or 10 percent of the total of the grants made available to
the State under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.),
if the amount set aside is deposited in an acid mine drainage
abatement and treatment fund established under a State law,
pursuant to which law the amount (together with all interest
earned on the amount) is expended by the State to undertake
acid mine drainage abatement and treatment projects, except
that before any amounts greater than 10 percent of its title
IV grants are deposited in an acid mine drainage abatement
and treatment fund, the State of Maryland must first complete
all Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act priority one
projects.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

operation of indian programs

For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian
programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of
November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended,
$1,633,296,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001
except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed
$93,684,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not
limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, not to exceed $115,229,000 shall be available for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract
support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the
Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2000, as authorized by
such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use
their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of
ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding
agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and of
which not to exceed $402,010,000 for school operations costs
of Bureau-funded schools and other education programs shall
become available on July 1, 2000, and shall remain available
until September 30, 2001; and of which not to exceed
$51,991,000 shall remain available until expended for housing
improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation
support, self-governance grants, the Indian Self-
Determination Fund, land records improvement, and the Navajo-
Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, including but not limited to the
Indian

[[Page 22377]]

Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C.
2008, not to exceed $44,160,000 within and only from such
amounts made available for school operations shall be
available to tribes and tribal organizations for
administrative cost grants associated with the operation of
Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, That any forestry
funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of
September 30, 2001, may be transferred during fiscal year
2002 to an Indian forest land assistance account established
for the benefit of such tribe within the tribe's trust fund
account: Provided further, That any such unobligated balances
not so transferred shall expire on September 30, 2002:
Provided further, That from amounts appropriated under this
heading $5,422,000 shall be made available to the
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute and that from
amounts appropriated under this heading $8,611,000 shall be
made available to Haskell Indian Nations University.

construction

For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of
irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other
facilities, including architectural and engineering services
by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands;
and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of
the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law
87-483, $146,884,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the
construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be
transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further,
That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway
Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management
costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds
provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2000, in implementing
new construction or facilities improvement and repair project
grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally
controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as
amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the
Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for
Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the
regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants
shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the
Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a
schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided
further, That in considering applications, the Secretary
shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal
organization would be deficient in assuring that the
construction projects conform to applicable building
standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and
safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with
respect to organizational and financial management
capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary
declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the
requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided
further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any
grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes
provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e): Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, collections from
the settlements between the United States and the Puyallup
tribe concerning Chief Leschi school are made available for
school construction in fiscal year 2000 and hereafter:
Provided further, That in return for a quit claim deed to a
school building on the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Indian
Reservation, the Secretary shall pay to U.K. Development, LLC
the amount of $375,000 from the funds made available under
this heading.

indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians

For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals
and for necessary administrative expenses, $27,131,000, to
remain available until expended; of which $25,260,000 shall
be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and
water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and
102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights
settlements; and of which $1,871,000 shall be available
pursuant to Public Laws 99-264, 100-383, 103-402 and 100-580.

indian guaranteed loan program account

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized
by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided,
That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of
which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $59,682,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan programs, $504,000.

administrative provisions

The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of
Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative
agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in
cooperation with States and other organizations.
Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the
revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and
insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and
purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of
which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office
operations or pooled overhead general administration (except
facilities operations and maintenance) shall be available for
tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the
Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal Self-Governance
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
In the event any tribe returns appropriations made
available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish
the Federal government's trust responsibility to that tribe,
or the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to
access future appropriations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided
herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452
et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any
elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for
schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the
schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996.
No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support
expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade
structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the
Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of
October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may be
used to fund a Bureau-funded school (as that term is defined
in section 1146 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25
U.S.C. 2026)) that shares a campus with a school that offers
expanded grades and that is not a Bureau-funded school, if
the jointly incurred costs of both schools are apportioned
between the 2 programs of the schools in such manner as to
ensure that the expanded grades are funded solely from funds
that are not made available through the Bureau.
The Tate Topa Tribal School, the Black Mesa Community
School, the Alamo Navajo School, and other BIA-funded
schools, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior, may use prior year school operations funds for the
replacement or repair of BIA education facilities which are
in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 2005(a) and which shall be
eligible for operation and maintenance support to the same
extent as other BIA education facilities: Provided, That any
additional construction costs for replacement or repair of
such facilities begun with prior year funds shall be
completed exclusively with non-Federal funds.

Department Offices

Insular Affairs

ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior,
$67,325,000, of which: (1) $63,076,000 shall be available
until expended for technical assistance, including
maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular
management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and
brown tree snake control and research; grants to the
judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as
authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the
Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local
revenues, for construction and support of governmental
functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as
authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as
authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the
Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,249,000 shall be available for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs:
Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial
and local governments herein provided for, including such
transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established
or used by such governments, may be audited by the General
Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with
chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further,
That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be
provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the
Special Representatives on Future United States Financial
Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by
Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That Public Law 94-241,
as amended, is further amended (1) in section 4(b) by
deleting ``2002'' and inserting ``1999'' and by deleting the
comma after the words ``$11,000,000 annually'' and inserting
in lieu thereof the following: ``and for fiscal year 2000,
payments to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
shall be $5,580,000, but shall return to the level of
$11,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In
fiscal year 2003, the payment to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands shall be $5,420,000. Such payments
shall be''; and (2) in section (4)(c) by adding a new
subsection as follows: ``(4) for fiscal year 2000, $5,420,000
shall be provided to the Virgin Islands for correctional
facilities and other projects mandated by Federal law.'':
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for technical
assistance, sufficient funding shall be made available for a
grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the
funds for the program of operations and maintenance
improvement are appropriated to institutionalize routine
operations and maintenance improvement of capital
infrastructure in American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and
the Federated States of Micronesia through

[[Page 22378]]

assessments of long-range operations maintenance needs,
improved capability of local operations and maintenance
institutions and agencies (including management and
vocational education training), and project-specific
maintenance (with territorial participation and cost sharing
to be determined by the Secretary based on the individual
territory's commitment to timely maintenance of its capital
assets): Provided further, That any appropriation for
disaster assistance under this heading in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal
matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants
provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170c).

compact of free association

For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223,
232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for
economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic
of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and
233 of the Compact of Free Association, $20,545,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law
99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for management of the Department of
the Interior, $62,203,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may
be for official reception and representation expenses and up
to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers compensation
payments and unemployment compensation payments associated
with the orderly closure of the United States Bureau of
Mines.

Office of the Solicitor

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor,
$36,784,000.

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and Expenses

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$26,614,000.

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

federal trust programs

For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct
expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and
grants, $73,836,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be
transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Departmental
Management: Provided further, That funds made available to
Tribes and Tribal organizations through contracts or grants
obligated during fiscal year 2000, as authorized by the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.), shall remain available until expended by the
contractor or grantee: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the statute of limitations shall
not commence to run on any claim, including any claim in
litigation pending on the date of the enactment of this Act,
concerning losses to or mismanagement of trust funds, until
the affected tribe or individual Indian has been furnished
with an accounting of such funds from which the beneficiary
can determine whether there has been a loss: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall not be required to provide a quarterly
statement of performance for any Indian trust account that
has not had activity for at least eighteen months and has a
balance of $1.00 or less: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall issue an annual account statement and
maintain a record of any such accounts and shall permit the
balance in each such account to be withdrawn upon the express
written request of the account holder.

indian land consolidation pilot

For implementation of a pilot program for consolidation of
fractional interests in Indian lands by direct expenditure or
cooperative agreement, $5,000,000 to remain available until
expended, of which not to exceed $500,000 shall be available
for administrative expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may
enter into a cooperative agreement, which shall not be
subject to Public Law 93-638, as amended, with a tribe having
jurisdiction over the pilot reservation to implement the
program to acquire fractional interests on behalf of such
tribe: Provided further, That the Secretary may develop a
reservation-wide system for establishing the fair market
value of various types of lands and improvements to govern
the amounts offered for acquisition of fractional interests:
Provided further, That acquisitions shall be limited to one
or more pilot reservations as determined by the Secretary:
Provided further, That funds shall be available for
acquisition of fractional interests in trust or restricted
lands with the consent of its owners and at fair market
value, and the Secretary shall hold in trust for such tribe
all interests acquired pursuant to this pilot program:
Provided further, That all proceeds from any lease, resource
sale contract, right-of-way or other transaction derived from
the fractional interest shall be credited to this
appropriation, and remain available until expended, until the
purchase price paid by the Secretary under this appropriation
has been recovered from such proceeds: Provided further, That
once the purchase price has been recovered, all subsequent
proceeds shall be managed by the Secretary for the benefit of
the applicable tribe or paid directly to the tribe.

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

natural resource damage assessment fund

To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by
the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601
et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public
Law 101-380), and Public Law 101-337; $4,621,000, to remain
available until expended.

administrative provisions

There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available
resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of
which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by
donation, purchase or through available excess surplus
property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with
proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the
purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided
further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in
the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'',
and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through
the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or
office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the
emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft,
buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other
unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made
available under this authority until funds specifically made
available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies
shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds
used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by
Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or
transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of
the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency
prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for
the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or
actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other
unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to
actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage
assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the
prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential
grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in
section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for
emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public
Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds
available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit
assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy
State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the
Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in
this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding
fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies
for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in
connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such
reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently
available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further,
That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression
activities, no funds shall be made available under this
authority until funds appropriated to ``Wildland Fire
Management'' shall have been exhausted: Provided further,
That all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby
designated by Congress to be ``emergency requirements''
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be
replenished by a supplemental appropriation which must be
requested as promptly as possible: Provided further, That
such replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro
rata basis, accounts from which emergency funds were
transferred.
Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and
similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will
contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations
shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other
activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535
and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That
reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment,
and for services rendered may be credited to the
appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are
received.
Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the
Interior in this title shall be available for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the
Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone
service in private residences

[[Page 22379]]

in the field, when authorized under regulations approved by
the Secretary; and the payment of dues, when authorized by
the Secretary, for library membership in societies or
associations which issue publications to members only or at a
price to members lower than to subscribers who are not
members.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the
Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5
U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for obligation in connection with contracts issued
for services or rentals for periods not in excess of twelve
months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
leasing and related activities placed under restriction in
the President's moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the
areas of northern, central, and southern California; the
North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the eastern Gulf
of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86
degrees west longitude.
Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related
activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning
area.
Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and
natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located
outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer
Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
2002.
Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural
gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian
tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant
to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such
funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or
annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
(1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in
obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by
the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest
in obligations of the United States or securities that are
guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
(2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an
agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully
collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the
event of a bank failure.
Sec. 112. (a) Employees of Helium Operations, Bureau of
Land Management, entitled to severance pay under 5 U.S.C.
5595, may apply for, and the Secretary of the Interior may
pay, the total amount of the severance pay to the employee in
a lump sum. Employees paid severance pay in a lump sum and
subsequently reemployed by the Federal Government shall be
subject to the repayment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5595(i)(2)
and (3), except that any repayment shall be made to the
Helium Fund.
(b) Helium Operations employees who elect to continue
health benefits after separation shall be liable for not more
than the required employee contribution under 5 U.S.C.
8905a(d)(1)(A). The Helium Fund shall pay for 18 months the
remaining portion of required contributions.
(c) The Secretary of the Interior may provide for training
to assist Helium Operations employees in the transition to
other Federal or private sector jobs during the facility
shut-down and disposition process and for up to 12 months
following separation from Federal employment, including
retraining and relocation incentives on the same terms and
conditions as authorized for employees of the Department of
Defense in section 348 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
(d) For purposes of the annual leave restoration provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(1)(B), the cessation of helium production
and sales, and other related Helium Program activities shall
be deemed to create an exigency of public business under, and
annual leave that is lost during leave years 1997 through
2001 because of 5 U.S.C. 6304 (regardless of whether such
leave was scheduled in advance) shall be restored to the
employee and shall be credited and available in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(2). Annual leave so restored and
remaining unused upon the transfer of a Helium Program
employee to a position of the executive branch outside of the
Helium Program shall be liquidated by payment to the employee
of a lump sum from the Helium Fund for such leave.
(e) Benefits under this section shall be paid from the
Helium Fund in accordance with section 4(c)(4) of the Helium
Privatization Act of 1996. Funds may be made available to
Helium Program employees who are or will be separated before
October 1, 2002 because of the cessation of helium production
and sales and other related activities. Retraining benefits,
including retraining and relocation incentives, may be paid
for retraining commencing on or before September 30, 2002.
(f) This section shall remain in effect through fiscal year
2002.
Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination
Act of 1975, as amended, funds available herein and hereafter
under this title for Indian self-determination or self-
governance contract or grant support costs may be expended
only for costs directly attributable to contracts, grants and
compacts pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act and no
funds appropriated in this title shall be available for any
contract support costs or indirect costs associated with any
contract, grant, cooperative agreement, self-governance
compact or funding agreement entered into between an Indian
tribe or tribal organization and any entity other than an
agency of the Department of the Interior.
Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
National Park Service shall not develop or implement a
reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel
through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate
local non-recreational passage through units of the National
Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and
permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized
to permit persons, firms or organizations engaged in
commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational activities
(as defined in section 612a of title 40, United States Code)
not currently occupying such space to use courtyards,
auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other space of the main and
south Interior building complex, Washington, D.C., the
maintenance, operation, and protection of which has been
delegated to the Secretary from the Administrator of General
Services pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, and to assess reasonable charges
therefore, subject to such procedures as the Secretary deems
appropriate for such uses. Charges may be for the space,
utilities, maintenance, repair, and other services. Charges
for such space and services may be at rates equivalent to the
prevailing commercial rate for comparable space and services
devoted to a similar purpose in the vicinity of the main and
south Interior building complex, Washington, D.C. for which
charges are being assessed. The Secretary may without further
appropriation hold, administer, and use such proceeds within
the Departmental Management Working Capital Fund to offset
the operation of the buildings under his jurisdiction,
whether delegated or otherwise, and for related purposes,
until expended.
Sec. 116. (a) In this section--
(1) the term ``Huron Cemetery'' means the lands that form
the cemetery that is popularly known as the Huron Cemetery,
located in Kansas City, Kansas, as described in subsection
(b)(3); and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(b)(1) The Secretary shall take such action as may be
necessary to ensure that the lands comprising the Huron
Cemetery (as described in paragraph (3)) are used only in
accordance with this subsection.
(2) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shall be used only--
(A) for religious and cultural uses that are compatible
with the use of the lands as a cemetery; and
(B) as a burial ground.
(3) The description of the lands of the Huron Cemetery is
as follows:
The tract of land in the NW quarter of sec. 10, T. 11 S.,
R. 25 E., of the sixth principal meridian, in Wyandotte
County, Kansas (as surveyed and marked on the ground on
August 15, 1888, by William Millor, Civil Engineer and
Surveyor), described as follows:
``Commencing on the Northwest corner of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 10;
``Thence South 28 poles to the `true point of beginning';
``Thence South 71 degrees East 10 poles and 18 links;
``Thence South 18 degrees and 30 minutes West 28 poles;
``Thence West 11 and one-half poles;
``Thence North 19 degrees 15 minutes East 31 poles and 15
feet to the `true point of beginning', containing 2 acres or
more.''.
Sec. 117. Grazing permits and leases which expire or are
transferred, in this or any fiscal year, shall be renewed
under the same terms and conditions as contained in the
expiring permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of
the Interior completes the process of renewing the permits or
leases in compliance with all applicable laws. Nothing in
this language shall be deemed to affect the Secretary's
statutory authority or the rights of the permittee or lessee.
Sec. 118. Refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis
from a credit card services provider under the Department of
the Interior's charge card programs may be deposited to and
retained without fiscal year limitation in the Departmental
Working Capital Fund established under 43 U.S.C. 1467 and
used to fund management initiatives of general benefit to the
Department of the Interior's bureaus and offices as
determined by the Secretary or his designee.
Sec. 119. Appropriations made in this title under the
headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated
balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same
headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for
Indian trust management

[[Page 22380]]

activities pursuant to the Trust Management Improvement
Project High Level Implementation Plan.
Sec. 120. All properties administered by the National Park
Service at Fort Baker, Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
and leases, concessions, permits and other agreements
associated with those properties, shall be exempt from all
taxes and special assessments, except sales tax, by the State
of California and its political subdivisions, including the
County of Marin and the City of Sausalito. Such areas of Fort
Baker shall remain under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to negotiate and
enter into agreements and leases, without regard to section
321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C.
303b), with any person, firm, association, organization,
corporation, or governmental entity for all or part of the
property within Fort Baker administered by the Secretary as
part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proceeds of
the agreements or leases shall be retained by the Secretary
and such proceeds shall be available, without future
appropriation, for the preservation, restoration, operation,
maintenance and interpretation and related expenses incurred
with respect to Fort Baker properties.
Sec. 122. None of the funds provided in this or any other
Act may be used for pre-design, design or engineering for the
removal of the Elwha or Glines Canyon Dams, or for the actual
removal of either dam, until such time as both dams are
acquired by the Federal government notwithstanding the
proviso in section 3(a) of Public Law 102-495, as amended.
Sec. 123. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as
the ``Battle of Midway National Memorial Study Act''.
(b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) September 2, 1997, marked the 52nd anniversary of the
United States victory over Japan in World War II.
(2) The Battle of Midway proved to be the turning point in
the war in the Pacific, as United States Navy forces
inflicted such severe losses on the Imperial Japanese Navy
during the battle that the Imperial Japanese Navy never again
took the offensive against the United States or the allied
forces.
(3) During the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942, an
outnumbered force of the United States Navy, consisting of 29
ships and other units of the Armed Forces under the command
of Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Spruance, out-maneuvered and
out-fought 350 ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
(4) It is in the public interest to study whether Midway
Atoll should be established as a national memorial to the
Battle of Midway to express the enduring gratitude of the
American people for victory in the battle and to inspire
future generations of Americans with the heroism and
sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces who achieved
that victory.
(5) The historic structures and facilities on Midway Atoll
should be protected and maintained.
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to require a study
of the feasibility and suitability of designating the Midway
Atoll as a National Memorial to the Battle of Midway within
the boundaries of the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.
The study of the Midway Atoll and its environs shall include,
but not be limited to, identification of interpretative
opportunities for the educational and inspirational benefit
of present and future generations, and of the unique and
significant circumstances involving the defense of the island
by the United States in World War II and the Battle of
Midway.
(d) Study of the Establishment of Midway Atoll as a
National Memorial to the Battle of Midway.--
(1) In general.--Not later than six months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
shall, acting through the Director of the National Park
Service and in consultation with the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Midway
Memorial Foundation, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the
``Foundation''), and Midway Phoenix Corporation, carry out a
study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing
Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway.
(2) Considerations.--In studying the establishment of
Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall address the
following:
(A) The appropriate federal agency to manage such a
memorial, and whether and under what conditions, to lease or
otherwise allow the Foundation or another appropriate entity
to administer, maintain, and fully utilize the lands
(including any equipment, facilities, infrastructure, and
other improvements) and waters of Midway Atoll if designated
as a national memorial.
(B) Whether designation as a national memorial would
conflict with current management of Midway Atoll as a
wildlife refuge and whether, and under what circumstances,
the needs and requirements of the wildlife refuge should take
precedence over the needs and requirements of a national
memorial on Midway Atoll.
(C) Whether, and under what conditions, to permit the use
of the facilities on Sand Island for purposes other than a
wildlife refuge or a national memorial.
(D) Whether to impose conditions on public access to Midway
Atoll as a national memorial.
(3) Report.--Upon completion of the study required under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit, to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate
and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives, a report on the study, which shall include
any recommendations for further legislative action. The
report shall also include an inventory of all known past and
present facilities and structures of historical significance
on Midway Atoll and its environs. The report shall include a
description of each historic facility and structure and a
discussion of how each will contribute to the designation and
interpretation of the proposed national memorial.
(e) Continuing Discussions.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to delay or prohibit discussions between the
Foundation and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or
any other government entity regarding the future role of the
Foundation on Midway Atoll.
Sec. 124. Where any Federal lands included within the
boundary of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area as
designated by the Secretary of the Interior on April 5, 1990
(Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement) were
utilized as of March 31, 1997, for grazing purposes pursuant
to a permit issued by the National Park Service, the person
or persons so utilizing such lands shall be entitled to renew
said permit under such terms and conditions as the Secretary
may prescribe, for the lifetime of the permittee or 20 years,
whichever is less.
Sec. 125. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any
Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base
funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring
funds on the basis of identified, unmet needs. No tribe shall
receive a reduction in Tribal Priority Allocation funds of
more than ten percent in fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 126. None of the Funds provided in this Act shall be
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department
of the Interior to transfer land into trust status for the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe in Clark County, Washington,
unless and until the tribe and the county reach a legally
enforceable agreement that addresses the financial impact of
new development on the county, school district, fire
district, and other local governments and the impact on
zoning and development.
Sec. 127. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to the Department of the Interior or agencies of
the Department of the Interior to implement Secretarial Order
3206, issued June 5, 1997.
Sec. 128. Of the funds appropriated in title V of the
Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act, Public Law 105-83, the Secretary shall provide up to
$2,000,000 in the form of a grant to the Fairbanks North Star
Borough for acquisition of undeveloped parcels along the
banks of the Chena River for the purpose of establishing an
urban greenbelt within the Borough. The Secretary shall
further provide from the funds appropriated in title V up to
$1,000,000 in the form of a grant to the Municipality of
Anchorage for the acquisition of approximately 34 acres of
wetlands adjacent to a municipal park in Anchorage (the Jewel
Lake Wetlands).
Sec. 129. Walker River Basin. $200,000 is appropriated to
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in fiscal year
2000 to be used through a contract or memorandum of
understanding with the Bureau of Reclamation, for: (1) the
investigation of alternatives, and if appropriate, the
implementation of one or more of the alternatives, to the
modification of Weber Dam on the Walker River Paiute
Reservation in Nevada; (2) an evaluation of the feasibility
and effectiveness of the installation of a fish ladder at
Weber Dam; and (3) an evaluation of opportunities for
Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration in the Walker River
Basin. $125,000 is appropriated to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in fiscal year 2000 for the benefit of the Walker
River Paiute Tribe, in recognition of the negative effects on
the Tribe associated with delay in modification of Weber Dam,
for an analysis of the feasibility of establishing a
Tribally-operated Lahontan cutthroat trout hatchery on the
Walker River as it flows through the Walker River Indian
Reservation: Provided, That for the purposes of this section:
(A) $100,000 shall be transferred from the $250,000 allocated
for the United States Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations, Truckee River Water Quality Settlement
Agreement; (B) $50,000 shall be transferred from the $150,000
allocated for the United States Geological Survey, Water
Resources Investigations, Las Vegas Wash endocrine disruption
study; and (C) $175,000 shall be transferred from the funds
allocated for the Bureau of Land Management, Wildland Fire
Management.
Sec. 130. Funding for the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge
and Certain Projects in the State of Ohio. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, from the unobligated balances
appropriated for a grant to the State of Ohio for the
acquisition of the Howard Farm near Metzger Marsh, Ohio--
(1) $500,000 shall be derived by transfer and made
available for the acquisition of land in the Ottawa National
Wildlife Refuge;
(2) $302,000 shall be derived by transfer and made
available for the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission, Ohio;
and
(3) $198,000 shall be derived by transfer and made
available for a grant to the State of Ohio for the
preservation and restoration of the birthplace, boyhood home,
and schoolhouse of Ulysses S. Grant.
Sec. 131. Prohibition on Class III Gaming Procedures. No
funds made available under this Act may be expended to
implement the final

[[Page 22381]]

rule published on April 12, 1999, at 64 Fed. Reg. 17535.
Sec. 132. Conveyance to Nye County, Nevada. (a)
Definitions.--In this section:
(1) County.--The term ``County'' means Nye County, Nevada.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(b) Parcels Conveyed for Use of the Nevada Science and
Technology Center.--
(1) In general.--For no consideration and at no other cost
to the County, the Secretary shall convey to the County,
subject to valid existing rights, all right, title, and
interest in and to the parcels of public land described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land referred
to in paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) The portion of Sec. 13 north of United States Route 95,
T. 15 S. R. 49 E, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada.
(B) In Sec. 18, T. 15 S., R. 50 E., Mount Diablo Meridian,
Nevada:
(i) W \1/2\ W \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
(ii) The portion of the W \1/2\ W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of
United States Route 95.
(3) Use.--
(A) In general.--The parcels described in paragraph (2)
shall be used for the construction and operation of the
Nevada Science and Technology Center as a nonprofit museum
and exposition center, and related facilities and activities.
(B) Reversion.--The conveyance of any parcel described in
paragraph (2) shall be subject to reversion to the United
States, at the discretion of Secretary, if the parcel is used
for a purpose other than that specified in subparagraph (A).
(c) Parcels Conveyed for Other Use for a commercial
purpose.--
(1) Right to purchase.--For a period of 5 years beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act, the County shall have
the exclusive right to purchase the parcels of public land
described in paragraph (2) for the fair market value of the
parcels, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land referred
to in paragraph (1) are the following parcels in Sec. 18, T.
15 S., R. 50 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
(A) E \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
(B) E \1/2\ W \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
(C) The portion of the E \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of United
States Route 95.
(D) The portion of the E \1/2\ W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of
United States Route 95.
(E) The portion of the SE \1/4\ north of United States
Route 95.
(3) Use of proceeds.--Proceeds of a sale of a parcel
described in paragraph (2)--
(A) shall be deposited in the special account established
under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
(B) shall be available for use by the Secretary--
(i) to reimburse costs incurred by the local offices of the
Bureau of Land Management in arranging the land conveyances
directed by this Act; and
(ii) as provided in section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 Stat.
2346).
Sec. 133. Conveyance of Land to City of Mesquite, Nevada.
Section 3 of Public Law 99-548 (100 Stat. 3061; 110 Stat.
3009-202) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Fifth Area.--
``(1) Right to purchase.--For a period of 12 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the city of Mesquite,
Nevada, shall have the exclusive right to purchase the
parcels of public land described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land
referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
``(A) In T. 13 S., R. 70 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) The portion of sec. 27 north of Interstate Route 15.
``(ii) Sec. 28: NE \1/4\, S \1/2\ (except the Interstate
Route 15 right-of-way).
``(iii) Sec. 29: E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SE \1/
4\.
``(iv) The portion of sec. 30 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(v) The portion of sec. 31 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(vi) Sec. 32: NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ (except the Interstate
Route 15 right-of-way), the portion of NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\
south of Interstate Route 15, and the portion of W \1/2\
south of Interstate Route 15.
``(vii) The portion of sec. 33 north of Interstate Route
15.
``(B) In T. 14 S., R. 70 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) Sec. 5: NW \1/4\.
``(ii) Sec. 6: N \1/2\.
``(C) In T. 13 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) The portion of sec. 25 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(ii) The portion of sec. 26 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(iii) The portion of sec. 27 south of Interstate Route
15.
``(iv) Sec. 28: SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\.
``(v) Sec. 33: E \1/2\.
``(vi) Sec. 34.
``(vii) Sec. 35.
``(viii) Sec. 36.
``(3) Notification.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the city shall notify the
Secretary which of the parcels of public land described in
paragraph (2) the city intends to purchase.
``(4) Conveyance.--Not later than 1 year after receiving
notification from the city under paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall convey to the city the land selected for purchase.
``(5) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until
the date that is 12 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the parcels of public land described in paragraph
(2) are withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining laws, and
from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
``(6) Use of proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale of each
parcel--
``(A) shall be deposited in the special account established
under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
``(B) shall be available for use by the Secretary--
``(i) to reimburse costs incurred by the local offices of
the Bureau of Land Management in arranging the land
conveyances directed by this Act; and
``(ii) as provided in section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112
Stat. 2346).
``(f) Sixth Area.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall convey to
the city of Mesquite, Nevada, in accordance with section
47125 of title 49, United States Code, up to 2,560 acres of
public land to be selected by the city from among the parcels
of land described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
paragraph (1) are as follows:
``(A) In T. 13 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) The portion of sec. 28 south of Interstate Route 15
(except S \1/2\ SE \1/4\).
``(ii) The portion of sec. 29 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(iii) The portion of sec. 30 south of Interstate Route
15.
``(iv) The portion of sec. 31 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(v) Sec. 32.
``(vi) Sec. 33: W \1/2\.
``(B) In T. 14 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) Sec. 4.
``(ii) Sec. 5.
``(iii) Sec. 6.
``(iv) Sec. 8.
``(C) In T. 14 S., R. 68 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) Sec. 1.
``(ii) Sec. 12.
``(3) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until
the date that is 12 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the parcels of public land described in paragraph
(2) are withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining laws, and
from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.''.
Sec. 134. Quadricentennial Commemoration of the Saint Croix
Island International Historic Site. (a) Findings.--Congress
finds that--
(1) in 1604, 1 of the first European colonization efforts
was attempted at St. Croix Island in Calais, Maine;
(2) St. Croix Island settlement predated both the Jamestown
and Plymouth colonies;
(3) St. Croix Island offers a rare opportunity to preserve
and interpret early interactions between European explorers
and colonists and Native Americans;
(4) St. Croix Island is 1 of only 2 international historic
sites comprised of land administered by the National Park
Service;
(5) the quadricentennial commemorative celebration honoring
the importance of the St. Croix Island settlement to the
countries and people of both Canada and the United States is
rapidly approaching;
(6) the 1998 National Park Service management plans and
long-range interpretive plan call for enhancing visitor
facilities at both Red Beach and downtown Calais;
(7) in 1982, the Department of the Interior and Canadian
Department of the Environment signed a memorandum of
understanding to recognize the international significance of
St. Croix Island and, in an amendment memorandum, agreed to
conduct joint strategic planning for the international
commemoration with a special focus on the 400th anniversary
of settlement in 2004;
(8) the Department of Canadian Heritage has installed
extensive interpretive sites on the Canadian side of the
border; and
(9) current facilities at Red Beach and Calais are
extremely limited or nonexistent for a site of this historic
and cultural importance.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) using funds made available by this Act, the National
Park Service should expeditiously pursue planning for
exhibits at Red Beach and the town of Calais, Maine; and
(2) the National Park Service should take what steps are
necessary, including consulting with the people of Calais, to
ensure that appropriate exhibits at Red Beach and the town of
Calais are completed by 2004.
Sec. 135. No funds appropriated for the Department of the
Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study
or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the
water level of the lake below the range of water levels
required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.
Sec. 136. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act or any

[[Page 22382]]

other provision of law, may be used by any officer, employee,
department or agency of the United States to impose or
require payment of an inspection fee in connection with the
import or export of shipments of fur-bearing wildlife
containing 1,000 or fewer raw, crusted, salted or tanned
hides or fur skins, or separate parts thereof, including
species listed under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora done at Washington
March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1027).
Sec. 137. (a) None of the funds provided in this Act shall
be available to the Department of the Interior to deploy the
Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) in any
Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Office, with the exception of
the Billings Area Office, until 45 days after the Secretary
of the Interior certifies in writing to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Indian Affairs that,
based on the Secretary's review and analysis, such system
meets the TAAMS contract requirements and the needs of the
system's customers including the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians and
affected Indian tribes and individual Indians.
(b) The Secretary shall certify that the following items
have been completed in accordance with generally accepted
guidelines for system development and acquisition and
indicate the source of those guidelines: Design and
functional requirements; legacy data conversion and use;
system acceptance and user acceptance tests; project
management functions such as deployment and implementation
planning, risk management, quality assurance, configuration
management, and independent verification and validation
activities. The General Accounting Office shall provide an
independent assessment of the Secretary's certification
within 15 days of the Secretary's certification.
Sec. 138. No funds appropriated under this Act shall be
expended to implement sound thresholds or standards in the
Grand Canyon National Park until 90 days after the National
Park Service has provided to the Congress a report describing
(1) the reasonable scientific basis for such sound thresholds
or standard and (2) the peer review process used to validate
such sound thresholds or standard.
Sec. 139. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior shall use any funds previously
appropriated for the Department of the Interior for fiscal
year 1998 for acquisition of lands to acquire land from the
Borough of Haines, Alaska for subsequent conveyance to settle
claims filed against the United States with respect to land
in the Borough of Haines prior to January 1, 1999: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Interior shall not convey lands
acquired pursuant to this section unless and until a signed
release of claims is executed.
Sec. 140. In addition to any amounts otherwise made
available under this title to carry out the Tribally
Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978,
$1,500,000 is appropriated to carry out such Act for fiscal
year 2000.
Sec. 141. Pilot Wildlife Data System. From funds made
available by this Act to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Secretary of the Interior shall use $1,000,000
to develop a pilot wildlife data system to provide
statistical data relating to wildlife management and control
in the State of Alabama.
Sec. 142. BIA Post Secondary Schools Funding Formula. (a)
In General.--Any funds appropriated for Bureau of Indian
Affairs Operations for Central Office Operations for Post
Secondary Schools for any fiscal year that exceed the amount
appropriated for the schools for fiscal year 2000 shall be
allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet need
of the schools as determined by the Post Secondary Funding
Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education Programs
and the schools on May 13, 1999.
(b) Applicability.--This section shall apply for fiscal
year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
Sec. 143. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority
provided by Public Law 104-14, as amended by Public Law 104-
208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms
of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and
use any such reimbursement until expended and without further
appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all
activities authorized by Public Law 100-696, 16 U.S.C. 460zz.

SEC. 144. VALUATION OF CRUDE OIL FOR ROYALTY PURPOSES.

None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used
to issue a notice of final rulemaking with respect to the
valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes (including a
rulemaking derived from proposed rules published at 62 Fed.
Reg. 3742 (January 24, 1997), 62 Fed. Reg. 36030 (July 3,
1997), and 63 Fed. Reg. 6113 (1998)) until September 30,
2000.

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

forest and rangeland research

For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as
authorized by law, $187,444,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That within the funds available, $250,000
shall be used to assess the potential hydrologic and
biological impact of lead and zinc mining in the Mark Twain
National Forest of Southern Missouri: Provided further, That
none of the funds in this Act may be used by the Secretary of
the Interior to issue a prospecting permit for hardrock
mineral exploration on Mark Twain National Forest land in the
Current River/Jack's Fork River--Eleven Point Watershed (not
including Mark Twain National Forest land in Townships 31N
and 32N, Range 2 and Range 3 West, on which mining activities
are taking place as of the date of enactment of this Act):
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be
used by the Secretary of the Interior to segregate or
withdraw land in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri
under section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1714).

state and private forestry

For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing
technical and financial assistance to States, territories,
possessions, and others, and for forest health management,
cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation
activities, $190,793,000, to remain available until expended,
as authorized by law.

national forest system

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, and for
administrative expenses associated with the management of
funds provided under the headings ``Forest and Rangeland
Research'', ``State and Private Forestry'', ``National Forest
System'', ``Wildland Fire Management'', ``Reconstruction and
Construction'', and ``Land Acquisition'', $1,239,051,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall include 50
percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as
fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That of the amount provided
under this heading, $750,000 shall be used for a supplemental
environmental impact statement for the Forest Service/
Weyerhaeuser Huckleberry land exchange, which shall be
completed by September 30, 2000.

wildland fire management

For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, and for emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands
and water, $560,980,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such funds are available for repayment of
advances from other appropriations accounts previously
transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to $4,000,000
of funds appropriated under this appropriation may be used
for Fire Science Research in support of the Joint Fire
Science Program: Provided further, That all authorities for
the use of funds, including the use of contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements, available to execute the Forest
Service and Rangeland Research appropriation, are also
available in the utilization of these funds for Fire Science
Research.
For an additional amount to cover necessary expenses for
emergency rehabilitation, presuppression due to emergencies,
and wildfire suppression activities of the Forest Service,
$90,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds shall be
available only to the extent an official budget request for a
specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the
entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as
defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to
the Congress.

reconstruction and maintenance

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $362,095,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and
acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for
construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of
forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided,
That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road
maintenance shall be available for the decommissioning of
roads, including unauthorized roads not part of the
transportation system, which are no longer needed: Provided
further, That no funds shall be expended to decommission any
system road until notice and an opportunity for public
comment has been provided on each decommissioning project:
Provided further, That any unexpended balances of amounts
previously appropriated for Forest Service Reconstruction and
Construction as well as any unobligated balances remaining in
the National Forest System appropriation in the facility
maintenance and trail maintenance extended budget line items
at the end of fiscal year 1999 may be transferred to and made
a part of this appropriation.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses,
and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein,
in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
Forest Service, $36,370,000, to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That subject to valid existing rights, all
Federally owned lands and interests in lands

[[Page 22383]]

within the New World Mining District comprising approximately
26,223 acres, more or less, which are described in a Federal
Register notice dated August 19, 1997 (62 F.R. 44136-44137),
are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation,
and disposal under the public land laws, and from location,
entry and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition
under all mineral and geothermal leasing laws.

acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.

acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.

range betterment fund

For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States,
pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as
amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to
exceed 6 percent shall be available for administrative
expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.

gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.

administrative provisions, forest service

Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed
110 passenger motor vehicles of which 15 will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 109 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed three for replacement only, and acquisition of
sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the
operable fleet at 213 aircraft for use in Forest Service
wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs;
notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft
being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in
value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement
aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to
exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3)
purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other
public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land,
waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5)
for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National
Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6)
the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and
(7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31
U.S.C. 3718(c).
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close
any regional office for National Forest System administration
of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the
consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest
Service.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as
authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by
Public Law 93-408.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
To the greatest extent possible, and in accordance with the
Final Amendment to the Shawnee National Forest Plan, none of
the funds available in this Act shall be used for preparation
of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms of even-
aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee National
Forest, Illinois.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$2,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard
to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative
expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System
lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That
of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no
more than $400,000 shall be available for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain,
by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance,
private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis
funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further,
That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the
recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds:
Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest
Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not
immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other
investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such
investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both
principal and interest by the United States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be available for matching funds to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709,
and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for
projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or
related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the
Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal
financial assistance, private contributions to match on at
least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service:
Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal
funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same
rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching
funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the
``National Forest System'' and ``Reconstruction and
Construction'' accounts and planned to be allocated to
activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for
projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington
may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects.
Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest
Service for planning and administering projects. Project
selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the
Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate
with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with
public and other private agencies, organizations,
institutions, and individuals, to provide for the
development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of
land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey
Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization,
institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and
administer private gifts of money and real or personal
property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic
Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted
notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with
the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to
Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and
14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public
Law 101-612).
For purposes of the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund
as set forth in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, the
direct grants provided in subsection (c) shall be considered
direct payments for purposes of all applicable law except
that these direct grants may not be used for lobbying
activities.
No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be
detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this
Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more
than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency

[[Page 22384]]

or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the
period of assignment.
The Forest Service shall fund overhead, national
commitments, indirect expenses, and any other category for
use of funds which are expended at any units, that are not
directly related to the accomplishment of specific work on-
the-ground (referred to as ``indirect expenditures''), from
funds available to the Forest Service, unless otherwise
prohibited by law: Provided, That the Forest Service shall
implement and adhere to the definitions of indirect
expenditures established pursuant to Public Law 105-277 on a
nationwide basis without flexibility for modification by any
organizational level except the Washington Office, and when
changed by the Washington Office, such changes in definition
shall be reported in budget requests submitted by the Forest
Service: Provided further, That the Forest Service shall
provide in all future budget justifications, planned indirect
expenditures in accordance with the definitions, summarized
and displayed to the Regional, Station, Area, and detached
unit office level. The justification shall display the
estimated source and amount of indirect expenditures, by
expanded budget line item, of funds in the agency's annual
budget justification. The display shall include appropriated
funds and the Knutson-Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Cooperative
Work-Other, and Salvage Sale funds. Changes between estimated
and actual indirect expenditures shall be reported in
subsequent budget justifications: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2000 the Secretary shall limit total
annual indirect obligations from the Brush Disposal,
Cooperative Work-Other, Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation,
Salvage Sale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 percent of the
total obligations from each fund.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may
be used to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel (OGC),
Department of Agriculture, for travel and related expenses
incurred as a result of OGC assistance or participation
requested by the Forest Service at meetings, training
sessions, management reviews, land purchase negotiations and
similar non-litigation related matters: Provided, That no
more than $500,000 is transferred: Provided further, That
future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and
the Department of Agriculture clearly display the sums
previously transferred and request future funding levels.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law
enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural
resources and public or employee safety.
From any unobligated balances available at the start of
fiscal year 2000, the amount of $11,550,000 shall be
allocated to the Alaska Region, in addition to the funds
appropriated to sell timber in the Alaska Region under this
Act, for expenses directly related to preparing sufficient
additional timber for sale in the Alaska Region to establish
a three-year timber supply.
Of any funds available to Region 10 of the Forest Service,
exclusive of funds for timber sales management or road
reconstruction/construction, $7,000,000 shall be used in
fiscal year 2000 to support implementation of the recent
amendments to the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada which
require fisheries enhancements on the Tongass National
Forest.
The Forest Service is authorized through the Forest Service
existing budget to reimburse Harry Fray for the cost of his
home, $143,406 (1997 dollars) destroyed by arson on June 21,
1990 in retaliation for his work with the Forest Service.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

clean coal technology

(deferral)

Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $156,000,000 shall not be
available until October 1, 2000: Provided, That funds made
available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available
for any ongoing project regardless of the separate request
for proposal under which the project was selected.

fossil energy research and development

For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
performed under the minerals and materials science programs
at the Albany Research Center in Oregon, $390,975,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $24,000,000 shall
be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the
Biomass Energy Development account: Provided, That no part of
the sum herein made available shall be used for the field
testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.

alternative fuels production

(including transfer of funds)

Moneys received as investment income on the principal
amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank
of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1,
1999, shall be deposited in this account and immediately
transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. Moneys
received as revenue sharing from operation of the Great
Plains Gasification Plant and settlement payments shall be
immediately transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply
to fiscal year 2000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from
prior years shall be available for all naval petroleum and
oil shale reserve activities.

energy conservation

For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities, $684,817,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $1,600,000 shall be for grants to municipal
governments for cost-shared research projects in buildings,
municipal processes, transportation and sustainable urban
energy systems, and of which $25,000,000 shall be derived by
transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy
Development account: Provided, That $168,000,000 shall be for
use in energy conservation programs as defined in section
3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public
Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the eligible
programs as follows: $135,000,000 for weatherization
assistance grants and $33,000,000 for State energy
conservation grants.

economic regulation

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $2,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

strategic petroleum reserve

For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $159,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
Secretary of Energy hereafter may transfer to the SPR
Petroleum Account such funds as may be necessary to carry out
drawdown and sale operations of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve initiated under section 161 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241) from any funds available to
the Department of Energy under this or any other Act. All
funds transferred pursuant to this authority must be
replenished as promptly as possible from oil sale receipts
pursuant to the drawdown and sale.

energy information administration

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $70,500,000, to remain
available until expended.

administrative provisions, department of energy

Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar
days (not including any day in which either House of Congress
is not in session because of adjournment of more than three
calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the
Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or
private agencies or concerns.

[[Page 22385]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Indian Health Service

Indian Health Services

For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $2,138,001,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $384,442,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $17,000,000 shall be used to carry out the
loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided
in this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants
which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the
total obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds
are appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts
collected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under
the authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act shall remain available until expended for the
purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable
conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, design, or
construction of new facilities): Provided further, That
funding contained herein, and in any earlier appropriations
Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That
amounts received by tribes and tribal organizations under
title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be
reported and accounted for and available to the receiving
tribes and tribal organizations until expended: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the amounts provided herein, not to exceed $203,781,000 shall
be for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for
contract or grant support costs associated with contracts,
grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements
between the Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal
organization pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of
1975, as amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2000.

indian health facilities

For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $189,252,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.

administrative provisions, indian health service

Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian
patients may be extended health care at all tribally
administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to
charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under
the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653)
shall be credited to the account of the facility providing
the service and shall be available without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service
shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian
Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended:
Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian
Health Service in this Act, except those used for
administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be
subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel
and transportation: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, funds previously or herein made
available to a tribe or tribal organization through a
contract, grant, or agreement authorized by title I or title
III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and
reobligated to a self-determination contract under title I,
or a self-governance agreement under title III of such Act
and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or tribal
organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian
Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the
final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16,
1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services,
relating to the eligibility for the health care services of
the Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has
submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs
associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has
been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law:
Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are
to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as
appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the
appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided
further, That with respect to functions transferred by the
Indian Health Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the
Indian Health Service is authorized to provide goods and
services to those entities, on a reimbursable basis,
including payment in advance with subsequent adjustment, and
the reimbursements received therefrom, along with the funds
received from those entities pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination Act, may be credited to the same or subsequent
appropriation account which provided the funding, said
amounts to remain available until expended: Provided further,
That reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance: Provided further, That the
appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service may not
be altered without advance approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$8,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development

payment to the institute

For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$4,250,000.

Smithsonian Institution

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings,
facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5 replacement
passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of
uniforms for employees; $367,062,000, of which not to exceed
$40,704,000 for the instrumentation program, collections
acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and move,
exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the
American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains
program, research equipment, information management, and
Latino programming shall remain available until expended, and
including such funds as may be necessary to support American
overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the
Council of American Overseas Research

[[Page 22386]]

Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are
available for advance payments to independent contractors
performing research services or participating in official
Smithsonian presentations.

construction and improvements, national zoological park

For necessary expenses of planning, construction,
remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the
National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise,
$4,400,000, to remain available until expended.

repair and restoration of buildings

For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of
buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution,
by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the
Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to
exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$35,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection
systems, and exterior repair or restoration of buildings of
the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected
contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications as well as price.

construction

For necessary expenses for construction, $19,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current
space or new facility without consultation with the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
The Smithsonian Institution shall not use Federal funds in
excess of the amount specified in Public Law 101-185 for the
construction of the National Museum of the American Indian.

National Gallery of Art

salaries and expenses

For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $61,438,000,
of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.

repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $6,311,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

operations and maintenance

For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $14,000,000.

construction

For necessary expenses for capital repair and
rehabilitation of the existing features of the building and
site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,
$20,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,040,000.

National Foundation on the arts and the Humanities

National Endowment for the Arts

grants and administration

For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$90,000,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts through assistance to organizations and individuals
pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended.

matching grants

To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $13,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available for obligation
only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of
gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property
accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment
under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections
11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.

National Endowment for the Humanities

grants and administration

For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$101,000,000, shall be available to the National Endowment
for the Humanities for support of activities in the
humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.

matching grants

To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $14,700,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $10,700,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

office of museum services

grants and administration

For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library
Services Act of 1996, as amended, $23,905,000, to remain
available until expended.

administrative provisions

None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses.

Commission of Fine Arts

salaries and expenses

For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,078,000:
Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter,
the Commission is authorized to charge fees to cover the full
costs of its publications, and such fees shall be credited to
this account as an offsetting collection, to remain available
until expended without further appropriation.

national capital arts and cultural affairs

For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $2,906,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for
compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher
positions.

National Capital Planning Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,312,000:
Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate for level IV of the Executive
Schedule.

United States Holocaust Memorial Council

holocaust memorial council

For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as
authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended,
$33,286,000, of which $1,575,000 for the museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

Presidio Trust

presidio trust fund

For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $24,400,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended, of which up to $1,040,000 may be for the cost
of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 104(d) of the
Act: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed
$200,000,000. The Trust is authorized to issue obligations to
the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 104(d)(3)
of the Act, in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service

[[Page 22387]]

through procurement contract, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive Order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall
be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural
gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within
the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois:
Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or
otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to
minerals owned by private individuals.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such Committees.
Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 1999.
Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to
enter into or implement a concession contract which permits
or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program,
unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the
Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming
guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the
AmeriCorps program by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999, then none of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for the
AmeriCorps programs.
Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of
such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such
pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety
standards.
Sec. 312. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2000, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by
Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, and
105-277 for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for
contract support costs associated with self-determination or
self-governance contracts, grants, compacts, or annual
funding agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the
Indian Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total
amounts available for fiscal years 1994 through 1999 for such
purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority
allocations for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts,
grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding
agreements.
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 2000 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed
restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the
Woods'' component of the President's Forest Plan for the
Pacific Northwest or the Jobs in the Woods Program
established in Region 10 of the Forest Service to individuals
and entities in historically timber-dependent areas in the
States of Washington, Oregon, northern California and Alaska
that have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on
Federal lands.
Sec. 315. None of the funds collected under the
Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan,
design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent
structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate
Committees on Appropriations if the estimated total cost of
the facility exceeds $500,000.
Sec. 316. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
or any other Act providing appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, the Forest Service or the Smithsonian
Institution may be used to submit nominations for the
designation of Biosphere Reserves pursuant to the Man and
Biosphere program administered by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
(b) The provisions of this section shall be repealed upon
enactment of subsequent legislation specifically authorizing
United States participation in the Man and Biosphere program.
Sec. 317. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to
post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National
Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional
area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if
such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
Sec. 318. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts--
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments
made in exchange for goods and services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 319. The National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to
solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the
United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other
property or services and to use such in furtherance of the
functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such
gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National
Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the
Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative
of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the
proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit
of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in
each case.

[[Page 22388]]

Sec. 320. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to fund new revisions of
national forest land management plans until new final or
interim final rules for forest land management planning are
published in the Federal Register. Those national forests
which are currently in a revision process, having formally
published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1,
1997; those national forests having been court-ordered to
revise; those national forests where plans reach the fifteen
year legally mandated date to revise before or during
calendar year 2000; national forests within the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem study area; and the White Mountain
National Forest are exempt from this section and may use
funds in this Act and proceed to complete the forest plan
revision in accordance with current forest planning
regulations.
Sec. 321. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the
five-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act.
Sec. 322. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals who have historically been outside the purview
of arts and humanities programs due to factors such as a high
incidence of income below the poverty line or to geographic
isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
planning, design or construction of improvements to
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the
advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 324. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds provided in this Act to the Indian Health
Service or Bureau of Indian Affairs may be used to enter into
any new or expanded self-determination contract or grant or
self-governance compact pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975, as amended, for any activities not
previously covered by such contracts, compacts or grants.
Nothing in this section precludes the continuation of those
specific activities for which self-determination and self-
governance contracts, compacts and grants currently exist or
the renewal of contracts, compacts and grants for those
activities; implementation of section 325 of Public Law 105-
83 (111 Stat. 1597); or compliance with 25 U.S.C. 2005.
Sec. 325. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 1999 in the
roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth
paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of
March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by
the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in
which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or
to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health
conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in
the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally
high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing
risks to human safety and public health and property and
enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest
productivity, and biological integrity. The Secretary shall
commence the projects during fiscal year 2000, but the
projects may be completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds
shall not be expended under this section to replace funds
which would otherwise appropriately be expended from the
timber salvage sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to exempt any project from any environmental law.
Sec. 326. Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied
Research. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter the
``Secretary'') is hereby and hereafter authorized to conduct
technology transfer and development, training, dissemination
of information and applied research in the management,
processing and utilization of the hardwood forest resource.
This authority is in addition to any other authorities which
may be available to the Secretary including, but not limited
to, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 2101 et. seq.), and the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1978, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1600-1614).
(b) In carrying out this authority, the Secretary may enter
into grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with
public and private agencies, organizations, corporations,
institutions and individuals. The Secretary may accept gifts
and donations pursuant to the Act of October 10, 1978 (7
U.S.C. 2269) including gifts and donations from a donor that
conducts business with any agency of the Department of
Agriculture or is regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(c) The Secretary is hereby and hereafter authorized to
operate and utilize the assets of the Wood Education and
Resource Center (previously named the Robert C. Byrd Hardwood
Technology Center in West Virginia) as part of a newly formed
``Institute of Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied
Research'' (hereinafter the ``Institute''). The Institute, in
addition to the Wood Education and Resource Center, will
consist of a Director, technology transfer specialists from
State and Private Forestry, the Forestry Sciences Laboratory
in Princeton, West Virginia, and any other organizational
unit of the Department of Agriculture as the Secretary deems
appropriate. The overall management of the Institute will be
the responsibility of the USDA Forest Service, State and
Private Forestry.
(d) The Secretary is hereby and hereafter authorized to
generate revenue using the authorities provided herein. Any
revenue received as part of the operation of the Institute
shall be deposited into a special fund in the Treasury of the
United States, known as the ``Hardwood Technology Transfer
and Applied Research Fund'', which shall be available to the
Secretary until expended, without further appropriation, in
furtherance of the purposes of this section, including
upkeep, management, and operation of the Institute and the
payment of salaries and expenses.
(e) There are hereby and hereafter authorized to be
appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section.
Sec. 327. No timber in Region 10 of the Forest Service
shall be advertised for sale which, when using domestic
Alaska western red cedar selling values and manufacturing
costs, fails to provide at least 60 percent of normal profit
and risk of the appraised timber, except at the written
request by a prospective bidder. Program accomplishments
shall be based on volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in
fiscal year 2000, the annual average portion of the decadal
allowable sale quantity called for in the current Tongass
Land Management Plan which provides greater than 60 percent
of normal profit and risk at the time of the sale
advertisement, all of the western red cedar timber from those
sales which is surplus to the needs of domestic processors in
Alaska, shall be made available to domestic processors in the
contiguous 48 United States based on values in the Pacific
Northwest as determined by the Forest Service and stated in
the timber sale contract. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal
year 2000, less than the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan meeting the 60 percent of normal
profit and risk standard at the time of sale advertisement,
the volume of western red cedar timber available to domestic
processors at rates specified in the timber sale contract in
the contiguous 48 states shall be that volume: (i) which is
surplus to the needs of domestic processors in Alaska; and
(ii) is that percent of the surplus western red cedar volume
determined by calculating the ratio of the total timber
volume which has been sold on the Tongass to the annual
average portion of the decadal allowable sale quantity called
for in the current Tongass Land Management Plan. The
percentage shall be calculated by Region 10 on a rolling
basis as each sale is sold. (For purposes of this amendment,
a ``rolling basis'' shall mean that the determination of how
much western red cedar is eligible for sale to various
markets shall be made at the time each sale is awarded.)
Western red cedar shall be deemed ``surplus to the needs of
domestic processors in Alaska'' when the timber sale holder
has presented to the Forest Service documentation of the
inability to sell western red cedar logs from a given sale to
domestic Alaska processors at a price equal to or greater
than the log selling value stated in the contract. All
additional western red cedar volume not sold to Alaska or
contiguous 48 United States domestic processors may be
exported to foreign markets at the election of the timber
sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar may be sold at
prevailing export prices at the election of the timber sale
holder.
Sec. 328. For fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of
Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest
System, and the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to
lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management, shall use the best available scientific and
commercial data in amending or revising resource management
plans for, and offering sales, issuing leases, or otherwise
authorizing or undertaking management activities on, lands
under their respective jurisdictions: Provided,

[[Page 22389]]

That the Secretaries may at their discretion determine
whether any additional information concerning wildlife
resources shall be collected prior to approving any such
plan, sale, lease or other activity, and, if so, the type of,
and collection procedures for, such information.
Sec. 329. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior shall:
(a) prepare the report required of them by section 323(a)
of the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-83; 111 Stat. 1543, 1596-
7);
(b) make the report available for public comment for a
period of not less than 120 days; and
(c) include the information contained in the report and a
detailed response or responses to any such public comment in
any final environmental impact statement associated with the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project.
Sec. 330. Section 7 of the Service Contract Act (SCA), 41
U.S.C. section 356 is amended by adding the following
paragraph:
``(8) any concession contract with Federal land management
agencies, the principal purpose of which is the provision of
recreational services to the general public, including
lodging, campgrounds, food, stores, guiding, recreational
equipment, fuel, transportation, and skiing, provided that
this exemption shall not affect the applicability of the
Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. section 276a et seq., to
construction contracts associated with these concession
contracts.''.
Sec. 331. Timber and Special Forest Products. (a)
Definition of Special Forest Product.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``special forest product'' means any
vegetation or other life forms, such as mushrooms and fungi
that grows on National Forest System lands, excluding trees,
animals, insects, or fish except as provided in regulations
issued under this section by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(b) Fair Market Value for Special Forest Products.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall develop and implement a pilot
program to charge and collect not less than the fair market
value for special forest products harvested on National
Forest System lands. The authority for this pilot program
shall be for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish appraisal methods and bidding
procedures to ensure that the amounts collected for special
forest products are not less than fair market value.
(c) Fees.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall charge
and collect from persons who harvest special forest products
all costs to the Department of Agriculture associated with
the granting, modifying, or monitoring the authorization for
harvest of the special forest products, including the costs
of any environmental or other analysis.
(2) Security.--The Secretary of Agriculture may require a
person that is assessed a fee under this subsection to
provide security to ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture
receives fees authorized under this subsection from such
person.
(d) Waiver.--The Secretary of Agriculture may waive the
application of subsection (b) or subsection (c) pursuant to
such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe.
(e) Collection and Use of Funds.--
(1) Funds collected in accordance with subsection (b) and
subsection (c) shall be deposited into a special account in
the Treasury of the United States.
(2) Funds deposited into the special account in the
Treasury in accordance with this section in excess of the
amounts collected for special forest products during fiscal
year 1999 shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary
of Agriculture on October 1, 2000 without further
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended to
pay for--
(A) in the case of funds collected pursuant to subsection
(b), the costs of conducting inventories of special forest
products, monitoring and assessing the impacts of harvest
levels and methods, and for restoration activities, including
any necessary vegetation; and
(B) in the case of fees collected pursuant to subsection
(c), the costs for which the fees were collected.
(3) Amounts collected in accordance with subsection (b) and
subsection (c) shall not be taken into account for the
purposes of the sixth paragraph under the heading of ``Forest
Service'' of the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 500);
section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 500);
the Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 501); the Act of
July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1012); the Acts of August 8,
1937 and of May 24, 1939 (43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1181 et.
seq.); the Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. Sec. 869-4);
chapter 69 of title 31 United States Code; section 401 of the
Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715s); the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
6a); and any other provision of law relating to revenue
allocation.
Sec. 332. Title III, section 3001 of Public Law 106-31 is
amended by inserting after the word ``Alabama,'' the
following phrase ``in fiscal year 1999 or 2000''.
Sec. 333. The authority to enter into stewardship and end
result contracts provided to the Forest Service in accordance
with Section 347 of Title III of Section 101(e) of Division A
of Public Law 105-825 is hereby expanded to authorize the
Forest Service to enter into an additional 9 contracts in
Region One.
Sec. 334. Local Exemptions From Forest Service
Demonstration Program Fees. Section 6906 of Title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Necessary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Local Exemptions From Demonstration Program Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Each unit of general local government
that lies in whole or in part within the White Mountain
National Forest and persons residing within the boundaries of
that unit of general local government shall be exempt during
that fiscal year from any requirement to pay a Demonstration
Program Fee (parking permit or passport) imposed by the
Secretary of Agriculture for access to the Forest.
``(2) Administration.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a method of identifying persons who are exempt from
paying user fees under paragraph (1). This method may include
valid form of identification including a drivers license.''.
Sec. 335. Millsites Opinion. Prohibition on Millsite
Limitations.--Notwithstanding the opinion dated November 7,
1997, by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior
concerning millsites under the general mining law (referred
to in this section as the ``opinion''), in accordance with
the millsite provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's
Manual Sec. 3864.1.B (dated 1991), the Bureau of Land
Management Handbook for Mineral Examiners H-3890-1, page III-
8 (dated 1989), and section 2811.33 of the Forest Service
Manual (dated 1990), the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture shall not limit the number or
acreage of millsites based on the ratio between the number or
acreage of millsites and the number or acreage of associated
lode or placer claims for any fiscal year.
Sec. 336. Notwithstanding section 343 of Public Law 105-83,
increases in recreation residence fees may be implemented in
fiscal year 2000: Provided, That such an increase would not
result in a fee that exceeds 125 percent of the fiscal year
1998 fee.
Sec. 337. No federal monies appropriated for the purchase
of land by the Forest Service in the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area (``CRGNSA'') may be used unless the
Forest Service complies with the acquisition protocol set out
in this section:
(a) Purchase Option Requirement.--Upon the Forest Service
making a determination that the agency intends to pursue
purchase of land or an interest in land located within the
boundaries of the CRGNSA, the Forest Service and the owner of
the land or interest in land to be purchased shall enter into
a written purchase option agreement in which the landowner
agrees to retain ownership of the interest in land to be
acquired for a period not to exceed one year. In return, the
Forest Service shall agree to abide by the bargaining and
arbitration process set out in this section.
(b) Opt Out.--After the Forest Service and landowner have
entered into the purchase option agreement, the landowner may
at any time prior to federal acquisition voluntarily opt out
of the purchase option agreement.
(c) Selection of Appraisers.--Once the landowner and Forest
Service both have executed the required purchase option, the
landowner and Forest Service each shall select an appraiser
to appraise the land or interest in land described in the
purchase option. The landowner and Forest Service both shall
instruct their appraiser to estimate the fair market value of
the land or interest in land to be acquired. The landowner
and Forest Service both shall instruct their appraiser to
comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 1992)
and Public Law 91-646 as amended. Both appraisers shall
possess qualifications consistent with state regulatory
requirements that meet the intent of Title XI, Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
(d) Period to Complete Appraisals.--The landowner and
Forest Service each shall be allowed a period of 180 days to
provide to the other an appraisal of the land or interest in
land described in the purchase option. This 180-day period
shall commence upon execution of a purchase option by the
landowner and the Forest Service.
(e) Bargaining Period.--Once the landowner and Forest
Service each have provided to the other a completed
appraisal, a 45-day period of good faith bargaining and
negotiation shall commence. If the landowner and Forest
Service cannot agree within this period on the proper
purchase price to be paid by the United States for the land
or interest in land described in the purchase option, the
landowner may request arbitration under subsection (f) of
this section.
(f) Arbitration Process.--If a landowner and the Forest
Service are unable to reach a negotiated settlement on value
within the 45-day period of good faith bargaining and
negotiation, during the 10 days following this period of good
faith bargaining and negotiation the landowner may request
arbitration. The process for arbitration shall commence with
each party submitting its appraisal and a copy of this
legislation, and only its appraisal and a copy of this
legislation, to the arbitration panel within 10 days
following the receipt by the Forest Service of the request
for arbitration. The arbitration panel shall render a written
advisory decision on value within 45 days of receipt of both
appraisals. This advisory decision shall be forwarded to the
Secretary of Agriculture by the arbitration panel with a
recommendation to the Secretary that if the land or interest
in land at issue is to be purchased that the United States
pay a sum certain for the land or interest in land. This sum
certain shall fall within the value range established by the
two appraisals. Costs of employing

[[Page 22390]]

the arbitration panel shall be divided equally between the
Forest Service and the landowner, unless the arbitration
panel recommends either the landowner or the Forest Service
bear the entire cost of employing the arbitration panel. The
arbitration panel shall not make such a recommendation unless
the panel finds that one of the appraisals submitted fails to
conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standard for Federal Land
Acquisition (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 1992).
In no event, shall the cost of employing the arbitration
panel exceed $10,000.
(g) Arbitration Panel.--The arbitration panel shall consist
of one appraiser and two lawyers who have substantial
experience working with the purchase of land and interests in
land by the United States. The Secretary is directed to ask
the Federal Center for Dispute Resolution at the American
Arbitration Association to develop lists of no less than ten
appraisers and twenty lawyers who possess substantial
experience working with federal land purchases to serve as
third-party neutrals in the event arbitration is requested by
a landowner. Selection of the arbitration panel shall be made
by mutual agreement of the Forest Service and landowner. If
mutual agreement cannot be reached on one or more panel
members, selection of the remaining panel members shall be by
blind draw once each party has been allowed the opportunity
to strike up to 25 percent of the third-party neutrals named
on either list. Of the funds available to the Forest Service,
up to $15,000 shall be available to the Federal Center for
Dispute Resolution to cover the initial cost of establishing
this program. Once established, costs of administering the
program shall be borne by the Forest Service, but shall not
exceed $5,000 a year.
(h) Qualifications of Third-Party Neutrals.--Each appraiser
selected by the Federal Dispute Resolution Center, in
addition to possessing substantial experience working with
federal land purchases, shall possess qualifications
consistent with state regulatory requirements that meet the
intent of Title XI, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery &
Enforcement Act of 1989. Each lawyer selected by the Federal
Dispute Resolution Center, in addition to possessing
substantial experience working with federal land purchases,
shall be an active member in good standing of the bar of one
of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.
(i) Decision Required by the Secretary of Agriculture.--
Upon receipt of a recommendation by an arbitration panel
appointed under subsection (g), the Secretary of Agriculture
shall notify the landowner and the CRGNSA of the day the
recommendation was received. The Secretary shall make a
determination to adopt or reject the arbitration panel's
advisory decision and notify the landowner and the CRGNSA of
this determination within 45 days of receipt of the advisory
decision.
(j) Admissability.--Neither the fact that arbitration
pursuant to this act has occurred nor the recommendation of
the arbitration panel shall be admissible in any court or
administrative proceeding.
(k) Expiration Date.--This act shall expire on October 1,
2002.
Sec. 338. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under
the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by
Section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended,
shall not result in--
(1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to
provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands.
Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult
with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts
the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the
authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions
of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency.
(2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the
Secretary for operation when such services have been provided
in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
(A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such
opportunities,
(B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship
with the agency, or,
(C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with
the terms and conditions of the authorization.

In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a
subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a
new prospectus.
Sec. 339. National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities
Economic Diversification. (a) Findings and Purposes.--Section
2373 of the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities
Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6611) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``national forests'' and
inserting ``National Forest System land'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``the national forests''
and inserting ``National Forest System land'';
(C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``forest resources'' and
inserting ``natural resources''; and
(D) in paragraph (6), by striking ``national forest
resources'' and inserting ``National Forest System land
resources''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``national forests'' and inserting
``National Forest System land''; and
(B) by striking ``forest resources'' and inserting
``natural resources''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 2374(1) of the National Forest-
Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of
1990 (7 U.S.C. 6612(1)) is amended by striking ``forestry''
and inserting ``natural resources''.
(c) Rural Forestry and Economic Diversification Action
Teams.--Section 2375(b) of the National Forest-Dependent
Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 6613(b)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``forestry'' and
inserting ``natural resources''; and
(2) in the second and third sentences, by striking
``national forest resources'' and inserting ``National Forest
System land resources''.
(d) Action Plan Implementation.--Section 2376(a) of the
National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic
Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6614(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``forest resources'' and inserting
``natural resources''; and
(2) by striking ``national forest resources'' and inserting
``National Forest System land resources''.
(e) Training and Education.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 2377(a) of the National Forest-Dependent Rural
Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
6615(a)) are amended by striking ``national forest
resources'' and inserting ``National Forest System land
resources''.
(f) Loans to Economically Disadvantaged Rural
Communities.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2378(a) of
the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic
Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6616(a)) are amended by
striking ``national forest resources'' and inserting
``National Forest System land resources''.
Sec. 340. Interstate 90 Land Exchange. (a) Section 604(a)
of the Interstate 90 Land Exchange Act of 1998 (105 Pub. L.
277; 12 Stat. 2681-326 (1998)) is hereby amended by adding at
the end of the first sentence: ``except title to offered
lands and interests in lands described in section 605(c)(2)
(Q), (R), (S), and (T) must be placed in escrow by Plum
Creek, according to terms and conditions acceptable to the
Secretary and Plum Creek, for a three-year period beginning
on the later of the date of enactment of this Act or
consummation of the exchange. During the period the lands are
held in escrow, Plum Creek shall not undertake any activities
on these lands, except for fire suppression and road
maintenance, without the approval of the Secretary, which
shall not be unreasonably withheld''.
(b) Section 604(b) of the Interstate 90 Land Exchange Act
of 1998 (105 Pub. L. 277; 12 Stat. 2681-326 (1998)) is hereby
amended by inserting after the words ``offered land'' the
following: ``as provided in section 604(a), and placement in
escrow of acceptable title to the offered lands described in
section 605(c)(2) (Q), (R), (S), and (T)''.
(c) Section 604(b) is further amended by adding the
following at the end of the first sentence: ``except Township
19 North, Range 10 East, W.M., Section 4, Township 20 North,
Range 10 East, W.M., Section 32, and Township 21 North, Range
14 East, W.M., W\1/2\W\1/2\ of Section 16, which shall be
retained by the United States''. The appraisal approved by
the Secretary of Agriculture on July 14, 1999 (the
``Appraisal'') shall be adjusted by subtracting the values
determined for Township 19 North, Range 10 East, W.M.,
Section 4 and Township 20 North, Range 10 East, W.M., Section
32 during the Appraisal process in the context of the whole
estate to be conveyed.
(d) After adjustment of the Appraisal, the values of the
offered and selected lands, including the offered lands held
in escrow, shall be equalized as provided in section 605(c)
except that the Secretary also may equalize values through
the following, including any combination thereof--
(1) conveyance of any other lands under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary acceptable to Plum Creek and the Secretary
after compliance with all applicable Federal environmental
and other laws; and
(2) to the extent sufficient acceptable lands are not
available pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, cash
payments as and to the extent funds become available through
appropriations, private sources, or, if necessary, by
reprogramming.
(e) The Secretary shall promptly seek to identify lands
acceptable for conveyance to equalize values under paragraph
(1) of subsection (d) and shall, not later than May 1, 2000,
provide a report to Congress outlining the results of such
efforts.
(f) As funds or lands are provided to Plum Creek by the
Secretary, Plum Creek shall release to the United States
deeds for lands and interests in land held in escrow based on
the values determined during the Appraisal process in the
context of the whole estate to be conveyed. Deeds shall be
released for lands and interests in lands in the exact
reverse order listed in section 605(c)(2).
(g) Section 606(d) is hereby amended to read as follows:
``the Secretary and Plum Creek shall make the adjustments
directed in section 604(b) and consummate the land exchange
within 30 days of enactment of the Interstate 90 Land
Exchange Amendment, unless the Secretary and Plum Creek
mutually agree to extend the consummation date''.
Sec. 341. The Snoqualmie National Forest Boundary
Adjustment Act of 1999. (a) In General.--The boundary of the
Snoqualmie National Forest is hereby adjusted as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Snoqualmie National Forest 1999
Boundary Adjustment'' dated June 30, 1999. Such map, together
with a legal description of all lands included in the
boundary adjustment, shall be on file and available

[[Page 22391]]

for public inspection in the office of the Chief of the
Forest Service in Washington, District of Columbia. Nothing
in this subsection shall limit the authority of the Secretary
of Agriculture to adjust the boundary pursuant to section 11
of the Weeks Law of March 1, 1911.
(b) Rule for Land and Water Conservation Fund.--For the
purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundary of the
Snoqualmie National Forest, as adjusted by subsection (a),
shall be considered to be the boundary of the Forest as of
January 1, 1965.
Sec. 342. Section 1770(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985
(7 U.S.C. 2276(d)) is amended by redesignating paragraph (10)
as paragraph (11) and by inserting after paragraph (9) the
following new paragraph:
``(10) section 3(e) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1642(e));''.
Sec. 343. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to implement or enforce any
provision in Presidential Executive Order 13123 regarding the
Federal Energy Management Program which circumvents or
contradicts any statutes relevant to Federal energy use and
the measurement thereof, including, but not limited to, the
existing statutory mandate that life-cycle cost effective
measures be undertaken at Federal facilities to save energy
and reduce the operational expenditures of the Government.
Sec. 344. The Forest Service shall use appropriations or
other funds available to the Service to--
(1) improve the control or eradication of the pine beetles
in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States; and
(2)(A) conduct a study of the causes and effects of, and
solutions for, the infestation of pine beetles in the Rocky
Mountain region of the United States; and
(B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study, within 6 months of the date of enactment of this
provision.
Sec. 345. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the physical relocation of grizzly bears into the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Idaho and Montana.
Sec. 346. Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. None of the
funds made available under this Act may be used to--
(1) develop a resource management plan for the Shawnee
National Forest, Illinois; or
(2) make a sale of timber for commodity purposes produced
on land in the Shawnee National Forest from which the
expected cost of making the timber available for sale is
greater than the expected revenue to the United States from
the sale.
Sec. 347. Youth Conservation Corps and Related
Partnerships. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, there shall be available for high priority projects
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as
authorized by Public Law 91-378, or related partnerships with
non-Federal youth conservation corps or entities such as the
Student Conservation Association, $1,000,000 of the funds
available to the Bureau of Land Management under this Act, in
order to increase the number of summer jobs available for
youth, ages 15 through 22, on Federal lands.
(b) Within six months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior shall jointly submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives that includes
the following--
(1) the number of youth, ages 15 through 22, employed
during the summer of 1999, and the number estimated to be
employed during the summer of 2000, through the Youth
Conservation Corps, the Public Land Corps, or a related
partnership with a State, local or nonprofit youth
conservation corps or other entities such as the Student
Conservation Association;
(2) a description of the different types of work
accomplished by youth during the summer of 1999;
(3) identification of any problems that prevent or limit
the use of the Youth Conservation Corps, the Public Land
Corps, or related partnerships to accomplish projects
described in subsection (a);
(4) recommendations to improve the use and effectiveness of
partnerships described in subsection (a); and
(5) an analysis of the maintenance backlog that identifies
the types of projects that the Youth Conservation Corps, the
Public Land Corps, or related partnerships are qualified to
complete.
Sec. 348. Each amount of budget authority for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2000, provided in this Act for
payments not required by law, is hereby reduced by 0.34
percent: Provided, That such reductions shall be applied
ratably to each account, program, activity, and project
provided for in this Act.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000''.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized
to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Sessions) appointed Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Burns, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Feinstein conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the talents of my Staff Director, Bruce
Evans, are exceeded only by his patience.
This bill has been on and off the floor for the better part of two
months at this point and has now been passed by a fairly near unanimous
vote as against the situation a year ago when we were barely able to
begin debate on it.
Mr. Evans has led the staff of both parties with great skill and
dedication and has kept me out of many troubles I might otherwise have
had. Perhaps the best tribute to that is the fact that no changes were
made in this bill in this 2-month period as a result of contested votes
on the floor of the Senate. Many were made as a result of reasonable
requests on the part of many of our Members.
I thank my ranking minority member, the distinguished senior Senator
from West Virginia, whose help and cooperation from the beginning of my
chairmanship of this subcommittee has been unfailing and of immense
effect.
Mr. President, I would once again like to thank both my staff and
Senator Byrd's staff for all the hard work they have done on this bill.
The Minority Clerk, Kurt Dodd, has been a pleasure to work with in his
first full year with the Committee. He has proven to be a valuable
resource for my staff through both his knowledge of the programs in
this bill and his advocacy on behalf of members on the other side of
the aisle. Kurt has been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the
minority staff, and by Liz Gelfer, whom we have enjoyed having on
detail from the Department of Energy.
My own subcommittee staff has also had benefit of an agency detailee
this year. Sean Marsan has been with us courtesy of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and has done a wonderful job on a number of special
projects. He has also performed well the laborious task of logging the
thousands of member requests that the Subcommittee receives from
members of this body. For those of my colleagues who have particular
programs or projects funded in this bill--and I think I can safely say
that includes each one of you--you owe Sean a debt of gratitude for
keeping your ample requests in some sort of manageable order.
I also want to thank the subcommittee professional staff for all of
their good work. Ginny James continues to do a great job with the many
cultural agencies funded in this bill, as well as with the Indian
Health Service and U.S. Geological Survey accounts. I am pleased that
we were able this year to provide modest increases for both the NEA and
NEH, and hope that the two endowments appreciate the role Ginny has
played in making this possible. It is not an easy thing to shepherd and
provide counsel to the enthusiastic, but sometimes over-eager, arts
community.
Anne McInerney of the subcommittee staff has been responsible for the
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs accounts, and
this year took on the added responsibility of managing the land
acquisition accounts for the four land management agencies. Members of
this body continue to put individual land acquisition projects toward
the top of their priority lists, making it quite a challenge to balance
those priorities against the core operating needs of the agencies
funded in this bill. Anne has done a marvelous job in this regard, as
well as in helping me address the many management challenges faced by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee.
Leif Fonnesbeck is in his first full year with the Committee staff.
He has in effect been thrown in the deep end

[[Page 22392]]

by being assigned the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
accounts, where he probably will spend as much time on policy issues as
on more traditional appropriations matters. Of the half dozen or so
amendments that have been debated and voted upon during consideration
of this bill, I think all but one have been related to Leif's area of
responsibility. He has acquitted himself very well, and has proven to
be a quick study. We are glad to have him with us.
Joe Norrell is also new to our subcommittee this year. Joe performs
duties for both the Interior subcommittee and the VA/HUD subcommittee
chaired by Senator Bond, and as such is frequently pulled in two
different directions by two different masters. He has handled this
difficult challenge with commitment and good humor, and has been a
great help to both subcommittees.
Finally, I would also like to thank Kari Vander Stoep of my personal
staff for her work on the issues in this bill that are of particular
importance to the people of Washington state. Kari has done a wonderful
job in this regard since her predecessor, Chuck Berwick, departed for
business school.
Each of these individuals has already spent many late nights working
on this bill, and will likely spend many more such nights over the
coming weeks as we move to conference with the House. I want to express
my own gratitude for their good work, and also convey the appreciation
of the Ranking Member, Senator Byrd, and that of the Senate as a whole.

____________________

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2684

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following
amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the HUD-VA
appropriations bill and they be subject to relevant second-degree
amendments. I further ask consent that Senator Wellstone be recognized
this evening to offer his amendment. I thank him for being willing to
stay here to offer his amendment. We need more Senators willing to stay
to get the job done. He will offer a sense of the Senate on atomic
veterans. That amendment will be debated tonight. I further ask consent
no amendment be in order to the Wellstone amendment prior to the vote,
and I ask consent that the vote occur at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, with 2
minutes for debate for closing remarks prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. As a result of this agreement, there will be no further
votes this evening. The first vote tomorrow will be at approximately
9:35 a.m. It is anticipated further votes will occur tomorrow in an
effort to conclude HUD-VA. I talked with Senator Daschle. We should and
we will finish the HUD-VA appropriations bill tomorrow. We have good
managers on this bill. They will push it forward.
The only amendments that we had on the list are the atomic veterans
sense of the Senate by Senator Wellstone, sense of the Senate regarding
education by Senator Daschle, an amendment by Senator Kerry regarding
section 8 housing, another amendment by Senator Kerry regarding housing
aids, one regarding NASA by Senator Robb, one by Senator Torricelli
regarding aircraft noise, a managers' package by Senator Bond, one by
Senators Bennett and Dodd regarding Y2K, and relevants by Senators Bond
and Mikulski.

____________________

RULE XXII

Mr. LOTT. One final thing, and then the managers can go forward. It
is my understanding some of the debate today was not germane to the
issue on oil royalties, the issue on which 60 Members voted to invoke
cloture earlier today.
Rule XXII clearly states all debate must be germane. Senators Thomas
and Senator Hutchison of Texas raised a point of order to guide the
debate back to the pending oil royalties subject. The Chair on first
blush ruled the debate does not have to be germane.
To better clarify the position of the chairman, I now make a
parliamentary inquiry. Is there a requirement under rule XXII that all
debate postcloture must be germane to the issue on which cloture was
invoked?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. All debate postcloture
must be germane to the issue on which cloture was invoked.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if a Senator speaks on a subject that is
nongermane to the pending issue, is it in order for any Member to raise
a point of order against the debate in question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order for any Member to raise a point
of order relative to the debate. When such a point of order is raised,
the Chair will decide if the debate in question is germane or
nongermane. If the debate is determined to be germane, the debate in
question will resume. If the debate is determined to be nongermane, the
Senator will be warned to keep his remarks germane to the pending
question. If the Senator continues to speak on a nongermane basis and
any Senator raises a point of order against the debate content, the
Chair would restate the rule on which the violation is occurring and
the Senator in question would immediately lose the floor.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair for that clarification. I therefore
withdraw a pending appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal is withdrawn.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just want to make one clarification
concerning the colloquy between the majority leader and the Chair. I
have no disagreement with the statements of the Chair concerning the
Senate rule on germaneness during the post-cloture debate. However, the
majority leader prefaced his inquiry with the statement that it was his
understanding that some debate on the oil royalties amendment was not
germane. I want to make clear that there was never a ruling that any
particular statement made during the debate by any Senator was not
germane. I am confident that my remarks during this debate were germane
to the issue at hand and I do not interpret the Chair's statement in
this colloquy to have suggested or ruled otherwise.

____________________

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Resumed

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

A bill (H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask the majority leader, was that a
unanimous consent order that the only amendments in order are the ones
that were read off?
Mr. LOTT. That is correct. It did say, of course, relevant second-
degree amendments would be in order. I believe we only have a half
dozen or so amendments we have to consider. I hope most of them can be
handled without recorded votes. It does appear there would be a
necessity for as many as two recorded votes, maybe three, tomorrow. If
the Senators cooperate, I think we can be through with this bill and
all amendments before noon tomorrow.
Mr. BOND. I thank the majority leader.

Amendment No. 1789

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that lung cancer, colon
cancer, and brain and central nervous system cancer should be presumed
to be service-connected disabilities as radiogenic diseases)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 1789.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.

[[Page 22393]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 17, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. 108. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) One of the most outrageous examples of the failure of
the Federal Government to honor its obligations to veterans
involves the so-called ``atomic veterans'', patriotic
Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and at nuclear test sites.
(2) For more than 50 years, many atomic veterans have been
denied veterans compensation for diseases, known as
radiogenic diseases, that the Department of Veterans Affairs
recognizes as being linked to exposure to radiation. Many of
these diseases are lethal forms of cancer.
(3) The Department of Veterans Affairs almost invariably
denies the claims for compensation of atomic veterans on the
grounds that the radiation doses received by such veterans
were too low to result in radiogenic disease, even though
many scientists and former Under Secretary for Health Kenneth
Kizer agree that the dose reconstruction analyses conducted
by the Department of Defense are unreliable.
(4) Although the Department of Veterans Affairs already has
a list of radiogenic diseases that are presumed to be
service-connected, the Department omits three diseases--lung
cancer, colon cancer, and central nervous system cancer--from
that list, notwithstanding the agreement of scientists that
the evidence of a link between the three diseases and low-
level exposure to radiation is very convincing and, in many
cases, is stronger than the evidence of a link between such
exposure and other radiogenic diseases currently on that
list.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
lung cancer, colon cancer, and brain and central nervous
system cancer should be added to the list of radiogenic
diseases that are presumed by the Department of Veterans
Affairs to be service-connected disabilities.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment that speaks to the frustrating and infuriating
obstacles that have too often kept veterans who were exposed to
radiation during military service from getting the disability
compensation they deserve. This amendment would put the senate on
record as being in favor of adding three radiogenic conditions to the
list of presumptively service-connected diseases for which atomic
veterans may receive VA compensation, specifically: lung cancer, colon
cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system. It is based
on a bill I introduced during the last Congress S. 1385, the Justice
for Atomic Veterans Act.
But before I speak on the merits of this amendment, I'd like to talk
about the frustrating and infuriating obstacles that have beset this
amendment in the Senate. I offered an amendment to make the needed
change in the law on S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors;', Airmen's, and
Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. It was accepted and adopted by the
Senate by voice vote. When it became clear that S. 4 was dead on
arrival in the house, I offered this amendment to the Defense
Department authorization bill. Again, the amendment was accepted, but
it was stripped out in conference. I mention the history of this
amendment to my colleagues in the belief that what was acceptable to
the Senate three months ago will be acceptable today. But to put my
colleagues on notice that this time I am going to insist on a roll call
vote and to make it clear that I will be back to offer the actual
amendment as many times as I have to so that justice can be done by the
atomic veteran.
I believe that the way we treat our veterans does send an important
message to young people considering service in the military. When
veterans of the Persian Gulf war don't get the kind of treatment they
deserve, when the VA health care budget loses out year after year to
other budget priorities, when veterans benefits claims take years and
years to resolve, what is the message we are sending to future
recruits?
How can we attract and retain young people in the service when our
government fails to honor its obligation to provide just compensation
and health care for those injured during service?
One of the most outrageous examples of our government's failure to
honor its obligations to veterans involves ``atomic veterans,''
patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests.
For more than 50 years, many of them have been denied compensation
for diseases that the VA recognizes as being linked to their exposure
to radiation--diseases known as radiogenic diseases. Many of these
diseases are lethal forms of cancers. I'm sure many of my colleagues
have seen the recent headlines about the exposure of workers at the
nuclear plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The story of the atomic veteran is
very much the same.
I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans
from some first-rate mentors, the members of the Forgotten 216th. The
Forgotten 216th was the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S.
Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper. Operation
Tumbler Snapper was a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests
in the Nevada desert in 1952.
About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. What I've
learned from them, from other atomic veterans, and from their survivors
has shaped my views on this issue.
Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary
of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted
radiation experiments on its own citizens. For the first time in
public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests and the
tragedies and trauma that they, their families, and their former
buddies had experienced since then.
Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic
veterans nationwide, I'd like to tell my colleagues a little more about
the Forgotten 216th. When you hear their story, I think you have to
agree that the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them must never
be forgotten again.
Members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground
zero immediately after a nuclear blast. They were exposed to so much
radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they
inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or
no protection. They frequently had no film badges to measure radiation
exposure. They were given no information on the perils they faced.
Then they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear
tests. They were often denied access to their own service medical
records. And they were provided no medical follow-up.
For decades, atomic veterans have been America's most neglected
veterans. They have been deceived and treated shabbily by the
government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly.
If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to
these deserving veterans, how can young people interested in the
military service have any confidence that their government will do any
better by them?
Mr. President, I believe the neglect of atomic veterans should stop
here and now. Our government has a long overdue debt to these patriotic
Americans, a debt that we in the Senate must help to repay. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help repay this debt by
supporting this amendment.
My legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support of
veterans service organizations. Recently, the Independent Budget for FY
2000, which is a budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, Disabled
American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), endorsed adding these radiogenic
diseases to VA's presumptive service-connected list.
Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment is intended to
address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA compensation for their
illnesses, VA almost invariably denies their claims. VA tells these
veterans that their radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems.
But the fact is, we don't really know that and, even if we did,
that's no excuse for denying these claims. The result of this
unrealistic standard is that

[[Page 22394]]

it is almost impossible for these atomic veterans to prove their case.
The only solution is to add these conditions to the VA presumptive
service-connected list, and that's what my amendment does.
First of all, trying to go back and determine the precise dosage each
of these veterans was exposed to is a futile undertaking. Scientists
agree that the dose reconstruction performed for the VA is notoriously
unreliable.
GAO itself has noted the inherent uncertainties of dose
reconstruction. Even VA scientific personnel have conceded its
unreliability. In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for
Health Kenneth Kizer has recommended that the VA reconsider its
opposition to S. 1385 based, in part, on the unreliability of dose
reconstruction.
In addition, none of the scientific experts who testified at a Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on S. 1385 on April 21, 1998,
supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine eligibility for
VA benefits.
Let me explain why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty
Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over five years, and
this is what he has found.
Many atomic veterans were sent to ground zero immediately after a
nuclear test with no protection, no information on the known dangers
they faced, no badges or other monitoring equipment, and no medical
follow up.
As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible
for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability
and sought to ensure that ``no successful suits could be brought on
account of radiological hazards.'' That quotation comes from documents
declassified by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation
Experiments.
The VA, during this period, maintained classified records
``essential'' to evaluating atomic veterans' claims, but these records
were unavailable to veterans themselves.
Atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy and were denied access to their
own service and medical records for many years, effectively barring
pursuit of compensation claims.
It's partly as a result of these missing or incomplete records that
so many people have doubts about the validity of dose reconstructions
for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years
after exposure.
Even if these veterans' exposure was less than 5 rems, which is the
standard use by VA, this standard is not based on uncontested science.
In 1994, for example, GAO stated: ``A low level dose has been estimated
to be somewhere below 10 rems [but] it is not known for certain whether
doses below this level are detrimental to public health.''
Despite persistent doubts about VA's and DoD's dose reconstruction,
and despite doubts about the science on which VA's 5 rem standard is
based, these dose reconstructions are used to bar veterans from
compensation for disabling radiogenic conditions.
The effects of this standard have been devastating. A little over two
years ago the VA estimated that less than 50 claims for non-presumptive
diseases had been approved out of over 18,000 radiation claims filed.
Atomic veterans might as well not even bother. Their chances of
obtaining compensation are negligible.
It is impossible for many atomic veterans and their survivors to be
given ``the benefit of the doubt'' by the VA while their claims hinge
on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the
health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation remain
uncertain.
This problem can be fixed. The reason atomic veterans have to go
through this reconstruction at all is that the diseases listed in my
amendment are not presumed to be service-connected. That's the real
problem.
VA already has a list of service-connected diseases that are presumed
service-connected, but these are not on it.
This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as
strong a link between radiation exposure and these diseases as there is
to the other diseases on that VA list.
Mr. President, you might ask why I've included these three diseases
in particular--lung cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and
central nervous system--in my amendment. The reason is very simple. The
best, most current, scientific evidence available justifies their
inclusion. A paper entitled ``Risk Estimates for Radiation Exposure''
by John D. Boice, Jr., of the National Cancer Institute, published in
1996 as part of a larger work called Health Effects of Exposure to Low-
Level Ionizing Radiation, includes a table which rates human cancers by
the strength of the evidence linking them to exposure to low levels of
ionizing radiation. According to this study, the evidence of a link for
lung cancer is ``very strong''--the highest level of confidence--and
the evidence of a link for colon and brain and central nervous system
cancers is ``convincing''--the next highest level of confidence. So I
believe I can say with a great deal of certainty, Mr. President, that
science is on the side of this amendment.
Last year, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee reported out a
version of S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act, which included
three diseases to be added to the VAs presumptive list. Two of those
diseases, lung cancer and brain and central nervous system cancer, I
have included in my amendment. The third disease included in the
reported bill was ovarian cancer. Mr. President, I'd like to explain
why I substituted colon cancer for ovarian cancer. It is true that the
1996 study I just cited states that the evidence of a linkage for
ovarian cancer to low level ionizing radiation is ``convincing,'' just
as it is for colon cancer. But Mr. President, there are no female
atomic veterans. The effect of creating a presumption of service
connection for ovarian cancer is basically no effect--because no one
could take advantage of it. However, the impact of adding colon cancer
as a presumption for atomic veterans is significant; atomic veterans
will be able to take advantage of that presumption.
The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
agreed in 1995 that VA's current list should be expanded. The Committee
cited concerns that ``the listing of diseases for which relief is
automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for by the
1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate'' and that ``the standard of
proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and,
given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by
the government, inappropriate.'' The President's Advisory Committee
urged Congress to address the concerns of atomic veterans and their
families ``promptly.''
The unfair treatment of atomic veterans becomes especially clear when
compared to both agent orange and Persian Gulf veterans. In
recommending that the administration support S. 1385, Under Secretary
for Health Kenneth Kizer cited the indefensibility of denying
presumptive service connection for atomic veterans in light of the
presumption for Persian Gulf war veterans and agent orange veterans.
In 1993, the VA decided to make lung cancer presumptively service-
connected for agent orange veterans. That decision was based on a
National Academy of Sciences study that had found a link only where
agent orange exposures were ``high and prolonged,'' but pointed out
there was only a ``limited'' capability to determine individual
exposures.
For atomic veterans, however, lung cancer continues to be non-
presumptive. In short, the issue of exposure levels poses an almost
insurmountable obstacle to approval of claims by atomic veterans, while
the same problem is ignored for agent orange veterans.
Persian Gulf war veterans can receive compensation for symptoms or
illnesses that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at
least until scientists reach definitive conclusions about the etiology
of their health problems. Unfortunately, atomic veterans aren't given
the same consideration or benefit of the doubt.
Mr. President, I believe this state of affairs is outrageous and
unjust. The struggle of atomic veterans for justice

[[Page 22395]]

has been long, hard, and frustrating. But these patriotic, dedicated
and deserving veterans have persevered. My amendment would finally
provide them the justice that they so much deserve.
Let me say this in closing, Mr. President: As I have worked with
veterans and military personnel during my time in the Senate, I have
seen a troubling erosion of the federal government's credibility with
current and former service members. No salary is high enough, no
pension big enough to compensate our troops for the dangers they endure
while defending our country. Such heroism stems from love for America's
sacred ideals of freedom and democracy and the belief that the nation's
gratitude is not limited by fiscal convenience but reflects a debt of
honor.
Mr. President, this is one of those issues which test our faith in
our government. But the Senate can take an important step in righting
this injustice. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to
join me in helping atomic veterans win their struggle by supporting by
supporting my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Minnesota
for his persistence and consistent advocacy for a group that is now
called the atomic vets. He is absolutely right when he says that every
year he offers the amendment and then, because of the pressures of
conference, it evaporates. First of all, the atomic vets have no finer
champion than the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
From my perspective I support him. Tomorrow, when the call of the
roll is made, I will be voting aye.
Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Minnesota for his eloquent
comments within the timeframe that enabled Senators to move on to other
responsibilities. I really appreciate his courtesy.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her support. I
am honored to have her support. I know the atomic veterans thank her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we know how strongly the Senator from
Minnesota feels about this. He has been a very forceful and persuasive
advocate. We do recognize that because of the rule under which the
Senator is proceeding, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. We have
turned back to the authorizing committees the job of authorizing. It
seems rather traditional to do it that way. I know the Senator wants to
make this point. We thank him very much for putting it in the form of a
sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the state of the Union is strong. Our
country's overall economy is at an all time high, unemployment is at
the lowest it has been in years, education is rising, and American
homeownership is increasing. Despite all of these factors, our nation--
and rural America in particular--is in the midst of an affordable
housing shortage crisis. According to reports, 5.3 million Americans
pay more than 50 percent in their annual income to rent or living in
substandard conditions. This is unacceptable for a society as wealthy
as ours, and we must make real progress now to improve housing
conditions for all Americans. I would like to take this opportunity to
discuss two critically important housing assistance programs that are
cut by the short-sighted funding levels in the fiscal year 2000
(FY2000) VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides
Section 8 rental assistance to nearly three million families through
Housing Certificate Funds, including vouchers, certificates, and
project-based assistance. The VA-HUD Appropriations bill that we are
discussing today provides $11 billion for the Housing Certificate
Fund--which is $724 million more than the FY1999 level. While I am
pleased that the VA-HUD bill ensures funding for all expiring Section 8
contracts for FY2000, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not
attempt to meet the future need for housing assistance by including
funding for an additional 100,000 vouchers.
In my state of South Dakota, families in need of housing assistance
spend an average of 9 months on a waiting list for current Section 8
vouchers. Sadly, this is actually a better situation than most
Americans face. More than 1 million Americans wait an average of 28
months, or over two full years, for Section 8 assistance.
The strong economy in South Dakota has contributed to a shortage of
affordable housing in our larger cities. In many of our smaller towns,
adequate housing is also at a premium. An additional 100,000 Section 8
vouchers would mean that an additional 321 South Dakota families would
receive Section 8 assistance. I urge my colleagues to adequately fund
the proposal for 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers because the Section 8
program, simply put, helps families find housing they can afford.
Another housing program that has been extremely valuable for South
Dakota and the nation is the Community Builder program. Community
Builders have enabled HUD to take a much-needed customer-friendly
approach to serving low-income Americans. In South Dakota, Community
Builders are working with local governments and housing authorities to
provide needed rental assistance statewide.
Community Builders have also worked with the Northeastern Council of
Governments in South Dakota to spread information to several
northeastern counties on the services that HUD provides, and how to
access these services. Community Builders have facilitated FHA loans
for the construction of affordable homes in Rapid City, while also
helping the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership become a HUD- approved
housing counseling agency. The Community Builder program has begun to
address the housing needs in historically underserved communities, many
of which have never utilized HUD services in the past. One of my former
staffers, Stephanie Helfrich, was a Community Builder Specialist for
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and her work has enabled tribal
leaders to better utilize HUD's programs to the benefit of one of the
most poor populations in the nation.
In conclusion, I understand the strict budget constraints the
committee faces in drafting this bill. While I support every effort to
keep government spending low, I believe it is a wise investment in our
country's future when we ensure that our working families have adequate
housing. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to
help South Dakota families and families across the nation address their
housing needs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, America is experiencing one of its most
prosperous times, yet despite a booming national economy some 5.3
million families are spending more than half of their income on housing
or are living in severely substandard housing. In Hartford, Connecticut
alone, there are 19,000 families suffering in worst case housing.
Most distressing, more than one million elderly and over two million
families with children face an affordable housing crisis.
Recent data indicate that this trend is worsening as housing costs
rise faster than the incomes of low-income working families, and the
number of affordable public housing units drops. In fact, more than 2
million public housing units were lost between 1973 and 1995, and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development indicates that as many as
1,000 more units are being lost each month.
As a result, more than one million Americans languish on waiting
lists for public housing or Section 8 vouchers. In Connecticut, the
average time for waiting lists for public housing is 14 months and
Section 8 vouchers is 41 months.
Last year, Congress passed a significant measure to streamline many
public housing programs and focus more resources on families most in
need of assistance. This included almost 100,000 new Section 8
vouchers. Tragically, the bill before us today provides no funding for
these vouchers. In light of the tremendous need, and the gap that has

[[Page 22396]]

grown in housing assistance over the past few years, providing fund for
these new rental assistance vouchers is a modest, but crucial step.
These vouchers are not a free ride--families still must pay at least
30 percent of their incomes for rent. Without the vouchers, however,
millions of working families and elderly citizens will be unable to
secure affordable housing.
Mr. President, I'd like to take a few additional moments to address
another program of great importance. Under the leadership of Secretary
Cuomo, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has made great
strides to create a new, innovative approach to government through the
Community Builders Program.
Unfortunately, this appropriations bill would kill this initiative by
terminating the 400 Community Builder fellows hired to serve in field
offices around the country. This program is the first agency-run
program in the Federal Government for experienced local professionals
to perform short-term, public service in their communities. It
represents a new way of thinking about government service and creates
an opportunity to tap well-qualified talent in the community.
Under the program, HUD recruits, hires and trains professional
individuals--who have extensive backgrounds in community and economic
development, and housing--to serve 2-4 years as community change agents
in field offices. To date, 400 people have been hired.
In Hartford, Connecticut, Community Builders have formed a
partnership with state officials and national housing financial
institutions to cross-train staff on the wide variety of housing
finance programs and financing mechanisms available for the development
of affordable housing. In addition, they have partnered with the
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, the
Connecticut Housing Finance Agency, the National Equity Fund, the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of
Boston to improve coordination and ``layering'' of programs and
delivery of services.
These professionals bring a fresh perspective, the ability to think
``outside the box,'' and creative outlook on housing and community
development programs. Community Builders in Connecticut illustrate the
diversified experience and knowledge brought to HUD operations with
professional backgrounds in the areas of architect, municipal
government, law and business management.
Community Builders are truly change agents in our community. They are
knowledgeable about HUD programs, make customer service more efficient,
are professionally competent, and are bringing their expertise to make
government work better.
I hope that the Senate will reconsider the significance of this
program and provide continued support to ensure that our government
maintains innovative, customer service oriented programs such as the
Community Builders Program.
I thank Senator Kerry and Secretary Cuomo taking action to ensure
that working poor families have access to affordable housing and
promoting new, innovative approaches to government management. I am
proud to stand in support of their efforts.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call the Senate's
attention to a program that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has initiated that I believe is ill-conceived, wasteful and lacking of
public input. The EPA, at the direction of Vice President Gore, has
launched a ``voluntary'' initiative with the chemical industry to test
some 2,800 high production volume (HPV) chemicals and substances. The
chemicals included in this list are currently manufactured or imported
in volumes in excess of one million pounds, many of which have already
gone through substantial testing and known to be either hazardous or
safe. As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the
testing and handling of toxic chemicals, I am particularly concerned
about how this program will be administered and funded.
This major initiative was launched in October 1998 during a press
conference by EPA, the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the
Environmental Defense Fund. This initiative calls on industry to
voluntarily provide test plans for these 2,800 HPV chemicals by
December 1999, after which EPA will mandate tests of the remaining
chemicals. Although the first phase of this initiative is voluntary,
I'm concerned that there was not adequate public and congressional
involvement in the development of this massive undertaking. Only after
much urging by concerned Members of Congress, including myself, and
other affected interest groups, EPA decided to hold a number of
``stakeholder'' meetings to share views and information about the HPV
program.
The lack of public and congressional input is just one concern that I
have with this initiative. There are several other important issues of
which the Senate should be aware. A major concern deals with the large
amount of unnecessary animal testing that could occur as a result of
this program. While obtaining better data on hazardous chemicals is
certainly a worthy goal, I am concerned about the extent to which
animal testing would be used in lieu of alternative testing methods. I
understand that there have been many advances in toxicology, risk
assessment and alternative testing strategies that minimize the use of
animals, that could be applied.
As I stated earlier, the HPV program calls for testing of many
substances that clearly need no further testing. These include
chemicals well documented and regulated as dangerous, as well as
substances recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
Chemicals with existing data should be purged from the list by EPA.
There have been numerous assertions by Administration officials that
they have no intention of ordering duplicative testing and remain
interested in pursuing alternative testing methods where appropriate. I
hope this is true. However, I still have serious concerns about the
expedited schedule of the program and how EPA is directing its
resources. Therefore, as the subcommittee chairman with oversight
responsibility over toxic substances and testing, I plan to closely
monitor EPA's implementation of this program.
Mr. CHAFEE. I certainly agree with my colleague from New Hampshire
that if this toxicity data is out there and available, then every
effort should be made to collect it, verify its relevance to this
program, and use it. There is no reason to order duplicative and
wasteful testing. But I do hope this can be done in an efficient
manner. The collection of this information should not slow down the
progress of this program seeking basic toxicity data on the 2,800
chemicals most widely used in the United States. The claim has been
made that 90 percent of these chemicals lack full toxicity data and 40
percent have no toxicity data. However, if this data already exists,
then let's get it. We need to fill in these data gaps. Finally, even
though the EPA has begun to show some willingness to respond to
suggestions from stakeholders, I believe that the HPV program would
benefit from a hearing in Senator Smith's subcommittee.
Mr. BOND. I thank the two Senators for their insight and comments on
EPA's HPV chemical testing program. We are in agreement that EPA should
seek to uncover all existing data in preparation for determining what
data gaps exist and test plans need to be developed. EPA should also
pursue the validation and incorporation of non-animal testing as soon
as practicable. In the meantime, I hope negotiations between the
various stakeholder groups bring about some consensus on how best to
proceed with this program.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his
comments and hope we can continue to work together on the monitoring of
this and other EPA programs.

epa risk management program

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his work on the
recently passed legislation, S. 880, dealing with EPA's Risk Management
Plan program. I understand that there might be some problems with EPA's
implementation of the law with respect to the funding of the program.

[[Page 22397]]

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senior Senator from Missouri for his
recognition, and he is correct that there might be some problems with
the implementation of the law. A provision of the law directs companies
to conduct a public meeting for local residents regarding the risks of
chemical accidents. The facilities are then supposed to send a
certification of the FBI stating that they conducted the meeting. It is
my understanding that the EPA and FBI have decided that the EPA should
collect the certifications and manage them through an EPA contractor.
Not only did Congress not appropriate funds for this activity by the
EPA but we specifically directed the FBI to collect this information.
Mr. INHOFE. I hope the Appropriations Committee will take a close
look at how the EPA is implementing this program. As the chairman of
the authorizing subcommittee and the author of the legislation, I will
be paying particularly close attention to its implementation.
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the diligence of the Senator from Oklahoma in
his oversight. As the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, I
will also pay close attention to the implementation of this law.

reducing space transportation costs

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, reducing space transportation costs to
enable more scientific research has been a priority of NASA and this
committee. I am aware of several innovative programs developed by NASA
and other agencies that attempt to dramatically reduce the cost of
space access for missions through transporting individual science
instruments within commercial spacecraft. However, I understand NASA is
having some difficulty in implementing such ``secondary payload
programs'' because of a lack of a definition of ``government payload''
in the National Space Transportation Policy. Therefore, I would like
the committee to clarify that individual scientific instruments with
full or partial government funding riding inside a commercial satellite
are not ``government payloads'' for purposes of the Space
Transportation Policy. Would the chairman agree with me that this is
something we should address in the conference report?
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's interest in these new ``shared
ride'' programs which a number of agencies are trying to implement. I
understand NASA is trying to get this definition clarified, but that
process is taking some time. I think we should support NASA's efforts
by addressing this issue in conference report language, and I look
forward to working with the Senator to address this issue in
conference.

the national science foundation

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
yield for a question?
Mr. BOND. I yield for a question from the senior Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As the chairman knows, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee has a strong history
of support for the behavioral and social science research programs of
the National Science Foundation, NSF, dating back to the beginning of
this decade. Basic behavioral and social science research, which ranges
from research on the brain and behavior to studies of economic decision
making, has the potential to address many of our Nation's most serious
concerns, including productivity, literacy, violence, and substance
abuse, as well as other diverse issues such as information systems,
artificial intelligence, and international relations.
Under his leadership and that of our colleague, Senator Barbara
Mikulski, the subcommittee strongly, encouraged the establishment of a
separate directorate for these sciences at NSF and was instrumental in
encouraging that directorate to pursue a basic behavioral science
research agenda known as the Human Capital Initiative. Most recently,
this subcommittee expressed strong support for the planned
reorganization of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
directorate's single research division into two separate divisions, a
Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Division, and a Social and Economic
Sciences Division. This reorganization was necessary to accommodate the
explosive pace of discovery in the behavioral and social sciences and
to promote partnerships with other disciplines.
Basic research in these sciences has contributed to the Nation's
economic prosperity and national security. Given the critical
importance of these fields to the national interest, and recognizing
the enormous strides being made in these sciences, I seek your
clarification because the report language included in your committee
report may be interpreted to question the value of NSF's programs in
these areas. I am also concerned that the language undermines a
valuable scientific enterprise. Is it the chairman's understanding that
the committee report's intent is to express the committee's belief that
NSF's core mission includes support for behavioral and social science
research?
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the question. NSF's
core mission indeed includes basic research in the behavioral and
social sciences, and, let me make it clear, it is my expectation that
NSF will continue its strong investment in these areas. Any efforts to
narrow NSF's mission to exclude these sciences or to target them for
reduced support would jeopardize the development of the
multidisciplinary perspectives that are necessary to solve many of the
problems facing the Nation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

noX SIP call

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise at this time to engage in a
colloquy with the subcommittee chairman, the Senator from Missouri.
I am concerned about what I feel is an apparent inconsistency and
inequity created by two separate and conflicting actions that occurred
last May. One was EPA issuing a final rule implementing a consent
decree under section 126 of the Clean Air Act that is triggered in
essence by EPA not approving the NOX SIP call revisions of
22 states and the District of Columbia by November 30, 1999. The other
was by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
issuing an order staying the requirement imposed in EPA's 1998
NOX SIP Call for these jurisdictions to submit the SIP
revisions just mentioned for EPA approval.
Caught in the middle of these two events are electric utilities and
industrial sources who fear that now the trigger will be sprung next
November 30, even though the States are no longer required to make
those SIP revisions because of the stay, and even though EPA will have
nothing before it to approve or disapprove.
Prior to this, EPA maintained a close link between the NOX
SIP Call and the section 126 rule, as evidenced by the consent decree.
I believe a parallel stay would be appropriate in the circumstance. EPA
should not be moving forward with its NOX regulations until
the litigation is complete and those affected are given more certainty
and clarity as to what is required under the law.
A stay is very much needed, especially in light of EPA's more recent
comments suggesting that is may reverse its earlier interpretation of
the Clean Air Act regarding State discretion in dealing with interstate
ozone transport problems. The effect of such a reversal would be to
force businesses to comply with EPA's Federal emission controls under
Section 126 without regard to NOX SIP Call rule and State
input.
The proposed reversal is creating tremendous confusion for the
businesses and the States. Under EPA's proposed new position,
businesses could incur substantial costs in meeting the EPA-imposed
section 126 emission controls before allowing the States to use their
discretion in the SIP process to address air quality problems, less
stringent controls or through controls on other facilities altogether.
Indeed, the fact that these businesses almost certainly will have
sunk significant costs into compliance with the

[[Page 22398]]

EPA-imposed controls before States are required to submit their
emission control plans in response to the NOX SIP Call rule
would result in impermissible pressure on their States to forfeit their
discretion and instead simply conform their SIPs to EPA section 126
controls.
The bottom line is that not only do the States and business community
not know what EPA is doing, EPA doesn't know what it is doing. This is
hardly a desirable regulatory posture for what clearly is promising to
be a very costly and burdensome regulation.
Let's be clear what the law is and what it requires, before rather
than after the EPA writes and enforces its rules. I think that is a
reasonable expectation and a reasonable requirement that the EPA should
be able to meet.
Does the chairman agree with me that the EPA should find a reasonable
way to avoid triggering the 126 process while the courts deliberate and
we have a better understanding of what the law requires States and
businesses to do to be in compliance?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator bringing
this to the Senate's attention. I agree that this matter should be
resolved swiftly. I would encourage and expect the EPA to, over the
next several months, find a way that is fair to all sides. In addition,
I would expect that any remedy would ensure that the States maintain
control and input in addressing air pollution problems through the SIP
process. I would be happy to work with the Senator from Alabama to
ensure that EPA is fully responsive to these legitimate problems.

veterans' health care

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for successfully
managing such a complex appropriations bill as S. 1596. In particular,
I want to thank him for recognizing the need for additional funding for
veterans health care and increasing that appropriations an additional
$1.7 billion over the President's request. Doing this was very
difficult in light of budgetary constraints, but it was the right thing
to do and I commend him for his foresight and courage.
Mr. BOND. I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for his kind
remarks and for his leadership in urging an additional $1.7 billion for
veterans health care. I also commend my friend for his leadership as
chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in urging
medicare subvention for veterans and for gaining Senate approval of
increased funding for the GI education bill.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is an additional matter in which I
would like to have an exchange with him involving two amendments I have
offered. The first involves the need for funding of a unique
construction project at the Lebanon VA Medical Center for the growing
problem of the long term care needs of veterans. The second involves
funding for a needed national veterans cemetery in the southwestern
portion of Pennsylvania. In the interest of time and space, I will not
elaborate on these projects both of which have been authorized by the
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs in S. 1076 and S. 695 respectively
and are outlined in the accompanying reports. You and I discussed them
yesterday and I believe we had a meeting of the minds in which I
understood that you will seek at least limited funding for both
projects during conference. Is this the understanding of Senator Bond
as well?
Mr. BOND. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. I know how
important these projects are to you and veterans in Pennsylvania. While
I cannot guarantee an outcome, I will do my best to secure design funds
for these projects when we meet with the House in conference on the
bill.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined my colleague
Mr. Wellstone from Minnesota in offering an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill to increase funding for veterans
health care by an additional $1.3 billion. This would create a $3
billion increase in VA health care funding --the level called for by
the Independent Budget produced by a coalition of veterans
organizations.
Before I begin, I would like to take a minute and make a few comments
on the amendment that the Senate already has accepted. First, I want to
thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for offering the amendment to add an
additional $600 million for veterans' health care. By accepting this
amendment, the total increase for veterans' health care in this piece
of legislation is now $1.7 billion. I am pleased that my colleagues
recognize the dire situation facing the Veterans Administration and our
nation's veterans because of past negligence in meeting the needs of
veterans health care.
I supported the amendment, and I have asked to be added as a
cosponsor. However, as I understand it, this $1.7 billion will provide
only momentary relief to a VA system which has been drastically
underfunded for the past three years. That is why Senator Wellstone and
I offered an amendment to give even more to veterans, who in service of
their country gave everything they had to protect this democracy.
Mr. President, let me begin by saying that this is the fourth
consecutive year, that the Clinton Administration has proposed a flat-
line appropriation for veterans' health care in its FY 2000 budget
request. The VA's budget included a $17.3 billion appropriation request
for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Although, the Clinton
Administration's request included allowing the VA to collect
approximately $749 million from third-party insurers--$124 million more
than in FY 1999, this cap on medical spending places a greater strain
on the quality of patient care currently provided in our nation's VA
facility, especially when meeting the needs and high health costs of
our rapidly aging World War II population.
Our nation's veterans groups have worked extensively on crafting a
sensible budget that will allow the VA to provide the necessary care to
all veterans. They have offered an Independent Budget that calls for an
immediate $3 billion increase for VA health care to rectify two current
deficiencies in the VA budget. First, the VA has had to reduce
expenditures by $1.3 billion due to their flatlined budget at $17.3
billion. These were mandatory reductions in outpatient and inpatient
care and VA staff levels that the VA had to make due to their flatlined
budget.
The remaining $1.7 billion is needed to keep up with medical
inflation, COLAs for VA employees, new medical initiatives that the VA
wants to begin (Hepatitis C screenings, emergency care services), long
term health care costs, funding for homeless veterans, and treating
54,000 new patients in 89 outpatient clinics.
Although we have increased veterans' health care by a total of $1.7
billion, and which certainly will help relieve some of the VA's
budgetary constraints, I believe that more needs to be done. The
veterans community has requested that VA health care needs to be
augmented by $3 billion to ensure the provision of accessible and high
quality services to veterans.
That is why Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment, and which I
remind my colleagues the Senate unanimously accepted 99-0, during
consideration of the budget resolution that raised VA health care to a
total of $3 billion. The nation's top veterans groups (AMVETS, Blinded
Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America)
voiced their strong support for our amendment, however, the final
budget resolution contained an increase of only $1.7 billion.
I agree with the coalition of veterans organizations that have put
together a sensible and responsible alternative VA budget'' that an
infusion of approximately $3 billion into the VA health budget is
needed this year in order to avoid an unconscionable destruction of our
nation's commitment to its veterans. Without such a funding boost,

[[Page 22399]]

framed within a balanced federal budget, we will soon be witnessing
enormous VA staffing reductions, degradation of VA health care quality,
the termination of needed programs, and the closure of VA hospitals.
Our hopes of establishing VA outreach clinics in such communities as
Aberdeen, South Dakota will be impossible without an increase in
funding.
That is why Senator Wellstone and I are offering this amendment. The
veterans community has done all the research and is acutely aware of
the glaring health care needs that the VA must contend with in order to
care for our nation's veterans. Our amendment would take $1.3 billion
from the non-Social Security surplus and designate it as emergency
spending for veterans' health care. The funding required for this
amendment represents a minute fraction of the total federal budget that
we are debating here today. However, the funding we set aside to
improve accessibility and quality of care within our veterans health
care system will provide a tremendous boost for an already stretched
and fractured VA medical system.
Mr. President, since I began my service in Congress over twelve years
ago, I have held countless meetings, marched in small town Memorial Day
parades, and participated in Veterans Day tributes with South Dakota's
veterans. As the years go on their concerns remain the same. To ensure
that Congress provides the VA with adequate funding to meet the health
care needs for all veterans. Without additional funding South Dakota VA
facilities will continue to face staff reductions, cutbacks in
programs, and possible closing of facilities.
Too often, I have received letters from veterans who must wait up to
three months to see a doctor. For many veterans who do not have any
other form of health insurance, the VA is the only place they can go to
receive medical attention. They were promised medical care when they
completed their service and now many veterans are having to jump
through hoops just to see a doctor.
It is time for Congress to end this neglect and fiscal
irresponsibility when it comes to providing decent health care for
veterans. I think Senator Wellstone would agree with me that no one in
this body would accept three years of flat-lined budgets if we were
talking about the Department of Defense or national security funding.
But that is exactly what we've done to our veterans. Every year we
labor through the appropriations process and every year veterans
funding is treated as an afterthought and not one of our first
priorities.
As Congress makes spending decisions for fiscal year 2000, we also
will have to decide what to do with the non-Social Security surplus for
next year. Shouldn't we be able to use some of that surplus to address
the immediate problems of veterans health care? I think our veterans
deserve nothing less, and we should make a committed effort to give the
VA all the resources it needs to operate effectively.
I want to thank my friend, Mr. Wellstone, for working with me on this
endeavor to do what we feel is our obligation to our veterans. The
veterans community is fortunate to have such a vigilant advocate in
Senator Wellstone who has displayed tremendous passion and leadership
when it comes to ensuring that our nation's commitment to our veterans
is not forgotten.
As we enter the twilight of the Twentieth Century, we can look back
at the immense multitude of achievements that led to the ascension of
the United States of America as the preeminent nation in modern
history. We owe this title as world's greatest superpower in large part
to the twenty-five million men and women who served in our armed
services and who defended the principles and ideals of our nation.
From the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, to the beaches of
Normandy, and to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, our nation's history
is replete with men and women who, during the savagery of battle, were
willing to forego their own survival not only to protect the lives of
their comrades, but because they believed that peace and freedom was
too invaluable a right to be vanquished. Americans should never forget
our veterans who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism.
Again, Mr. President, I applaud Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski
for recognizing the shortcomings in this VA-HUD Appropriations bill by
increasing veterans' health care by an additional $1.7 billion. Senator
Wellstone and I believe that we can go even further, and we ask for the
Senate's support. We have an obligation to provide decent, affordable,
health care for America's veterans. We should live up to our obligation
to our nation's veterans and ensure that they are treated with the
respect and honor that they so richly deserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Missouri, we
are now working through some colloquies. Some are a little bit more
chatty and we have not had a chance to review them all. We will be
prepared tomorrow to present them to the Senate.
Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Missouri, we have concluded
our actions for today.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, two years ago today, on September 23,
1997, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was read for the first
time and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Unfortunately, instead of coming to the Senate floor to commend the
Senate for ratifying the CTBT or for taking steps toward that end, I
must come to point out the Senate has done absolutely nothing on CTBT.
Not a hearing, not a vote. And I must confess up front, I do this with
a sense of confusion, disappointment, and profound regret over the
Republican majority's inaction on this important treaty since its
submission to the Senate.
The Republican majority's unwillingness to permit the Senate to take
even a single step forward on a treaty to ban all nuclear testing has
me and many observers confused for a variety of reasons. First, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been enthusiastically and
unequivocally endorsed by our senior military leaders, both current and
former. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated
``the Joint Chiefs of Staff support ratification of this treaty.'' The
current chairman and fellow service chiefs are not alone in their
support for CTBT. In fact, the four previous occupants of the
chairman's seat have endorsed this treaty. Former Chairmen General John
Shalikashvili, General Colin Powell, Admiral William Crowe, and General
David Jones issued a statement on the treaty and the additional
safeguards proposed by the President. Their statement concluded ``with
these safeguards, we support Senate approval of the CTB treaty.''
Second, several Presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have
supported a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. In fact, Presidents
as far back as President Eisenhower have worked to make this
prohibition a reality. On May 29, 1961, President Eisenhower said the
failure to achieve a test ban ``would have to be classed as the
greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any
party.'' Similar statements have been made by Presidents in every
subsequent decade. And if this Congress fails to act, Presidents in the
next millennium unfortunately will be uttering comparable remarks.
Third, the overwhelming majority of the American people,
approximately 82 percent, have indicated they endorse immediate Senate
approval of the

[[Page 22400]]

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although opponents of the treaty argue
support is limited to just Democrats or liberals, opinion polls point
to a different conclusion. CTBT support spans the entire political
spectrum. For example, among those who identify themselves as
Republicans, 80 percent support the treaty and 79 percent of those who
characterize themselves as ``conservative Republicans'' believe the
Senate should ratify the CTBT. As far as geographic limitations, the
polls show CTBT support knows no boundaries. From coast to coast and
all points in between, the vast majority of Americans support this
treaty. Let me provide the Senate with a few examples that back up this
statement. In Tennessee, 78 percent support the treaty. In Kansas, 79
percent. In Washington, 82 percent. In Oregon, 83 percent. The story is
similar in every other state in the Union.
With these facts as a backdrop, I think it is easy to understand why
I and many others are confused that, in the two years since the
President submitted the CTBT treaty, the Republicans have chosen to do
nothing. CTBT is vigorously endorsed by our most senior military
leaders, past and present. Senate Republicans are unmoved. Republican
and Democratic Presidents since Eisenhower have strongly backed the
CTBT. Yet, Senate Republicans choose to do nothing. Finally, over 80
percent of our constituents, from all parts of the political spectrum
and all regions of the country, have asked us to ratify the CTBT. And
the response of Senate Republicans? Not a hearing, not a vote. Nothing
but silence and inaction.
I mentioned at the outset that I am also disappointed by the course
Senate Republicans have pursued. The reason for my disappointment is
that Senate Republicans have permitted a small number of members from
within their ranks to manipulate Senate rules and procedures to prevent
the Senate from acting on the CTBT. I recognize these few members are
well within their rights as Senators to use the rules in this manner.
Under Senate rules, a small group can thwart or delay action on even
the most vital pieces of legislation. This has been proven time and
again since the Senate's founding. In more recent times, we have seen
the same handful of Senators on the far right of the political spectrum
repeatedly resort to these tactics to prevent the Senate from acting
expeditiously on arms control treaties.
However, in many of these previous instances, a number of Republicans
eventually decided to call an end to the political gamesmanship of
their more conservative colleagues. They decided that this nation's
national interests superseded the political interests of a few Senators
at the far end of the political spectrum. They decided that the full
Senate should be allowed to work its will on matters of national
security. In short, they decided that politics stopped at the water's
edge. I am disappointed that in this particular instance, two years
have elapsed and I see no such movement within the Republican caucus.
Two years is too long. I would hope we would soon see some leadership
on the Republican side of the aisle to break the current impasse and
allow the full Senate to act on the CTBT.
Finally, I also indicated I deeply regret the Senate's failure to
act. While waiting for the United States Senate to ratify the CTBT, we
have seen nearly 40 other nations do so. We have witnessed two
additional countries test nuclear weapons while the intelligence
community tells us several others continue developing such weapons. And
in a few short weeks, we will observe the nations that have ratified
the treaty convene a conference to discuss how to facilitate the
treaty's entry into force --a conference that limits participation only
to those nations that have ratified the treaty. If the United States is
to play a leadership role on nuclear testing, convince others to forgo
nuclear testing, and actively participate in efforts to implement the
treaty, the United States Senate must exercise some leadership itself
and give the CTBT a fair hearing and a vote. That effort must begin
today.

____________________

RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have all spent considerable time during
the past few years analyzing the problems in agriculture and making
predictions about the future. Some of these problems can be traced back
to various sources such as an intrusive Federal Government, drought and
instability in foreign markets. As markets closed due to the financial
instability, the Asian economic crisis spread, supply increased and
farmers had no place to sell overseas. As a result, commodity prices
across the board have been well under costs of production. We have all
heard from producers in our states, and the message we hear is that our
farmers are needing help.
Before the August recess, the Senate passed a $7.2 billion emergency
spending package designed to help offset some of the losses in recent
years. Those in the Senate who represent Ag states realize we cannot
pass emergency spending bills every time the Ag economy takes a nose
dive. This is not fiscally responsible and is not sound public policy.
Our farmers deserve better and the representatives in the Congress must
look for ways to ensure the people in rural America reap the benefits
of the economic prosperity we are experiencing.
Over the August recess, I held many town hall meetings across the
state of Oklahoma. In one meeting in the small farming community of
Boise City, I had an audience of six farmers. For over an hour, I was
able to talk to the folks who had seen the face of agriculture go
through substantial changes over the past 10 years. I was able to hear
these farmers voice their concerns about what was working, what wasn't
and what could be improved.
What really impressed me Mr. President, was the fact that these
producers believed Freedom to Farm was the right thing to do for
agriculture. They liked having the freedom to plant what they wanted,
the freedom to experiment and try something new without government
interference. One of the farmers, Mr. Ron Overstreet, decided to try a
couple of new things. In an area we would not normally think of as
dairy country or an area for growing grapes, Ron and some of his
partners have opened a dairy operation, as well as starting a vineyard.
As I heard during the meeting, ``If I am not willing to experiment and
try something new, I am in the wrong business.'' I was pleased these
farmers did not want to turn their backs on Freedom to Farm but rather
work to improve and refine some of the provisions of the program.
At the end of August, Congressman Frank Lucas, who represents all of
Western Oklahoma, and I held an Agriculture Summit in which we invited
individuals representing different commodity groups, Ag lending
companies, farm & ranch organizations, as well as Ag economists to
discuss solutions to the sustained downturn in the agriculture economy.
Many saw several positive changes which could be made to Freedom to
Farm, with very few advocating getting rid of the existing farm
program. As several of the representatives at the Ag summit suggested,
the Federal Government must be more aggressive in opening and competing
in foreign markets. We must make opening and penetrating foreign
markets a top priority of our Nation's Ag policy. Nearly \1/3\ of all
U.S. crops are grown for the export market. In 1996, farm exports
reached nearly $61 billion, with nearly 46% of that total going to
Asian markets. Due to the economic turmoil, exports to Asia are now
less than 39%. While economies in Asia are recovering, relief for our
farmers cannot come soon enough. This Administration has been lax in
it's fundamental duty to aggressively pursue foreign markets for
American farmers. To do this, we must change attitudes. When the U.S.
uses food as a diplomatic weapon with presidential embargoes, it
deprives farmers of the freedom to sell their products. These
unilateral sanctions hurt only a small percentage of America's
populations. Unfortunately, that group is our farmers. But a simple
reform introduced by Senator Ashcroft, myself and others would work to
change this.

[[Page 22401]]

As part of the Agricultural appropriations for FY 2000, the Senate
adopted the Food and Medicine for the World Act. Under this amendment,
all current food and medicine embargoes would be re-evaluated by the
Administration and Congress and future embargoes could be imposed only
if Congress agrees in advance. It would also lift restrictions on
farmers using U.S. Department of Agriculture credit guarantees to get
their goods to foreign buyers, as well as requiring the President to
obtain Congressional approval before the U.S. implements any trade
sanctions on food and medicine. I think this is a positive step towards
reforming our policies on sanctions.
With all that said Mr. President, I would like to address the reason
I came down here today, which is to announce my support for and
original cosponsorship of Senator Roberts' bill, The Risk Management
for the 21st Century Act.
At the Ag Summit I held, one item many people thought could be
improved was crop insurance. Witness after witness testified the
current crop insurance program is inadequate and suffers from lack of
affordability, inadequacy in multiple years of disaster, inequality in
rating structure, and lack of sufficient specialty crop policies. I
believe Joe Mayer, Vice-President of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, stated
it best when he noted, ``. . . the cost of insurance balanced against
the guaranteed revenues do not make the purchase of crop insurance a
sound business practice in many parts of the country.'' In the Ag
summit, producers also had several suggestions of how to improve the
current system. These reforms are very simple. First and foremost,
there must be greater levels of coverage at affordable prices to all
producers. Second, there must be expanded availability of revenue-based
insurance products. Third, the program must address the needs of
producers suffering multiple crop failures. Given the present state of
agriculture, many within the Ag community believe reforming the crop
insurance program is the best ways to provide immediate relief for
farmers across the country.
Since the introduction of this bill, I have heard from producers and
insurance agents across the state of Oklahoma who have been extremely
pleased with the provisions of Senator Roberts' bill. I believe first
and foremost one of the best provisions of this bill is the premium
write-downs. Under this legislation, the current subsidy structure is
inverted. By doing this we encourage participation at higher levels of
coverage. By encouraging participation in the crop insurance program,
we strengthen the safety net for America's farmers. While this is a
very simple provision, I think this is one of the best provisions in
the bill and one of the easiest ways to improve the current state of
agriculture.
The Risk management for the 21st Century Act contains provisions
which establishes an Average Production history credit program. This
addresses the needs of those farmers who lack production histories
because they are just beginning or have recently added land. A related
provision which helps many of the farmers in Oklahoma is the multi-year
disaster Average Production History adjustment for producers who have
suffered a disaster during at least three of the preceding five years.
This is especially important to our producers in the Southwest who have
suffered through several years of drought conditions.
I am also pleased by the Noninsured Assistance program. Under this
program, producers are allowed to plant different varieties of a crop
and still be considered a single crop. As I heard from the farmers in
Boise City, as well as the Ag summit, this is what they wanted--greater
freedom and the opportunity to try new things. I am also pleased by the
provisions dealing with restructuring the Board of Directors for the
Federal Crop Insurance Commission. It is my hope we can fill this Board
with producers who are farming on a daily basis and know the crop
insurance system.
Mr. President, Danny Geis, President of the Oklahoma Wheat Growers
Association, noted at the Ag summit, ``Policy set forth from now to the
end of the current farm bill must culminate in the development of a
program that will provide a realistically solid financial floor that
will insure stability, and will encourage the opportunistic free
enterprise system that makes U.S. agriculture strong.'' I am proud to
be a cosponsor of the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act as I
believe it helps achieve this important goal. It helps producers obtain
better coverage at a lower cost, creates a flexible policy that better
meets their needs, and it encourages development of policies that
ensure against market losses. This plan strengthens the farm safety net
by improving farm and risk management by providing a good step for
long-term policy improvements for producers. By making the permanent
improvements to crop insurance, we will ensure that farmers and
ranchers will have powerful management tools for years to come. Once
again, Senator Roberts is providing a tremendous voice for farmers
across the country and I look forward to working with him to ensure
passage of this important legislation.

____________________

THE CLOSURE OF NSWC-ANNAPOLIS

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I want to speak about the end of
an era for the David Taylor Research Center, and the beginning of a
promising future for this facility and many of its workers. On
September 25, 1999, the Navy will formally close the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Carderock Division's Annapolis Site, more commonly
known as the David Taylor Research Center (DTRC). While the Navy marks
the occasion of its departure from this successful and accomplished
lab, we must not dwell solely on its past. On this occasion we should
also recognize the help and cooperation of Anne Arundel County, the
Navy, and relevant businesses in developing a reuse strategy that will
enable the lab to continue conducting important maritime research into
the 21st century.
The Navy has a right to be very proud of the legacy of this lab. I
want to touch on a few of its most important contributions throughout
our maritime history. From its inception in 1903 by Rear Admiral George
Melville, it has served a crucial role in the development of our modern
Navy.
First established as the US Naval Engineering Experiment Station
(EES), it served to fill the need for the testing of Naval equipment
and the development of Fleet standards for Naval machinery. During WWI,
the EES assisted the Navy with the procurement of naval machinery,
crafting guidelines for optimum fuel usage, developing metal corrosion
deterrents, and pioneering the first use of sonar. Before its expansion
during WWII, the lab's research on sound led to the development of the
first sonic depth and range finders.
In 1941, Dr. Robert Goddard established a Bureau of Aeronautics at
the facility which led to the expansion of five additional Naval
Laboratories on the site during WWII. The newly expanded Annapolis lab
served to make many critical contributions to WWII Naval Fleet
development, ranging from high capacity water stills for submarine use
to improvements in Marine Corps landing craft.
By 1963, the facility had evolved into one of the Navy's premiere
research and development centers, and was renamed the U.S. Marine
Engineering Laboratory. During the Vietnam war, the lab provided
support to our forces from 1966 until the end of the war. During that
time, its projects included boat quieting systems, engine cooling,
bunker busting, aluminum boat corrosion abatement, and the development
of ferro-cement boats.
During the late 1970s, the work of the Annapolis lab was concentrated
into two technical departments, Propulsion and Auxiliary Systems, and
Materials Engineering. The lab's contributions to today's Navy range
from cutting edge superconducting electrical machinery to patented
approaches to isolating and silencing machinery on every submarine
class.
In addition to these and other truly remarkable accomplishments, the
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division's Annapolis Site

[[Page 22402]]

has served as the technical training ground for thousands of
scientists, machinists, technicians, engineers, and other related lines
of employment. It is through their innovation, expertise, and hard work
that this facility has been such a critical proving ground for the
Navy, and I am proud to say that because of our redevelopment strides,
many of these experts will continue their excellent work for the Navy
and other customers in Anne Arundel County.
As many of these employees will recall, I fought very hard in 1993
when the Navy recommended that this site be shut down. And I fought
again in 1995 when the BRAC Commission made the final decision to close
the Annapolis Center. I continue to believe that the decision was
unwise, unjustified and failed to take into account the critical
capabilities of the highly skilled and experienced team of scientists
and engineers who have contributed so much to the Navy over the years.
After the Navy's decision, many of these dedicated scientists and
researchers could have walked away and gone to Philadelphia or found
jobs elsewhere. However, through reuse ventures such as those of VECTOR
Research these individuals have made the best of the situation and
worked to convert this unique facility into a maritime R&D park. As
these businesses continue to expand their marine customer base, we can
envision the park as a focal point for maritime high technology into
the next millennium. In fact, this month has seen a major milestone in
the site reuse process. As some of you know, DTRC houses a Deep Ocean
Simulation Facility which is world class in nature, and is uniquely
designed and equipped to evaluate commercial and military machinery
targeted for deep ocean environments. I am delighted to say that on
September 15th, operation of this complex was officially transferred
from the Navy to a private firm. As a result of efforts such as this
one, the Navy will also continue to benefit, since a large fraction of
this reservoir of essential capability might otherwise have been
dispersed or lost. Anne Arundel County's decision to take this approach
for reuse and its coordinated and innovative strategy in this regard,
should serve as an example for the nation.
With the spirit of cooperation, and innovative reutilization
reflected in this effort, I have no doubt that the DTRC will continue
to contribute not only to the maritime high technology sector of Anne
Arundel County and the State of Maryland, but also to our nation's
technological advancement into the 21st Century.

____________________

SHOOTING DOWN THE BANKRUPTCY LOOPHOLE

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that the Senate
majority leader brought up the bankruptcy reform bill and then
immediately filed for cloture on the bill. If this week's cloture
motion had passed, debate would have been blocked and relevant
amendments designed to reform the bankruptcy system would have been
prohibited from being offered.
I was planning to offer an amendment that would have prevented one
abuse of the bankruptcy system. My amendment was very straightforward.
It would have prohibited manufacturers, distributors and dealers of
firearms from discharging debts which are firearm related incurred as a
result of judgments against them based on fraud, recklessness,
misrepresentation, nuisance, negligence, or product liability.
Currently, under the Bankruptcy Code, such persons and companies are
able to evade responsibility and ``take advantage of the system.''
That's what Lorcin Engineering Co., a manufacturer of cheap handguns,
told Firearms Business it was doing when it filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in 1996. At the time, Lorcin was one of the chief
manufacturers of ``Saturday Night Specials'' or ``junk guns'' and in
1998, their inexpensive semiautomatic pistol was number two on the list
of guns traced to crime scenes by ATF. Lorcin's low quality guns, which
caused innumerable deaths because of their cheap construction and easy
availability, were the basis of more than two dozen product liability
lawsuits. Once Lorcin decided they could not defend their practices
against the multiple liability claims filed against them, they decided
to protect themselves by using the bankruptcy system to settle these
lawsuits for pennies on the dollar and be exempted from an additional
lawsuit filed by the city of New Orleans.
Lorcin was able to evade judgments by filing for bankruptcy, and
other manufacturers are lining up in bankruptcy court to follow their
lead. Davis Industries, another manufacturer of Saturday Night
Specials, has also sought refuge in bankruptcy court, perhaps hoping to
dismiss the wrongful-death and personal injury suits filed against them
by individuals and the multiple lawsuits filed against them by local
governments.
Currently, there are eighteen categories of debt that are
nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. The Code makes certain
debts nondischargeable when there is an overriding public purpose. One
specific example is the nondischargeability of debt incurred by a
debtor's operation of a motor vehicle while legally intoxicated. This
addition to the Bankruptcy Code demonstrates Congress' unwillingness to
allow debtors to escape debts created by illegal and improper conduct.
Debts for death or personal injury resulting from unsafe firearms and
their negligent distribution should also be nondischargeable under the
Bankruptcy Code. Like debts incurred by drunk driving, Congress must
send a message that it will not permit debtors to escape debts incurred
by improper conduct.
I urge the Senate to begin a reasonable debate on bankruptcy reform
that truly address the abuses of the system. I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record, an article from the New York Times, showing
the link between some gun manufacturers and the abuse of the bankruptcy
system.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, June 24, 1999]

Lawsuits Lead Gun Maker To File for Bankruptcy

(By Fox Butterfield)

In the first sign of the impact of the growing number of
municipal lawsuits against the gun industry, a well-known
manufacturer of handguns has filed for bankruptcy protection,
raising concern among city officials across the country that
other firearms companies may also use bankruptcy to try to
avoid the suits.
The bankruptcy filer, Davis Industries, one of a group of
companies in suburban Los Angeles that are controlled by a
single family and its friends, produces Saturday night
specials, cheap handguns favored by criminals. Davis is one
of the 10 largest makers of handguns, and studies have found
that its products tend to be characterized by a short ``time
to crime''--that is, a remarkably brief period between sale
and the point at which they show up as weapons used in
criminal acts.
In another indication of the pressure created by the
municipal lawsuits, Bob Delfay, president of the gun
industry's largest trade association, says he plans to
propose an unusual conference with senior law-enforcement
officials, representatives of the National Rifle Association
and executives of gun companies to discuss how the industry
and government might curb trafficking by people who buy
firearms on behalf of criminals and juveniles.
It is unclear precisely what measures Mr. Delfay, of the
National Shooting Sports Foundation, has in mind to stop
these so-called straw purchases. But any proposals by the gun
companies for greater government regulation or industry self-
policing of sales and marketing practices would be a
substantial departure from the manufacturers' insistence that
they are already sufficiently regulated by thousands of laws.
Only last week, Mr. Delfay's group took over a more
conciliatory gun-industry organization, the American Shooting
Sports Council, which had been trying to open negotiations
with lawyers for some of the cities suing the firearms
makers. In an interview, Mr. Delfay insisted that his idea
for a conference was not intended to open the way for a
settlement.
So far, 22 counties and cities, including Chicago, Los
Angeles and Detroit, have sued the gun makers, accusing them
of failing to include enough safety devices or negligently
marketing their guns in ways that enable

[[Page 22403]]

criminals and juveniles to buy them. The suits seek damages
for extra police and hospital costs resulting from gun
violence, but more important, city officials say, they want
to force the gun companies to accept greater regulation of
the way they design, manufacture and distribute their
products.
More cities are expected to file suit soon, and lawyers
familiar with the issue say New York is close to becoming the
first state to bring such a suit. ``If New York comes into
this, and there are more suits, at some point soon a critical
mass will be reached where the costs alone of defending these
suits are going to eat up the gun companies,'' said John
Coale, a lawyer in Washington who is representing New Orleans
and several other cities that have sued.
Mr. Coale, one of the Castano Group of lawyers who were
active in suing the tobacco industry--the group is named for
a friend of several of them who died of a tobacco-related
disease--estimated that the cigarette companies had spent
$600 million a year defending themselves against the states.
``The gun companies simply can't afford it,'' he said, since
they are so much smaller and sales of guns have been flat or
declining for a decade.
``So if you get too many cities and states suing,'' Mr.
Coale said, ``the manufacturers will go into bankruptcy
protection. And the day that happens, the suits stop and it
is lose-lose for everybody.''
Davis Industries, of Chino, Calif., filed for bankruptcy
reorganization in the Federal bankruptcy court in nearby
Riverside on May 27, said Alan Stomel, a lawyer who
represented creditors in the unrelated 1996 bankruptcy of
Lorcin Engineering, another of the gun makers controlled by
the same owners as Davis Industries and known as the Ring of
Fire companies (because their locations form a ring around
Los Angeles).
``Bankruptcy is a very useful negotiating tool,'' Mr.
Stomel said, ``and predictably the more suits that are filed,
the more these gun companies are going to file for
bankruptcy.''
A spokesman for Davis Industries, who declined to give his
name, confirmed that the company had filed for bankruptcy.
``We do what we got to do'' in response to the suits, the
spokesman said. ``I'm sure other companies will do the same
thing.''
Mr. Stomel said Davis Industries faced several problems:
the municipal lawsuits, wrongful-death and personal-injury
suits by individuals, a messy argument between the two
owners, Jim and Gail Davis, who were recently divorced, and a
bill that is expected to pass the California Legislature that
would bar the manufacture of cheap handguns.
A lawyer for one of the cities suing the gun makers said
bankruptcy ``is going to be a huge pain'' because it will
require much more time and expense for the cities, limit the
amount of damages they may collect and, perhaps most
important, put the litigation in Federal bankruptcy court.
Bankruptcy judges, the lawyer said, are more likely to act
favorably to the gun companies than urban juries in state
courts.
But Paul Januzzo, general counsel for Glock Inc., one of
the largest handgun makers, said it was unlikely that the
older, more established, mostly Eastern firearms companies
would turn to bankruptcy.
``We are confident we can win the suits, if we have a
number of companies litigating together,'' Mr. Januzzo said.
Lawsuits, he added, are nothing new to the industry. ``It
would be an unusual gun company that doesn't have a dozen
lawsuits a year against it,'' he said. ``This is America.''

____________________

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senate for its good
judgment in confirming Judge Naomi Buchwald for Appointment to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
After working in private practice and in the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York, Judge Buchwald became a
Magistrate Judge in the Southern District. She has served with
distinction in that position for nearly two decades. Her extensive
experience in the court's rules and procedures will make her a splendid
United States District Court Judge in the Southern District.
I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Hatch, and the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Leahy; I
also thank our leaders, Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle, and my colleague,
Senator Schumer. Judge Buchwald's confirmation is a fine result for the
State of New York and for the judiciary.

____________________

DAVID NORMAN HURD, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senate for its fine
judgment in confirming Judge David Hurd for Appointment to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York. I thank
Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, the
Ranking Member; I also thank Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, and my colleague
from New York, Senator Schumer. This is a great result for New York and
for the judiciary.
A veteran and skilled private practitioner, who tried both civil and
criminal cases for more than twenty-five years, Judge Hurd became a
Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of New York in 1991. He has
served with distinction for the past eight years in that position. His
experience on the bench and in private practice before that has
provided him with a complete familiarity with the practices and rules
of the Northern District.
Judge Hurd will be a superb United States District Court Judge for
the Northern District of New York.

____________________

THE LAKE PONCHARTRAIN BASIN RESTORATION ACT OF 1999

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor with my
colleague from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu, the Lake Ponchartrain
Basin Restoration Act of 1999, S. 1621. Our goal for this bill is clear
and straightforward: to help with the ongoing restoration of the Lake
Ponchartrain Basin.
As one of the largest estuarine systems in the nation and the largest
one on the Gulf Coast, restoration of the basin merits federal
assistance.
Pollution problems accumulated in the basin for years. The clean up
of the watershed has been under way for about a decade, but more work
remains to be done.
Spearheading the current restoration has been the Lake Ponchartrain
Basin Foundation, created by the Louisiana Legislature in 1989. Since
then, the Foundation has implemented 38 water quality, habitat and
education programs and projects.
Coordination and cooperation have been hallmarks of the basin
restoration initiative. The State of Louisiana, local governments and
officials, citizens, businesses, universities and federal agencies all
have contributed to it.
Three key basin-area institutions have allied themselves and have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to help facilitate the
basin's restoration.
These organizations include the Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation;
the Regional Planning Commission, consisting of Orleans, Jefferson,
Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes; and the University
of New Orleans.
The legislative initiative which Senator Landrieu and I have
undertaken has been assembled through these organizations' leadership.
Is the basin better off today than it has been for many years? Are
there obvious signs of improvement? Has the grassroots campaign of the
past 10 years been successful?
In 1995, pelicans were spotted again and their numbers are on the
increase. In 1998, a sea turtle appeared, as well as two manatees. Now
there are four manatees. This year, dolphins have been seen for the
first time in 40 years.
The pelicans, manatees, dolphins and a sea turtle confirm that the
hard work and commitment of citizens, the state and the local
governments have improved the basin. With these successes in hand, it
is vital to the basin's 5,000 square-mile ecosystem that the
restoration work continue as vigorously as it has to this point.
The bill which Senator Landrieu and I have introduced would authorize
a federal Lake Ponchartrain Basin Restoration Program, to be housed at
the Environmental Protection Agency. A key component of the bill would
be the authorization of federal funds for the restoration program. As
important, the bill would direct the Federal Government to coordinate
the restoration with the State and local agencies and organizations.

[[Page 22404]]

To carry out the Federal restoration program, the EPA would be
directed to establish the Lake Ponchartrain Executive Council. Council
members would include the EPA, the State of Louisiana, the Regional
Planning Commission, the University of New Orleans, and the Lake
Ponchartrain Basin Foundation.
The EPA, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, the State and
local authorities, would assist the Council with the preparation of a
comprehensive, multi-use watershed management plan to restore and
protect the basin.
Federal grant funds and technical assistance would be available
through the EPA. Certain planning, research, monitoring and voluntary
restoration projects would be eligible for funding. In accordance with
the management plan, the voluntary restoration projects would address
various waste, runoff, discharge and water quality problems to improve
the basin's watershed.
Also to be authorized for continued priority funding would be the New
Orleans Inflow and Infiltration Project.
Lake Ponchartrain, the basin's namesake, is located in its midst. The
lake plays a vital environmental, economic and quality of life role for
the 1.5 million people who live around it in 16 Louisiana parishes. A
630 square-mile body of water, the lake is a major beneficiary of the
basin's restoration.
Other beneficiaries of the restoration program would be the many
species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and plants which are found in
the basin.
Federal assistance should be provided for a watershed program of this
size and impact to assist with the cost of the voluntary restoration
projects as well as planning, research, and monitoring projects.
I commend all those who have organized and implemented the current
basin restoration program over the past decade. They have given so much
of their time, energy and support to make the basin environmentally
healthier today than it has been for many years. All of them deserve
the highest tribute and recognition.
It is my privilege and honor to serve on behalf of citizens who
recognize a serious problem and work cooperatively to solve it and also
to introduce legislation which would help them continue such a major
undertaking.
For these reasons, I have joined with Senator Landrieu in
cosponsoring the Lake Ponchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 1999. I
urge the Senate's prompt consideration of the bill and look forward to
working with other Senators on behalf of its passage.
I thank the Chair.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Wednesday, September 22, 1999, the Federal debt stood at
$5,636,049,287,069.79 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-six billion,
forty-nine million, two hundred eighty-seven thousand, sixty-nine
dollars and seventy-nine cents).
One year ago, September 22, 1998, the Federal debt stood at
$5,515,819,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred fifteen billion, eight
hundred nineteen million).
Five years ago, September 22, 1994, the Federal debt stood at
$4,666,417,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred sixty-six billion, four
hundred seventeen million).
Ten years ago, September 22, 1989, the Federal debt stood at
$2,844,377,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred forty-four billion,
three hundred seventy-seven million) which reflects a doubling of the
debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,791,672,287,069.79 (Two
trillion, seven hundred ninety-one billion, six hundred seventy-two
million, two hundred eighty-seven thousand, sixty-nine dollars and
seventy-nine cents) during the past 10 years.

____________________

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 RESPECT TO IRAN--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT--PM 59

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

To the Congress of the United States:
As required by 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), I transmit herewith a 6-month periodic report on
the national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in
Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, September 23, 1999.

____________________

REPORT ON THE NATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING STRATEGY FOR 1999--MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT--PM 60

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:
As required by the provisions of section 2(a) of Public Law 105-310
(18 U.S.C. 5341(a)(2)), I transmit herewith the National Money
Laundering Strategy for 1999.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, September 23, 1999.

____________________

ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate reported that on September 23, 1999, he
had presented to the President of the United States, the following
enrolled bill:

S. 1059. An act authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strength for
such fiscal year for the Armed forces, and for other
purposes.

____________________

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:

EC-5303. A communication from the Public Relations
Assistant, Panama Canal Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the annual report for fiscal year 1998; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs.
EC-5304. A communication from the Associate Administrator
for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule relative to administrative changes to the NASA Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement, received September 21,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5305. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments (121); Amdt. No. 1949
{9-14/9-16}'' (RIN2120-AA65) (1999-0045), received September
16, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5306. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments (65); Amdt. No. 1949 {9-
11/9-13}'' (RIN2120-AA65) (1999-0044), received September 13,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

[[Page 22405]]

EC-5307. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amdt. No. 1946 (61)''
(RIN2120-AA65) (1999-0042), received September 9, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5308. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amdt. No. 1946 (34)''
(RIN2120-AA65) (1999-0043), received September 13, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5309. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airspace Designations;
Incorporation by Reference-Docket No. 29334'' (RIN2120-ZZ05)
(1999-0001), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5310. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airport Name Change and
Revisions of Legal Description of Class D, Class E2, and
Class E4 Airspace Areas; Barbers Point NAS, HI; Correction
and Delay of Effective Date; Docket No. 99-AWP-11 (9-14/9-
16)'' (RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0310), received September 16,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5311. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Class E Airspace;
Arlington, TX; Correction; Docket No. 99-ASO-16 (9-15/9-16)''
(RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0311), received September 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5312. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Kansas City, MO; Docket No. 99-ACE-34 (9-13/9-13)''
(RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0306), received September 13, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5313. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Modification of Class E
Airspace; Bryan, OH; Docket No. 99-AGL-38 (9-14/9-16)''
(RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0308), received September 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5314. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Modification of Class E
Airspace; Escanaba, MI; Correction: Docket No. 99-AGL-34 (9-
14/9-16)'' (RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0307), received September 16,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5315. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Modification of Class E
Airspace; Sheridan, IN; Correction: Docket No. 99-AGL-31 (9-
17/9-20)'' (RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0312), received September 21,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5316. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Modification of the Orlando
Class E Airspace Area, Orlando, FL; and Modification of the
Orlando Sanford Airport Class D Airspace Area, Sanford, FL;
Correction: Docket No. 99-AWA-4 (8-25/9-13)'' (RIN2120-AA66)
(1999-0303), received September 21, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5317. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E
Airspace; North Platte, NE; Direct Final Rule; Confirmation
of Effective Date; Docket No. 99-ACE-33 (9-16/9-20)''
(RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0313), received September 21, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5318. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Lawrence, KS; Direct Final Rule; Confirmation of
Effective Date; Docket No. 99-ACE-35'' (RIN2120-AA66) (1999-
0314), received September 21, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5319. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Winfield/Arkansas City, KS; Direct Final Rule;
Request for Comments; Docket No. 99-ACE-44'' (RIN2120-AA66)
(1999-0309), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5320. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Sikeston, MO; Direct Final Rule; Request for
Comments; Docket No. 99-ACE-43'' (RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0305),
received September 13, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5321. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Malden, MO; Direct Final Rule; Request for
Comments; Docket No. 99-ACE-42 (9-13/9-13)'' (RIN2120-AA66)
(1999-03045), received September 13, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5322. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Airbus Model 340 Series Airplanes; Request for Comments;
Docket No. 99-NM-159 (9-15/9-16)'' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-
0347), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5323. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 Series Airplanes; Docket No.
989-NM-249 (9-15/9-16)'' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0346), received
September 16, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-5324. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Airbus Model 340 Series Airplanes; Request for Comments;
Docket No. 99-NM-175 (9-20/9-20)'' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-
0350), received September 21, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5325. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 Series
Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-251 (9-15/9-16)'' (RIN2120-AA64)
(1999-0349), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5326. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-278 (9-
13/9-16)'' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0345), received September 16,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5327. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Empressa Brasileira de Aeronatica SA Model EMB-120T and -
120ER Series Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-263 (9-15/9-16)''
(RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0343), received September 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5328. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, and Falcon
2000 Series Airplanes; Docket No. 00-NM-11 (9-15/9-16)''
(RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0344), received September 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5329. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B Series Airplanes; Docket
No. 98-NM-220 (9-15/9-16)'' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0342),
received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5330. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled

[[Page 22406]]

``Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. dels PC-12
and PC-13/45 Airplanes; Docket No. 98-CE-119 (9-17/9-20)''
(RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0352), received September 21, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5331. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Model S76A, B, and C Helicopters;
Request for Comments; Docket No. 99-SW-44 (9-17/9-20)''
(RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0351), received September 21, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5332. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; LET
Aeronautical Works Model L-13 ``Blanik'' Sailplanes; Docket
No. 99-CE-16 (9-17/9-20)'' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0353),
received September 21, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5333. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives;
Teledyne Continental Motors Series Reciprocating Engines;
Request for Comments; Docket No. 99-NE-28 (9-15/9-16)''
(RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0348), received September 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5334. A communication from the Attorney, Research and
Special Programs Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Limited Extension of
Requirements for Labeling Materials Poisonous by Inhalation''
(RIN2137-AD37), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5335. A communication from the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section
73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Elgin,
OR)'' (MM Docket No. 99-155, RM-9606), received September 17,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5336. A communication from the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section
73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Hamilton City, CA; Lost Hills, CA; Maricopa, CA; Golden
Meadow, LA)'' (MM Docket No. 99-182, RM-9585, MM Docket No.
99-184, RM-9587, MM Docket No. 99-185, RM-9588, MM Docket No.
99-189, RM-9592), received September 17, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5337. A communication from the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section
73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Dove
Creek, CO; Hazelton, ID; Flagstaff, AZ; Kootenai, HI)'' (MM
Docket No. 99-203, RM-9621, MM Docket No. 99-205, RM-9624, MM
Docket No. 99-210, RM-9629, MM Docket No. 99-213, RM-9641),
received September 17, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5338. A communication from the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section
73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Oceanside, CA; Encinitas, CA)'' (MM Docket No. 99-170, RM-
9545), received September 17, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5339. A communication from the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section
73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Berlin, NH; North Conway, NH)'' (MM Docket No. 99-216, RM-
9153), received September 17, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5340. A communication from the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act;
Amendment of Foreign Fishing Regulations; OMB Control
Numbers'' (RIN0648-AJ70), received September 16, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5341. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 of
the Gulf of Alaska'', received September 16, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5342. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Closure for Pacific Ocean Perch
in the West Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska'',
received September 21, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5343. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Closure for Trawl Deep-Water
Species in the Gulf of Alaska'', received September 21, 1999;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5344. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fisheries; Large Coastal (LCS) Shark Species; Commercial
Fishery Closure Change'' (I.D. 052499C), received September
21, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5345. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fisheries; Large Coastal (LCS) Shark Species; Fishing Season
Notification'' (I.D. 052499C), received September 16, 1999;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5346. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
(HMS) Fisheries; Vessel Monitoring Systems'' (RIN0648-AJ67)
(I.D. 071698B), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5347. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna; Inseason Quota Adjustment''
(I.D. 080999K), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5348. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna; Adjustment of Angling
Category Daily Retention Limit'' (I.D. 082399A), received
September 16, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-5349. A communication from the Acting Chief, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations;
Drawbridge Operation Regulations (CGD01-99-162)'' (RIN2115-
AE47) (1999-0044), received September 21, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5350. A communication from the Acting Chief, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations; SLR;
Neuse River Bridge Dedication Fireworks Display, Neuse River,
New Bern, NC (CGD05-99-079)'' (RIN2115-AE46) (1999-0037),
received September 21, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5351. A communication from the Chief, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Upper
Mississippi River, Iowa and Illinois (CGD08-99-056)''
(RIN2115-AE47) (1999-0043), received September 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5352. A communication from the Chief, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations; SLR;
Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL (CGD07-99-063)'' (RIN2115-AE46)
(1999-0036), received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5353. A communication from the Chief, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations; SLR;
Chincoteague Power Boat Regatta, Assateague Channel,
Chincoteague, VA (CGD05-99-076)'' (RIN2115-AE46) (1999-0035),
received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5354. A communication from the Chief, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone
Regulations; Movie Production,

[[Page 22407]]

Gloucester, MA (CGD01-99-161)'' (RIN2115-AA97) (1999-0060),
received September 16, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without
amendment:
S. Res. 99. A resolution designating November 20, 1999, as
``National Survivors for Prevention of Suicide Day.''

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE

The following executive reports of a committee were submitted:

By Mr. WARNER, for the Committee on Armed Services:
The following Air National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to
the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. Daniel James, III, 0000

The following named officer for appointment as Deputy Judge
Advocate General of the United States Air Force and for
appointment to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 8037:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Fiscus, 0000

The following named United States Army officer for
reappointment as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and appointment to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., sections 601 and 152:

To be general

Gen. Henry H. Shelton, 0000

The following Army National Guard of the United States
officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grades indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. Peter J. Gravett, 0000
Brig. Gen. Walter J. Pudlowski, Jr., 0000
Brig. Gen. Frederic J. Raymond, 0000

To be brigadier general

Col. Lewis E. Brown, 0000
Col. Dan M. Colglazier, 0000
Col. James A. Cozine, 0000
Col. David C. Godwin, 0000
Col. Carl N. Grant, 0000
Col. Herman G. Kirven, Jr., 0000
Col. Roberto Marrero-Corletto, 0000
Col. William J. Marshall III, 0000
Col. Terrill Moffett, 0000
Col. Harold J. Nevin, Jr., 0000
Col. Jeffrey L. Pierson, 0000
Col. Ronald S. Stokes, 0000
Col. Gregory J. Vadnais, 0000

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:

To be rear admiral

Rear Adm. (lh) Joseph W. Dyer, Jr., 0000

The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:

To be brigadier general

Col. Bernard J. Pieczynski, 0000

(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that the
nominations be confirmed.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I
report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records
indicated, at the end of the Senate proceedings, and ask unanimous
consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar,
that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information
of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Navy 243 nominations beginning Thomas K. Aanstoos, and
ending Robert D. Younger, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of July
26, 1999.
Air Force 25 nominations beginning Michael L. Colopy, and
ending Eveline F. Yaotiu, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of August
3, 1999.
Army 36 nominations beginning *Eric J. Albertson, and
ending *Stanley E. Whitten, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
August 3, 1999.
Army 11 nominations beginning Roger F. Hall, Jr., and
ending Paul K. Wohl, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of August 3,
1999.
Navy 120 nominations beginning David M. Brown, and ending
Paul W. Witt, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record of August 4, 1999.
Air Force 1 nomination of Thomas G. Bowie, Jr., which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 13, 1999.
Air Force 38 nominations beginning James W. Bost, and
ending Grover K. Yamane, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
September 13, 1999.
Army 1 nomination of Robert A. Vigersky, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
September 13, 1999.
Army 2 nominations beginning Michael V. Kostiw, and ending
David T. Ulmer, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record of September 13,
1999.
Army 2 nominations beginning Robert S. Adams, and ending
Jeffrey P. Stolrow, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
13, 1999.
Army 4 nominations beginning Jon A. Hinman, and ending
*Glenn R. Scheib, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
13, 1999.
Army 10 nominations beginning James E. Cobb, and ending
Curtis G. Whiteford, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
13, 1999.
Army 13 nominations beginning Herbert J. Andrade, and
ending Nathan A.K. Wong, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
September 13, 1999.
Army 22 nominations beginning Richard P. Anderson, and
ending Gary F. Wainwright, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
September 13, 1999.
Army 156 nominations beginning *Rodney H. Allen, and ending
*Clifton E. Yu, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record of September 13,
1999.
Marine Corps 1 nomination of Michael J. Dellamico, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 13, 1999.
Marine Corps 1 nomination of Charles S. Dunston, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 13, 1999.
Navy 764 nominations beginning Anibal L. Acevedo, and
ending Steven T. Zimmerman, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
September 13, 1999.
Navy 1159 nominations beginning Daniel A. Abrams, and
ending John M. Zuzich, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
13, 1999.
Navy 456 nominations beginning Marc E. Arena, and ending
Antonio J. Scurlock, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
13, 1999.

____________________

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. SPECTER:
S. 1623. A bill to select a National Health Museum site; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 1624. A bill to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade
for the vessel Norfolk; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1625. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for a special reclassification rule for
certain old agencies as new agencies under the home health
interim payment system; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Bayh):
S. 1626. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to improve the process by which the Secretary of Health
and Human Services makes coverage determinations for items
and services furnished under the medicare program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 1627. A bill to extend the authority of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to collect fees through 2004, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, and
Mr. Cleland):
S. 1628. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to increase the number of physicians that complete a
fellowship in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1629. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land
in the State of Oregon; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, and
Mr. Cleland):

[[Page 22408]]

S. 1630. A bill to amend title III of the Public Health
Service Act to include each year of fellowship training in
geriatric medicine or geriatric psychiatry as a year of
obligated service under the National Health Corps Loan
Repayment Program; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. CONRAD:
S. 1631. A bill to provide for the payment of the graduate
medical education of certain interns and residents under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer,
and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 1632. A bill to extend the authorization of
appropriations for activities at Long Island Sound; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S.J. Res. 34. A joint resolution congratulating and
commending the Veterans of Foreign Wars; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1623. A bill to select a National Health Museum site; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.

national health museum site selection act

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1623

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL HEALTH MUSEUM PROPERTY.

(a) Short Title and Purpose.--
(1) Short title.--This section may be cited as the
``National Health Museum Site Selection Act''.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to further
section 703 of the National Health Museum Development Act (20
U.S.C. 50 note; Public Law 105-78), which provides that the
National Health Museum shall be located on or near the Mall
on land owned by the Federal Government or the District of
Columbia.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the National Health
Museum, Inc., a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation
exempt from Federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Property.--The term ``property'' means--
(A) a parcel of land identified as Lot 24 and a closed
interior alley in Square 579 in the District of Columbia,
generally bounded by 2nd, 3rd, C, and D Streets, S.W.; and
(B) all improvements on and appurtenances to the land and
alley.
(c) Conveyance of Property.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall convey to the
Museum all rights, title, and interest of the United States
in and to the property.
(2) Purpose of conveyance.--The purpose of the conveyance
is to provide a site for the construction and operation of a
new building to serve as the National Health Museum,
including associated office, educational, conference center,
visitor and community services, and other space and
facilities appropriate to promote knowledge and understanding
of health issues.
(3) Date of conveyance.--
(A) Notification.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Museum shall notify the
Administrator in writing of the date on which the Museum will
accept conveyance of the property.
(B) Date.--The date of conveyance shall be--
(i) not less than 270 days and not more than 1 year after
the date of the notice; but
(ii) not earlier than April 1, 2001, unless the
Administrator and the Museum agree to an earlier date.
(C) Effect of failure to notify.--If the Museum fails to
provide the notice to the Administrator by the date described
in subparagraph (A), the Museum shall have no further right
to the property.
(4) Quitclaim deed.--The property shall be conveyed to the
Museum vacant and by quitclaim deed.
(5) Purchase price.--
(A) In general.--The purchase price for the property shall
be the fair market value of the property as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(B) Timing; appraisers.--The determination of fair market
value shall be made not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act by qualified appraisers jointly
selected by the Administrator and the Museum.
(D) Report to congress.--Promptly upon the determination of
the purchase price, and in any event at least sixty days in
advance of the conveyance of the property, the Administrator
shall report to Congress as to the purchase price.
(E) Deposit of purchase price.--The Administrator shall
deposit the purchase price into the Federal Buildings Fund
established by section 210(f) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)).
(d) Reversionary Interest in the United States.--
(1) In general.--The property shall revert to the United
States if--
(A) during the 50-year period beginning on the date of
conveyance of the property, the property is used for a
purpose not authorized by subsection (c)(2);
(B) during the 3-year period beginning on the date of
conveyance of the property, the Museum does not commence
construction on the property, other than for a reason not
within the control of the Museum; or
(C) the Museum ceases to be exempt from Federal income
taxation as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) Repayment.--If the property reverts to the United
States, the United States shall repay the Museum the full
purchase price for the property, without interest.
(e) Authority of Museum Over Property.--The Museum may--
(1) demolish or renovate any existing or future improvement
on the property;
(2) build, own, operate, and maintain new improvements on
the property;
(3) finance and mortgage the property on customary terms
and conditions; and
(4) manage the property in furtherance of this section.
(f) Land Use Approvals.--
(1) Effect on other authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit the authority of the National
Capital Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts.
(2) Cooperation concerning zoning.--
(A) In general.--The United States shall cooperate with the
Museum with respect to any zoning or other matter relating
to--
(i) the development or improvement of the property; or
(ii) the demolition of any improvement on the property as
of the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Zoning applications.--Cooperation under subparagraph
(A) shall include making, joining in, or consenting to any
application required to facilitate the zoning of the
property.
(g) Environmental Hazards.--Costs of remediation of any
environmental hazards existing on the property, including all
asbestos-containing materials, shall be borne by the United
States. Environmental remediation shall commence immediately
upon the vacancy of the building and shall be completed not
later than 270 days from the date of the notice to the
Administrator described in subsection (c)(3)(A).
(h) Reports.--Following the date of enactment of this Act
and ending on the date that the National Health Museum opens
to the public, the Museum shall submit annual reports to the
Administrator and Congress, regarding the status of planning,
development, and construction of the National Health Museum.
______

By Mr. WARNER:

S. 1624. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Norfolk; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

certificate of documentation for the vessel ``norfolk''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1624

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920
(46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886
(24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and section
12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade
for the vessel NORFOLK, United States official number
1077852.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1625. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for a special reclassification rule for certain old agencies as
new agencies under the home health interim payment system; to the
Committee on Finance.

[[Page 22409]]

medicare home health care

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation
that will remedy a problem facing one of Maine's home health agencies--
Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph, in Bangor, Maine. This bill would
reclassify Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph as a ``new agency''
under the Medicare Home Health Interim Payment System, allowing it a
higher per-beneficiary rate.
When Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, the intention was to
modestly control the dramatic growth rate of home health care agencies.
But the broad financing constraints and administrative regulations
codified in the Balanced Budget Act have had unintended consequences.
Almost every week I hear concerns from home care agencies in Maine
about the implementation of regulations and restrictions on these
agencies.
Since enactment of the Balanced Budget Act, many of our home
healthcare agencies have found themselves in a position of financial
insolvency. Nationwide, more than 2,000 agencies have closed since
BBA's passage. The State of Maine had 90 Medicare/Medicaid certified
home health care agencies in the beginning of 1998. By the beginning of
1999, 16 of those agencies had closed.
At the time of the BBA's enactment, the Congressional Budget Office
expected home health care expenditures to drop by $75 billion over ten
years. In March of this year, CBO examined the Medicare program
expenditures of the home health agencies and increased the expected
savings by $56 billion--a three-quarter increase over the same ten
years!
As a component of the general funding reductions enacted by the
Balanced Budget Act, the law created detailed regulations in
determining agency per-beneficiary payment limits. These regulations
have had several unforeseen and unintended consequences when applied to
real-life agencies.
Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph serves over 700 patients in
Bangor, Maine and the surrounding area. Under the BBA, per-patient cost
reimbursement is based solely on cost reporting ending in fiscal year
1994. Unfortunately for Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph--an
established and vital component of Bangor's health care system--fiscal
year 1994 was an unprecedented period of clinical and financial
upheaval. As a result of these problems, the agency's per-patient
reimbursement limitation is artificially low. And in spite of the
extensive clinical and financial reforms enacted during this unique and
transitional period, the cost data for this one year is significantly
and permanently flawed.
As a result of the anomalous cost report, the Medicare payment amount
for Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph is only 59 percent of the true
costs of treating each patient. For every patient the agency treated in
1998, it lost $1,148. The agency is a cost effective home health care
agency: its actual per-patient cost of $2,752 is substantially below
the national medial of approximately $3,200. Unfortunately, St.
Joseph's anticipates an aggregate loss of $780,000 for its service to
Medicare patients over 1998. Simply put, they cannot sustain such a
deep loss of funding and continue to operate.
Mr. President, I introduce this bill today in order to address the
problem faced by Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph. This legislation
will reclassify Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph as a ``new agency''
under the BBA, and is targeted to St. Joseph's. Mr. President, my state
relies on home health agencies for much of its healthcare, and we
cannot face the prospect of losing such a fine agency.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Bayh):
S. 1626. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the process by which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
makes coverage determinations for items and services furnished under
the Medicare Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.

The Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Patient
Access to Technology Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined by the
distinguished Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Nickles, and Senators
Breaux, Grassley, Murkowski, and Bayh in introducing this legislation.
While we all recognize that medical technologies and treatments are
improving the lives of millions of Americans daily, gaining access to
these innovations is becoming more difficult. Each day, new implantable
medical devices are correcting or repairing failing organ systems in
patients. People are receiving new tests that permit the diagnosis of
diseases in their earliest stages without the use of surgery or other
more complicated procedures. Tens of thousands of individuals owe their
lives to small, powerful miniature devices that monitor and regulate
vital physiological functions and allow patients to live more
productive lives.
The latest advances in pharmaceutical and biologics are not only
extending the length of life, but significantly improving the quality
of life for hundreds of millions of people. Lifesaving and life-
enhancing innovations must be available to all Americans, and it is our
duty to ensure that those patients who need them most, America's nearly
40 million Medicare beneficiaries, have access to them.
As part of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, we authorized the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to adjust periodically
Medicare's coverage and payment systems to account for changes in
technology, treatment, and medical care. Unfortunately, without
Congressional input, there is no guarantee that these expedited
procedures will take place.
The Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act of 1999 has arisen out
of growing evidence that without intervention, Medicare beneficiaries
will be denied access to the most modernized treatments and innovations
in health care.
After medical technologies, devices, and drugs are approved by the
Food and Drug Administration, they still must meet several critical
HCFA requirements before they are available to Medicare beneficiaries.
First, before technologies are approved by HCFA for reimbursement,
they must be covered, that is fulfill the definitions of ``reasonable
and necessary.'' Second, they must have an identifying procedure code.
New device technologies receive this ``procedure code,'' a four or five
digit identification number that allows health care providers to submit
claims to payers. Finally, the technologies must be reimbursed through
one of Medicare's payment systems. The problems arise because each of
these levels is plagued by inefficiency, coding delays, and lack of
data usage by HCFA.
My legislation addresses these concerns in five specific ways.
First, Medicare payment levels and payment categories will be
adjusted at least annually to reflect changes in medical practice and
technology. A recent Institute of Medicine study reported that most
medical technologies have an average life span of 18 months with many
modernizations occurring rapidly. These innovations must, therefore, be
rapidly processed so that they are accessible to beneficiaries. While
BBA 97 authorized HCFA to adjust payment systems ``periodically'' to
account for changes in technology, there is little promise that this
will occur in a systematic, timely and beneficial manner.
My bill requires HCFA to review and revise payment categories and
payment levels for all prospective payment systems (PPS) at least
annually. These prospective payment systems include hospital inpatient
and outpatient, physicians, ambulatory surgery facility services. It
also calls for public input on the review process.
Second, this legislation mandates that valid external sources of
information be used to update payment categories if Medicare's data are
limited in scope or, are not yet available. Traditionally, HCFA has
only used its own data set, known as the Medicare Provider Analysis and
Review (MEDPAR)

[[Page 22410]]

data systems, to evaluate a given technology before assigning an
appropriate code. The average waiting period for the assignment of a
new code is 18 months or longer.
Furthermore, HCFA refuses to consider partial year or externally
generated data in its decision-making processes. My bill directs HCFA
to use external sources of data on the cost, charges and use of medical
technologies. This language allows HCFA to utilize high quality data
from private insurers, manufacturers, suppliers, providers, and other
sources.
Third, my legislation will require that national procedure codes are
updated more frequently to reduce delays in accessing new technologies.
Currently, new products must have an identification code before they
are eligible for appropriate reimbursement by Medicare. Assigning this
code can take 18 months or longer because of the way HCFA has
structured its calendar year.
This legislation allows HCFA to accept applications quarterly, on a
rolling basis, thereby allowing the processing of new technologies
throughout the year instead of bundling them at one annual submission.
Furthermore, the Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act will
eliminate the HCFA requirement that new products be on the market for
six months before they are eligible for a new code. This provision will
ensure that new technologies are brought to Medicare beneficiaries more
rapidly.
Fourth, the bill guarantees that local procedure codes for medical
technologies will continue to be used. HCFA has proposed to eliminate
Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level III Local Codes beginning
in 2000 and replace it with the Level II National Codes. This is
potentially detrimental to new technologies that are often introduced
into local, smaller health care systems before they are expanded into
nationwide markets. Without the Level III Local Codes, new technologies
must be placed into a ``miscellaneous'' code that is often rejected by
payers thereby denying access of the technology to beneficiaries. The
maintenance of the current system will ensure that technologies will be
encoded at the earliest possible date and processed before moving to
the national level.
Finally, the legislation authorizes HCFA to create an Advisory
Committee on Medicare Coding and Payment. As a result, when HCFA has to
make coding and payment decisions, it will be prompt, permit public
participation, and will guarantee Medicare beneficiaries access to the
highest quality products and services. The panel would ensure that safe
medical technologies are approved, covered, coded and paid by Medicare
as expeditiously as possible.
In addition to the above authorizations, the Medicare Patient Access
to Technology Act proposes several refinements to the Administration's
proposed outpatient prospective payment system (PPS). The legislation
affects three changes to HCFA's implementation of the Balanced Budget
Act (BBA) of 1997.
The first change mandates HCFA to restructure the proposed ambulatory
payment classification (APC) system to create groups of procedures that
are more similar in cost and most closely related clinically. The
current HCFA proposal would create unusual financial incentives that
would clearly discourage the use of the most appropriate, cutting-edge
technology. Furthermore by grouping very disparate technologies,
hospitals will face serious underpayments for certain procedures. I
believe that illogical categorization creates disincentives to use
newer, but more expensive products and procedures that provide far
superior patient care.
The second change mandates that HCFA retain the current cost-based
system for another four years to compile the cost studies and use data
and conduct the analysis necessary to classify them in the appropriate
APC. The development of these data sets are mandatory and without
proper clarification. Therefore, these products could receive
substantial underpayment, and, as a result, patient access to newer
procedures and products could be limited.
Third, the implantable medical technologies should be reimbursed
under the new APCs along with other similar medical technologies. They
should not be reimbursed through the durable medical technology fee
schedule. By placing the implantables within the DME propective payment
system, the fee schedule will lock implantables into defined categories
that will limit their use and inhibit their access to seniors. By
placing them into the proposed APCs with the other medical devices,
they will be treated as other new, innovative medical technologies.
Again, I am pleased to be joined by my Senate colleagues, Senators
Nickles, Breaux, Grassley, Murkowski, and Bayh, in introducing this
important piece of legislation. This bill supports both our Medicare
beneficiaries and our technology, pharmaceutical, and biotechnical
industries by continuing to promote life-enhancing innovations. I
firmly believe that these significant improvements to our Medicare
coding and payment systems will increase the access to modern medical
innovation to Americans who need them most, our senior citizens.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this
important legislation.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Cleland):
S. 1628. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
increase the number of physicians that complete a fellowship in
geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

medicare physician workforce improvement act of 1999

geriatricians loan forgiveness act of 1999

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of
legislation that address our national shortage of geriatricians. I am
pleased that Senators Grassley, Harkin and Cleland are joining me as
original cosponsors.
Our nation is growing older. Today, life expectancy is 79 years for
women, and 73 years for men. While the population of the United States
has tripled since 1900, the number of people age 65 or older has
increased eleven times--to more than 33 million Americans. One-third of
all health care costs can be attributed to this group. The fastest
growing part of the Medicare population--those over 85--number more
than three-and-a-half million. But, according to reports from the
Institute of Medicine, the National Institute on Aging, and the Council
on Graduate Medical Education, the number of doctors with special
training to meet the needs of the oldest and frailest Americans is in
critically short supply.
I first became concerned about this problem when I read a report
issued by the Alliance for Aging Research in May of 1996 entitled,
``Will You Still Treat Me When I'm 65?'' The report concluded that
there are only 6,784 primary-care physicians certified in geriatrics.
This number represents less than one percent of the doctors in the
United States. The report goes on to state that the United States
should have at least 20,000 physicians with geriatric training to
provide appropriate care for the current population, and as many as
36,000 geriatricians by the year 2030 when there will be close to 70
million older Americans.
I first introduced legislation to address the national shortage of
geriatricians during the 105th Congress. While I am encouraged that
greater attention has been focused on this issue, little has been
accomplished to improve the shortage of geriatricians. The two bills I
am introducing today, the ``Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement
Act'' and the ``Geriatrician Loan Forgiveness Act of 1999'' aim--in
modest ways and at very modest cost--to encourage an increase in the
number of the doctors Medicare clearly needs,

[[Page 22411]]

those with certified training in geriatrics.
One provision of the ``Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement Act
of 1999'' will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
double the payment made to teaching hospitals for geriatric fellows.
This provision is limited to a maximum of 400 individuals in any
calender year. This is intended to serve as an incentive to teaching
hospitals to promote and recruit geriatric fellows.
Another provision of the Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement Act
would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to increase the
number of certified geriatricians appropriately trained to provide the
highest quality care to Medicare beneficiaries in the best and most
sensible settings by establishing up to five geriatric medicine
training consortia demonstration projects nationwide. In short, this
would allow Medicare to pay for the training of doctors who serve
geriatric patients in the settings where this care is so often
delivered. Not only in hospitals, but also ambulatory care facilities,
skilled nursing facilities, clinics and day treatment centers.
The second bill I am offering today, ``The Geriatricians Loan
Forgiveness Act of 1999,'' has but one simple provision. That is to
forgive $20,000 of education debt incurred by medical students for each
year of advanced training required to obtain a certificate of added
qualifications in geriatric medicine or psychiatry. My bill would count
their fellowship time as obligated service under the National Health
Corps Loan Repayment Program.
While almost all physicians care for Medicare patients, many are not
familiar with the latest advances in aging research and medical
management of the elderly. Too often, problems in older persons are
misdiagnosed, overlooked or dismissed as the normal function of aging
because doctors are not trained to recognize how diseases and
impairments might appear differently in the elderly than in younger
persons. As a result, patients suffer needlessly, and Medicare costs
rise because of avoidable hospitalizations and nursing home admissions.
A physician who takes special training in the care of the elderly
becomes sensitive to the need to evaluate and address the patient's
behaviors and moods, as well as her physical symptoms. This is
especially important, as the rates of undiagnosed depression and
suicide among the elderly are scandalous. By allowing doctors who
pursue certification in geriatric medicine to become eligible for loan
forgiveness, and by offering an incentive to teaching institutions to
promote geriatric fellowships, my bills will provide a measure of
incentive for top-notch physicians to pursue fellowship training in
this vital area.
Increasing the number of certified geriatricians will not be easy for
a number of reasons. Geriatrics is the lowest paid medical specialty,
because the extra time required for effective and compassionate
treatment of the elderly is barely reimbursed by Medicare and other
insurers. It takes a special individual to commit himself or herself to
the work of helping older patients preserve vitality and functional
abilities over time. Often the goal for a geriatrician is not to cure
disorders, but to delay the onset of disability--that is, simply to
help seniors live as well as possible. For these reasons, existing
slots in geriatrics training programs sometimes go unfilled today. But
while the work may be difficult and not well compensated, protecting
quality of life for the elderly is extraordinarily important, and we
need physicians whose training explicitly recognizes that.
It is similarly difficult for teaching programs to build and remain
committed to maintaining fellowship training in geriatric medicine,
because geriatric faculty are scarce and the type of patients brought
in by a training program often require extremely complex and high cost
care. Simply, it is cheaper to train other specialties, and more
lucrative in terms of graduate medical education payments to the
hospital. In fact, there are only two departments of geriatrics at
academic medical centers across the entire country.
Another barrier to alleviating the shortage of geriatricians is the
result of an unintended consequence of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(BBA). A provision in this law established a hospital-specific cap on
the number of residents based on the number of residents in the
hospital in 1996. Because a lower number of geriatric residents existed
prior to December 31, 1996, these programs are underrepresented in the
cap baseline. The implementation of this cap has resulted in the
reduction of, and in some cases, the elimination of geriatric training
programs. This is one obstacle that should not be overlooked when
Congress considers legislation to correct some of the unintended
consequences of the BBA.
When it comes to training the doctors we need, Medicare's current
payment system is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's (MEDPAC) August 1999 report to
Congress entitled ``Rethinking Medicare's Payment Policies for Graduate
Medical Education and Teaching Hospitals'' examines this very issue.
According to the MEDPAC report:

Where Medicare does not pay for services generally
associated with a particular specialty, it may discourage
training. For example, although several studies have
indicated an inadequate supply of geriatricians, the number
of geriatric training slots exceeds the number of people who
choose to enter the specialty. This may reflect a lack of
payment for services such as palliative care and geriatric
assessment.

Clearly, the incentives in Medicare's payment system are poorly
aligned when training doctors specifically to care for the elderly is
avoided. Again, my bill provides a modest incentive for hospitals to
increase the number of training slots available.
Medicare should be providing incentives to community-based programs
to participate in the education of doctors, especially geriatricians,
by directing graduate medical education payments appropriately to all
facilities that incur the additional costs of providing training. My
bill directs the Secretary to undertake up to five demonstration
projects that will do just that.
Many reports have highlighted the shortage of geriatricians we have
today. The response to the problem needs to be a national one, and it
would be most unwise to simply hope that the labor market will produce
the kinds of doctors we will increasingly need. I am especially
grateful to the American Geriatrics Society for its assistance in
discussing ways to address the problem. I believe that the Medicare
Physician Workforce Improvement Act and the Geriatrician Loan
Forgiveness Acts are steps in the right direction, and I ask my
colleagues to join me in supporting these bills.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the American
Geriatrics Society and the Alliance for Aging Research be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Geriatrics Society,

New York, NY, September 17, 1999.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: The American Geriatrics Society (AGS),
an organization of over 6,000 geriatricians and other health
care professionals who are specially trained in the
management of care for frail, chronically ill older patients,
offers our strongest support to the Medicare Physician
Workforce Improvement Act of 1999 and the Geriatricians Loan
Forgiveness Act of 1999.
The AGS is dedicateed to improving the health and well
being of all older adults. While we provide primary care and
supportive services to all patients, the focus of geriatric
practice is on the frailest and most vulnerable elderly. The
average age of a geriatrician's caseload exceeds 80, and our
patients often have multiple chronic illnesses. Given the
complexity of medical and social needs among our nation's
elderly, we are strongly commited to a multi-disciplinary
approach to providing compassionate and effective care to our
patients.
As you know, America faces a critical shortage of
physicians with special training in geriatrics. Even as the
76 million persons of the baby boom generation reach
retirement age over the next 15 to 20 years, the number of
certified geriatricians is declining. In fact, the August
1999 MedPAC report noted the shortage in geriatricians,
despite the availability of training positions. The

[[Page 22412]]

MedPAC report noted that the shortage is caused by faulty
system incentives, such as inadequate Medicare reimbursement
to geratricians. By providing modest incentives--which will
encourage teaching hospitals to increase the number of
training fellowships in geriatric medicine and psychiatry,
provide loan assistance to physicians who pursue such
training, and support development of innovative and flexible
models for training in geriatrics--your bills present very
positive steps toward reversing that trend.
The AGS has been pleased to work closely with your office
to develop initiatives to preserve and improve the
availability of highest quality medical care for our oldest
and most vulnerable citizens. We believe that the ``Medicare
Physician Workforce Improvement Act'' and the ``Geriatricians
Loan Forgiveness Act'' represent a cost-effective approach to
training the physicians our nation increasingly will need. We
commend you for your leadership on an issue of such vital
importance to the Medicare program and our elderly citizens.
Sincerely,
Joseph G. Ouslander, M.D.,
President.
____

Alliance for Aging Research,

Washington, DC, September 23, 1999.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: As the Executive Director for the
Alliance for Aging Research, an independent, not-for-profit
organization working to improve the health and independence
of older Americans, I am writing in support of the ``Medicare
Physician Workforce Improvement Act'' and the ``Geriatricians
Loan Forgiveness Act.''
The Alliance has worked for many years to bring attention
to the critical need for more geriatricians, those physicians
who are trained to address the complex needs of older
patients. Best estimates suggest that there is a need for at
least 20,000 geriatricians at present and nearly 40,000 by
the year 2030 to care for the graying baby boomers. Not only
are we far short of current needs, with less than 7,000
geriatricians in practice, but far too few doctors in
training are choosing this field.
The two bills you are introducing represent important first
steps in solving this problem.
In addition to increasing the number of physicians trained
in geriatrics, we need to develop a strong cadre of academics
and researchers within our medical schools to help mainstream
geriatrics into both general practice and specialties.
Increasing the number of fellowship positions in geriatric
medicine will improve the situation.
We must have this kind of support and commitment from the
federal government, along with private and corporate
philanthropy if we are to sufficiently provide care for our
aging population. The Alliance for Aging Research is
encouraged by your leadership and support in this area and we
look forward to working with you to bring these issues before
Congress.
Best regards,
Daniel Perry,
Executive Director.
______

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1629. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land in the
State of Oregon; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

oregon land exchange

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise before the Senate
today to introduce legislation which would facilitate two exchanges of
public and private lands in my home State of Oregon: the Triangle Land
Exchange and the Northeast Oregon Assembled Land Exchange (NOALE). In
terms of acreage, approximately 54,000 acres of BLM and Forest Service
land is proposed to be traded for nearly 50,000 acres currently held by
private landowners in northeast Oregon. As a result of 4\1/2\ years of
delays with administrative process, there is enormous support from my
constituents for a legislative resolution to the exchange.
Both the government and the public have deeply rooted interests in
this exchange. Federal agencies are seeking to acquire sensitive river
corridors which will improve the efficiency of their protection efforts
for threatened and endangered fish. Currently, many of these selected
lands are intermingled with private parcels and make resource
management difficult for the agencies. As you know, the improvement of
fish-bearing streams and riparian areas is critical to the survival of
many struggling species of fish in the Northwest.
Communities and landowners will also benefit from these exchanges.
Each and every aspect, from the consolidation of ownership patterns to
the release of previously inaccessible timber stands, will boost local
economies and enhance the ability of the private sector to manage its
own lands.
In addition, these land exchanges have received the strong collective
support of several Oregon Indian tribes; conservation groups such as
the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Trout and the Sierra
Club; the Governor and scores of concerned citizens at large.
While these exchanges hold enormous benefit for all interested
parties and for Oregon's natural resources, it is apparent that the
only sure means of completing them is through legislation. Mr.
President, I am hopeful that the Senate will take this opportunity and
support my colleague from Oregon and me in the swift passage of
legislation to facilitate the Triangle and Northeast Oregon Assembled
Land Exchanges.
______

By Mr. CONRAD:

S. 1631. A bill to provide for the payment of the graduate medical
education of certain interns and residents under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act; to the Committee on Finance.

graduate medical education fair technical amendment act of 1999

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Graduate Medical Education Fair Technical Amendment Act of 1999. This
legislation will take important steps to sustain and improve the
availability of medical professionals in communities in my State.
Mr. President, as you know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)
included many measures to control rising health care spending,
including provisions that reduced the level of resources for graduate
medical education. In particular, the BBA set a limit on the amount of
medical residents for which teaching hospitals can receive
reimbursement. This cap was set according to the number of medical
residents on staff as of December 31, 1996. While this reimbursement
limit has helped to contribute to the overall savings generated by the
BBA, I am concerned that it has unfairly limited the ability of certain
programs to adequately train future health care providers.
Over the last few years, we have heard much discussion about the
issue of physician oversupply. As you may know, various experts suggest
that the true problem regarding physician supply is an unequal
distribution of physicians across the country. In my State of North
Dakota, for example, more than 85 percent of the counties are in health
professional shortage areas. There certainly isn't a physician
oversupply in my state--we are grateful for the health care providers
serving our communities and we are grateful to have facilities with the
capability to train medical residents.
Recently, it came to my attention that one of the teaching hospitals
in my State had committed to training an increased level of medical
residents. This situation arose because another facility in my State
was no longer able to offer these residents an adequate training
experience. The facility's decision to take on the new residents was
important--while we cannot guarantee that physicians trained in my
State will pursue permanent practice in the State, we know that
providers are more likely to serve where they are trained. And it is
important to note that the University of North Dakota produces a higher
percentage of graduates who practice in rural settings than any medical
school in the Nation.
The facility took on these residents assuming that they would receive
adequate Medicare graduate medical education reimbursement to train
these individuals. Unfortunately, retroactively set BBA limits capped
the allowable reimbursement level just prior to the time the residents
in question came on board. Thus, the facility was already committed to
training these residents but the funds they depended on to do so were
no longer available. The result of this situation is that the entire
graduate medical residency program is suffering and I am concerned tat
this could result in reduced services for beneficiaries.

[[Page 22413]]

The legislation I introduce today will correct the unintended
consequence of the BBA by allowing a technical adjustment to medical
resident caps in certain situations. I am confident this legislation
will help ensure we have adequate resources to meet our health care
needs well into the future. I urge my colleagues to support this
important effort.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Moynihan):
S. 1632. A bill to extend the authorization of appropriations for
activities at Long Island Sound; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.

reauthorization of the long island sound office

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a
reauthorization bill of critical importance to the future of
Connecticut's most valuable natural resource, the Long Island Sound.
This bill, which I offer with my colleagues Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, and
Mr. Moynihan, reauthorizes the Long Island Sound Office through the
year 2005, and increases the grant authorization amount to $10 million.
The Long Island Sound is among the most complex estuaries in the
National Estuary Program, both in terms of the physical features and
scientific understanding of the estuary system, and in the context of
ecosystem management. Unlike most estuaries, Long Island Sound has two
connections to the sea. Rather than having a major source of fresh
water at its head, flowing into a bay that empties into the ocean, Long
Island Sound is open at both ends, flowing to the Atlantic Ocean to the
east and to New York Harbor to the west. Most of its fresh water comes
from a series of south-flowing rivers, including the Connecticut River,
the Housatonic, and the Thames, whose drainages reach as far north as
Canada. The Sound's 16,000 square mile drainage basin also includes
portions of New York City and Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties
in New York State. The Sound combines this multiple inflow/outflow
system with a diverse and complex shoreline, and an uneven bottom
topography. Taken together, they produce unique and complex patterns of
tide and currents.
The interaction between the Sound and the local human population is
also complex. The Sound is located in the midst of the most densely
populated region of the United States. In total, more than 8 million
people live in the Long Island Sound watershed and millions more flock
yearly to the Sound for recreation. The Sound provides many other
valuable uses, such as cargo shipping, ferry transportation and power
generation. It is largely because the Sound serves such a concentrated
population that the economic benefits of preserving and restoring the
Sound are so substantial. More than $5.5 billion is generated annually
in the regional economy from water quality-dependent activities such as
boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and beach going.
In 1994, the Long Island Sound Management Conference, sponsored by
the EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, completed a
$15 million Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). That
plan was adopted by the Governors of New York and Connecticut and the
EPA Administrator.
The EPA Long Island Sound Office coordinates the implementation of
the plan among the many program partners, consistent with the Long
Island Sound Improvement Act of 1990. The office is small, staffed by
two EPA employees, whose salaries are covered by EPA's base budget, and
a Senior Environmental Employment Program secretary. In addition, the
office supports two outreach positions, with one in each state. It
avoids duplicating existing efforts and programs, instead focusing on
better coordination of federal and state funds, educating and involving
the public in the Sound cleanup and protection, and providing grants to
support implementation of the Long Island Sound restoration effort. By
coordinating the activities of numerous stakeholders involved in the
Sound's management program, in addition to serving as an educational
and informational interface with the public, the Long Island Sound
office provides an integral local outreach and meeting point.
While the quality of the Sound has improved dramatically over the
years, there is still much work to be done. Implementation of the CCMP
will help restore fish populations that have been impacted by hypoxia,
will improve and restore degraded wetlands, and will begin to address
the toxic mercury pollution that has lead to health advisories for fish
consumption in many of the Sound's waters. Specific near term goals of
the office include reducing nitrogen loadings which degrade water
quality by depleting the Sound of oxygen, supporting local watershed
protection efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution, monitoring and
expanding scientific understanding of the Sound, and educating the
public and regional stakeholders about the sound and cleanup
activities. Federal, State, and private funds have been well-spent over
the years to research the conditions in the Sound and to identify
conservation needs. We are now moving to apply critical funding toward
implementing these projects, directly improving the water quality and
habitat of the Long Island Sound.
Overall, recent federal funding of the program and the office are
small relative to state commitments. New York State has approved $200
million for Long Island Sound as part of a $1.75 billion bound act.
Connecticut has awarded more than $200 million in the past three years
to support upgrades at sewage treatment plants and is a national leader
on wetlands restoration. The Long Island Sound Office now faces a
daunting task, orchestrating a multi-billion dollar effort to implement
efforts to reduce nitrogen loadings that degrade the waters of the
Sound. The modest increase in the authorization levels, and the
reauthorization of the Long Island Sound Office, therefore represent
timely, important contributions to the cooperative regional effort to
restore the waters of the Long Island Sound.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S.J. Res. 34. A joint resolution congratulating and commending the
Veterans of Foreign Wars; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

VFW DAY JOINT RESOLUTION

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation honoring the centennial of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(VFW) of the United States, which will occur on the 29th of this month.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed my legislation designating
September 29, 1999, as ``National VFW Day.'' I would like to express my
sincere appreciation to my colleagues for joining me in honoring the
more than 2 million members of the VFW, and urge the approval of this
legislation, which congratulates all members of the VFW on the occasion
of the organization's centennial. Similar legislation passed the House
on June 29 and awaits approval by the Senate. I hope that we can pass
this legislation before September 29 in order to pay tribute to these
brave protectors of liberty.
As I indicated, September 29, 1999, marks the centennial of the VFW.
As veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection
of 1899 and the China Relief Expedition of 1900 returned home, they
drew together in order to preserve the ties of comradeship forged in
service to their country.
They began by forming local groups to secure rights and benefits for
the service they rendered to our country. In Columbus, OH, veterans
founded the American Veterans of Foreign Service. In Denver, CO,
veterans started the Colorado Society of the Army of the Phillippines.
In 1901, the Philippine War Veterans organization was started by the
Philippine Veterans in Altoona and Pittsburgh, PA. In 1913, these
varied organizations with a common mission joined forces as the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. I am truly honored to
salute this proud organization.
The joint resolution I am introducing today recognizes the unselfish
service

[[Page 22414]]

VFW members have rendered over the last 100 years to the Armed Forces,
to our communities, and other veterans. It also highlights the historic
significance of this important day in the lives of so many veterans,
and calls upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the
anniversary of the VFW and the contributions made by the VFW to our
Nation.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their
country. With this legislation, we say ``thank you'' the men and women
and their families who have served this country with courage, honor and
distinction. They answered the call to duty when their country needed
them, and this is but a small token of our appreciation.
The centennial of the founding of the VFW will present all Americans
with an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the VFW and to all
veterans. I thank my colleagues for joining me in a strong show of
support and an expression of thanks to the VFW and all
veterans.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 35

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 35, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for the long- term
care insurance costs of all individuals who are not eligible to
participate in employer-subsidized long-term care health plans.

S. 53

At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Mack) was added as a cosponsor of S. 53, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduction in the capital gain rates
for all taxpayers and a partial dividend income exclusion for
individuals, and for other purposes.

S. 329

At the request of Mr. Robb, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Frist) was added as a cosponsor of S. 329, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for hospital care and
medical services under chapter 17 of that title to veterans who have
been awarded the Purple Heart, and for other purposes.

S. 348

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 348, a bill to
authorize and facilitate a program to enhance training, research and
development, energy conservation and efficiency, and consumer education
in the oilheat industry for the benefit of oilheat consumers and the
public, and for other purposes.

S. 371

At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 371, a bill to provide
assistance to the countries in Central America and the Caribbean
affected by Hurricane Mitch and Hurricane Georges, to provide
additional trade benefits to certain beneficiary countries in the
Caribbean, and for other purposes.

S. 386

At the request of Mr. Gorton, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 386, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for tax-exempt bond financing
of certain electric facilities.

S. 660

At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Jeffords) was added as a cosponsor of S. 660, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage under
part B of the medicare program of medical nutrition therapy services
furnished by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals.

S. 758

At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Mack) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) were added as
cosponsors of S. 758, a bill to establish legal standards and
procedures for the fair, prompt, inexpensive, and efficient resolution
of personal injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure, and for
other purposes.

S. 914

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 914, a bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require that
discharges from combined storm and sanitary sewers conform to the
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and for other purposes.

S. 956

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 956, a bill to establish
programs regarding early detection, diagnosis, and interventions for
newborns and infants with hearing loss.

S. 1016

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1016, a bill to provide
collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by
States or their political subdivisions.

S. 1053

At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1053, a bill to
amend the Clean Air Act to incorporate certain provisions of the
transportation conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999.

S. 1070

At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1070, a bill to require the Secretary of
Labor to wait for completion of a National Academy of Sciences study
before promulgating a standard, regulation or guideline on ergonomics.

S. 1133

At the request of Mr. Grams, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Wellstone), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), and the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) were added as cosponsors of S. 1133, a bill to
amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to cover birds of the order
Ratitae that are raised for use as human food.

S. 1140

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1140, a bill to require
the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations to eliminate or minimize
the significant risk of needlestick injury to health care workers.

S. 1155

At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1155, a bill to amend the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety
warning notification requirements, and for other purposes.

S. 1277

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1277, a bill to amend title
XIX of the Social Security Act to establish a new prospective payment
system for Federally-qualified health centers and rural health clinics.

S. 1333

At the request of Mr. Bennett, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bryan) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1333, a bill to expand homeownership in the United
States.

S. 1419

At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) were added as cosponsors of S. 1419, a bill to amend
title 36, United States Code, to designate May as ``National Military
Appreciation Month.''

S. 1449

At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1449, a bill to amend title XVIII
of the Social Security Act to increase the

[[Page 22415]]

payment amount for renal dialysis services furnished under the medicare
program.

S. 1473

At the request of Mr. Robb, the name of the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1473, a bill to amend section
2007 of the Social Security Act to provide grant funding for additional
Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Strategic Planning
Communities, and for other purposes.

S. 1500

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from Washington
(Mr. Gorton) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1500, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for an additional payment for services provided
to certain high-cost individuals under the prospective payment system
for skilled nursing facility services, and for other purposes.

S. 1517

At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Grams) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1517, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries
have continued access under current contracts to managed health care by
extending the Medicare cost contract program for 3 years.

S. 1520

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1520, a bill
to amend the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Act of 1998 to extend the
period by which the final report is due and to authorize additional
funding.

S. 1547

At the request of Mr. Burns, the names of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Frist), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), and the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Cleland) were added as cosponsors of S. 1547, a bill
to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal
Communications Commission to preserve low-power television stations
that provide community broadcasting, and for other purposes.

S. 1568

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1568, a bill
imposing an immediate suspension of assistance to the Government of
Indonesia until the results of the August 30, 1999, vote in East Timor
have implemented, and for other purposes.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint
Resolution 1, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer.

Senate Resolution 99

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Nickles) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 99, a
resolution designating November 20, 1999, as ``National Survivors for
Prevention of Suicide Day.''

Senate Resolution 172

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of Senate
Resolution 172, a resolution to establish a special committee of the
Senate to address the cultural crisis facing America.

Senate Resolution 179

At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Graham) were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution
179, a resolution designating October 15, 1999, as ``National
Mammography Day.''

Amendment No. 1744

At the request of Mr. McCain, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1744 proposed to H.R. 2684, a bill making appropriations
for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes.

Amendment No. 1747

At the request of Mr. McCain, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1747 proposed to H.R. 2684, a bill making appropriations
for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes.

Amendment No. 1755

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Jeffords), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. Roth), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 1755 intended to be proposed to H.R. 2684, a bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

______

ASHCROFT AMENDMENT NO. 1787

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. ASHCROFT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill (H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry
independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes;
as follows:

On page 17, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. 108. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) The Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department
of Veterans Affairs is responsible for the timely and
accurate processing of claims for veterans compensation and
pension.
(2) The accuracy of claims processing within the Veterans
Benefits Administration has been a subject of concern to
Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(3) While the Veterans Benefits Administration has reported
in the past a 95 percent accuracy rate in processing claims,
a new accuracy measurement system known as the Systematic
Technical Accuracy Review found that, in 1998, initial review
of veterans claims was accurate only 64 percent of the time.
(4) The Veterans Benefits Administration could lose up to
30 percent of its workforce to retirement by 2003, making
adequate training for claims adjudicators even more necessary
to ensure veterans claims are processed efficiently.
(5) The Veterans Benefits Administration needs to take more
aggressive steps to ensure that veterans claims are processed
in an accurate and timely fashion to avoid unnecessary delays
in providing veterans with compensation and pension benefits.
(b) Plan Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Majority
Leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives a comprehensive plan for the improvement of
the processing of claims for veterans compensation and
pension.
(c) Elements.--The plan under subsection (b) shall include
the following:
(1) Mechanisms for the improvement of training of claims
adjudicators and for the enhancement of employee
accountability standards in order to ensure that initial
reviews of claims are accurate and that unnecessary appeals
of benefit decisions and delays in benefit payments are
avoided.
(2) Mechanisms for strengthening the ability of the
Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to identify recurring errors in claims
adjudications by improving data collection and management
relating to--
(A) the human body and the impairments common in disability
and pension claims; and

[[Page 22416]]

(B) recurring deficiencies in medical evidence and
examinations.
(3) Mechanisms for implementing a system for reviewing
claims-processing accuracy that meets the Government's
internal control standard on separation of duties and the
program performance audit standard on organizational
independence.
(4) Quantifiable goals for each of the mechanisms developed
under paragraphs (1) through (3).
(d) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subsection
(b), the Secretary shall consult with and obtain the views of
veterans organizations and other interested parties.
(e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the plan
under subsection (b) commencing 60 days after the date of the
submittal of the plan under that subsection.
(f) Modification.--(1) The Secretary may modify the plan
submitted under subsection (b).
(2) Any modification under paragraph (1) shall not take
effect until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary
submits to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a
notice regarding such modification.
(g) Reports.--Not later than January 1, 2000, and every 6
months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives a report
assessing implementation of the plan under subsection (b)
during the preceding 6 months, including an assessment of
whether the goals set forth under subsection (c)(4) are being
achieved.
______

CLELAND AMENDMENT NO. 1788

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. CLELAND submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, H.R. 2684, supra; as follows:

On page 11, line 11, strike ``$97,256,000'' and insert
``$99,756,000, of which $500,000 shall be available for
development of national cemeteries in each of the areas of
Atlanta, Georgia, southwestern Pennsylvania, Miami, Florida,
Detroit, Michigan, and Sacramento, California''.
On page 11, line 19, strike ``$43,200,000'' and insert
``$40,700,000''.
______

WELLSTONE AMENDMENT NO. 1789

Mr. WELLSTONE proposed an amendment to the bill, H.R. 2684, supra; as
follows:

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be allowed to meet
during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999. The
purpose of this meeting will be to (1) to examine the impact of
electronic trading on regulation and (2) to consider the nominations of
Paul Riddick to be Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Administration and Andrew Fish to be Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
for Congressional Relations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999, to
conduct a mark-up on the committee print of the Export Administration
Act and pending nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet
during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, for
purposes of conducting a full committee hearing entitle ``Y2K--Will the
Lights Go Out,'' which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose
of this hearing is to explore the potential consequences of the year
2000 computer problem to the Nation's supply of electricity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environment and public works

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full
Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to
conduct a nominations hearing Thursday, September 23, 3 p.m., Hearing
Room (SD-406), to receive testimony from the following: Dr. Richard A.
Meserve, nominated by the President to be a Member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; Dr. Paul L. Hill, Jr., to be Member and
Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board; and
Major General Phillip R. Anderson, U.S. Army, to be a Member and
President, Mr. Sam Epstein Angel, to be a Member, and Brigadier General
Robert H. Griffin, U.S. Army, to be a Member, of the Mississippi River
Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999, at 3:30 pm to hold a
hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary
requests unanimous consent to conduct a markup on Thursday, September
23, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on rules and administration

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 9 a.m. to
continue the markup of S. Res. 172, a resolution to establish a special
committee of the Senate to address the cultural crisis facing America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold
a close hearing on intelligence matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

special committee on the year 2000 technology problem

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to
meet on September 23, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a
hearing.

[[Page 22417]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on immigration

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Immigration Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary requests unanimous consent to conduct a
markup on Thursday, September 23, 1999 beginning at 2 p.m. in Dirksen
Room 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on oversight of government management, restructuring and
the district of columbia

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be
permitted to meet on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. for a
hearing on Quality Management at the Federal Level.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

ON THE SERVICE OF JUDGE LEWIS STITH TO SULLIVAN'S ISLAND

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to
recognize today one of South Carolina's finest public servants, Judge
Lewis Stith. August 1 marked Mr. Stith's 43d year of continued service
to the town of Sullivan's Island.
A native of Sullivan's Island, Mr. Stith and his wife, Marguerite,
raised their five children there after he returned from service in the
U.S. Coast Guard during World War II. He later served in the Korean
war.
In 1956, Lewis Stith was appointed a Charleston County magistrate, a
position he held for 25 years. In 1981, he was appointed municipal
judge of Sullivan's Island, a position he still holds. Judge Stith's
civic accomplishments are numerous and include helping to organize the
Sullivan's Island Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department 51 years ago.
The Sept. 1-7 issue of the Moultrie News featured an article which
pays tribute to Lewis Stith's commitment to Sullivan's Island and to
his wife and children who are continuing the island leadership
tradition. I ask that the article be printed in the Record.
The article follows:

[From the Moultrie News, Sept. 1999]

Lewis Stith of Sullivan's Island

The ``Island Boys'' ruled the beach back then. Lewis Stith,
Burt and George Wurthman, Frank and Vernon Damewood, Tony
Blanchard, and John and Otis Pickett, just to name a few,
spent their days enjoying the ocean, and playing half rubber
on the beach at Sullivan's Island. Life was simple. Being
surrounded by summer cottages and neighbors that knew
everyone made life a yearlong vacation. The Pavilion was
located at Station 22 and Burmester's Pharmacy was where
Sullivan's Restaurant now stands. The soldiers at Fort
Moultrie shot off the cannons everyday at 5 p.m. to mark the
end of the day.
Lewis Stith, who was born at Station 24, November 9th,
1921, is still there and though his life has taken him on
many journeys, he always returns because, ``There's no place
in the world like Sullivan's Island!''
The son of Luther P. and Susan Maguire Stith, Lewis is a
well known figure on Sullivan's Island. After high school,
Lewis went on to work for the Army as a Post Exchange Clerk
and later as a bookkeeper until WW II. He then entered the
Coast Guard and served at various shore stations and was
eventually assigned to a troop transport--U.S.S. General A.W.
Brewster APA 155--as a gunners mate. He traveled the
European, Asiatic and Pacific theaters transporting troops.
At the end of the war, Lewis was discharged on the WWII Point
System in 1945.
Lewis returned to Sullivan's Island to be with his wife
Marguerite Strickland and eventually raised five children.
His sons are well known islanders as well. Paul is a Wachovia
Bank Manager, Marshall is the Mayor of Sullivan's Island and
owner of Station 22 Restaurant, and Anthony is the Sullivan's
Island Fire Chief. Their two daughters, Debbie White and
Susan Hindman, are both school teachers. The Stith's have six
grandchildren.
After several jobs, 35 years at the Exxon corporation and
also serving in the Korean War, Lewis was appointed a
Charleston County Magistrate on August 1st, 1956, by State
Senator T. Allen Legare. He remained a Magistrate for 25
years. On August 1st, 1981, Lewis was appointed Municipal
Judge for Sullivan's Island and is still serving in this
position.
``When I was first appointed Magistrate in 1956,'' said
Stith ``Mount Pleasant, Sullivan's Island, and the Isle of
Palms had only one police officer in each town. Buck Gossett
was the only Highway Patrolman in the area and Charleston
County had very few officers back then.''
Fifty-one years ago, five guys got together to form the
Sullivan's Island Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department.
Lewis, along with Art Chiola, Joe Rowland, Red Wood and Leo
Truesdale are the original five members and are still active
in the volunteer effort today. The Army donated two trucks
and a station to house them. They were the first volunteer
rescue squad in the county.
Lewis served as chief of the department, and recalls one
particular devastating fire that was very chilling. ``I think
it was 1952 on Station 28. The house was in the shape of an
H. The kitchen wall backed up to the children's bedroom wall
and a gas fire ignited and spread. Art Chiola and I found the
children the next day in a closet,'' he said, describing the
remains as gruesome. ``Apparently, they couldn't find the
door and entered the closet looking for a way out.''
The Volunteer Fire Department started some of Sullivan's
Island's most popular events including the annual Fish Fry
and Oyster Roast. Fifty one years ago, the Fish Fry started
as a fund raiser for Red Wood's sister-in-law who need
surgery for an aneurysm. It eventually grew into a large
community event and the proceeds raised now go to fund the
Fire and Rescue Division's special training and equipment.
``We have a tremendous turnout these days,'' said Lewis.
``When we first started it was in the same location that it
is now, but all we had was some cinder blocks and a steel
plate to cook on. Now things have grown and we have the
present facility called `The Big Tin.' ''
Lewis and Marguerite remember the good old days on the
island. ``After Labor day,'' said Marguerite, ``The
vacationers would all go home and there would only be about
25 permanent residents.''
``We played recreation activities with the soldiers and got
to see first run movies at the fort,'' added Lewis. ``Middle
Street was the only road through the town and you could drive
your car on the beach.''
Marguerite was a Charleston girl, and Lewis met her through
a friend. He began to date her and, according to Marguerite,
``We'd come over the Sullivan's Island Bridge and every time
he would say, `Smell that good salt air? Isn't it great?' I
never told him that I could smell that same air on the Cooper
River Bridge and in Charleston,'' she said laughing. ``He
thought there was no better place than Sullivan's Island, and
he was right!''
After Hurricane Hugo though, the island completely changed.
``All the summer cottages were wiped out entirely and
replaced with massive homes that tower over the beach. But
this is still God's country!'' said Lewis. ``You can't find a
better place to raise a family.''
August 1st of this year marked the 43rd Anniversary of
Lewis's continued service for the Town of Sullivan's Island.
He's done many other things for the town, including forming
the VFW Walter Brownell Post #3137 on Sullivan's Island. He
served as the first Commander.
Lewis attributes all of his success to many things, but his
greatest accomplishment he said, was marrying his wife and
raising his five successful children. ``I owe it all to my
good family upbringing. I grew up during the Depression and
we just learned to take care of what you had. I am also a
member of Stella Maris Catholic Church. These things have
taken me where I'm at today.''
Still active as a judge, and still loving Sullivan's Island
like he always has, Lewis sums it up by saying, ``I've been
all over the world, and there is no place like the sandy spot
we live on. I love it here.''

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DAVID LEWIS WILLIAMS

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute
to Kentucky State Senator David Williams, as sincere congratulations
for 15 years of service in the General Assembly and as encouragement
for many more years of accomplishments and victories still to come.
David is one of the sharpest politicians and smartest people I know.
His long-time passion for politics and desire to serve Kentucky is
evidenced in his hard work in the Kentucky Senate--and in his
perseverance getting there. David's strong convictions about issues and
principles important to Kentuckians have helped him become a prominent
figure in the State legislature, but his climb to the top was not an
easy one. David lost his first campaign for public office when he ran
for county judge-executive, and has often faced tough opposition in the
Senate. To his credit, David has remained committed to his constituents
and to the values they elected him to represent.

[[Page 22418]]

When he was elected to the Kentucky House of Representatives 15 years
ago, David was a country lawyer from Burkesville, Kentucky. His sharp
mind and peerless rhetorical skills were evident right from the start,
and helped David eventually come to lead the now-Republican Majority in
the Senate.
As a fellow public servant, I know first-hand the kinds of
commitments and sacrifices that have to be made in order to effectively
serve a constituency. Clearly, David has demonstrated his willingness
to take on that responsibility, and has been an example through his
ability to handle the daily demands of being a Senate leader.
Additionally, he is a great family man. David's wife Elaine has surely
been a great support and encouragement to him, and deserves
commendation for her tireless work in the field of education, as the
instructional supervisor for Cumberland County Schools. David is also
devoted to his parents, Lewis and Flossie Williams, of Cumberland
County. David's father served as Cumberland County clerk for nine
consecutive terms, and was a high school principal and basketball coach
when David was growing up. His parents' work in education and politics
gave David a solid background that has prepared him well for his
current leadership role in the State Senate, and will certainly
continue to inspire him in future endeavors.
David, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank you for your
fifteen years of service to the 16th district and to the people of
Kentucky. I have every confidence in your ability to lead the State
Senate, and know that your best days are yet to come.
Mr. President, I ask that an article which ran in the Louisville
Courier-Journal on September 5, 1999, be printed in the Record.
The article follows:

[From the Louisville Courier-Journal, Sept. 5, 1999]

Williams Gets Closer to Senate Peak

(By Tom Loftus)

Burkesville, KY.--David Williams began learning hard
political lessons at a young age.
In the second grade he lost an election ``for some kind of
class favorite'' by a single vote. ``At that time I was
chivalrous enough to vote for my opponent,'' Williams said.
``I decided I wasn't going to do that again.''
It wasn't the last election Williams would lose, yet come
away a bit the wiser--and with his passion for a career in
elective office undiminished.
Today, after serving 15 years in the General Assembly--many
of those years in a minority faction of the minority
Republican Party--David Williams stands as perhaps the most
powerful member of the General Assembly.
This summer's defections of two Democratic senators to the
GOP gives the Republicans a majority in the Senate for the
first time ever--making Minority Leader Williams into
Majority Leader Williams, and likely Senate President
Williams.
So when the legislature convenes in January, the Senate
will be led by this 46-year-old lawyer from Burkesville, a
man described as smart and articulate by some, cocky or
condescending by others.
Williams calls himself a compassionate conservative. Many
Democrats consider him their favorite Republican senator.
At his core, he's a man who lives government and politics.
``We can't get him out to golf; he really doesn't have any
time-consuming hobbies.'' said Cumberland District Judge
Steve Hurt.
``He has always been fascinated by the political process.
He's the kind of guy who sits up at night watching `Hardball
with Christ Matthews' and C-SPAN.''
In January, Williams plans to play a little hardball of his
own.
Last week he said he'd exercise the majority's rightful
power to bounce Louisville Democrat Larry Saunders as Senate
president.
``I want the majority of the members of the Kentucky state
Senate to choose the president they feel most comfortable
with,'' Williams said.
``And if it happens to be David Williams, I would be most
proud to serve in that position.''

political aspirations run in the family

Williams runs a one-man law practice in his hometown of
Burkesville, county seat of the predominantly Republican
Cumberland County. He and his wife, Elaine, who is
instructional supervisor for the Cumberland County schools,
live in a house valued on tax rolls at $225,000. They have no
children. Williams is the only child of Lewis and Flossie
Williams, who still live in the house where David grew up.
The family regularly attended Burkesville United Methodist
Church, and Williams' parents put a high value on the
importance of a good education. Lewis Williams was a
principal and basketball coach who, after losing his first
campaign for county clerk, won nine consecutive elections for
that office without opposition.
``We went to Lincoln Day dinners when I was a small boy. I
heard (U.S. Sen.) John Sherman Cooper, (Fifth District
Congressman) Tim Lee Carter, (U.S. Sen.) Thruston Morton and
all those folks,'' Williams said. ``I grew up in the
courthouse. After school and on Saturdays I'd hang out there
when I was a kid. And I was actively involved in the local
party when I was 15 or 16 years old.''
At Cumberland County High School, Williams was the senior
class president, lettered in baseball, and was captain of the
football team. His quotation next to his photo in the 1971
yearbook is: ``The scales of justice can only be balanced by
the weight of involvement.''
Williams said he particularly liked playing football. He
was a center on offense and a tackle on defense. ``If I had
been a step quicker I could have played college ball,'' he
said. (Hurt, who quarterbacked the 1971 Cumberland County
team, suggested Williams would have to have been a bit more
than one step quicker.)
In fact, though he and his wife like to fish and keep a
pontoon boat on Dale Hollow Lake, their favorite pastime is
college sports. As a legislator he takes advantage of the
chance to buy two tickets to University of Kentucky and
University of Louisville football and basketball games. He
travels to most UK football games on the road and attends
postseason basketball tournaments when UK plays.
``The football season is something I really enjoy,'' he
said. ``I usually try to catch U of L when I can. I'm one of
those rare people who like both UK and U of L.''
Williams is a graduate of both.
After high school, he and his then-girlfriend Elaine
Grubbs, went on to UK. They dated off-and-on through college.
At UK Williams was true to his high school yearbook
quotation. Among other things he was in the student senate
and ran for student body president--the clean-shaven frat boy
who ran against an opponent he describes as ``long-haired and
hippie-ish.'' Williams lost.
After graduation, Williams enrolled at the U of L Law
School. He married Grubbs after his first year there.
Williams said he could have studied law at UK but wanted to
broaden his experience. And he liked Louisville.
``My closest relatives live in Louisville--aunts and uncles
on my father's side of the family--and I visited Louisville
often as a boy,'' Williams said. ``I lived in Louisville
during some of the summers when I was growing up because when
my dad was a teacher, he would go to Louisville and roof
houses on construction crews and make good money in the
summer. . . . We would go up and live with relatives.''

Lessons learned through setbacks

After law school, Williams returned to Burkesville to
practice law and--at age 25--ran for county judge-executive.
His opponent was incumbent Harold E. ``Barney'' Barnes--a
Democrat who had been appointed by Gov. Julian Carroll when
the elected judge died in office. Williams lost.
``It taught me some interesting political lessons about
incumbency,'' Williams recalled. ``When the governor and the
local judge have an unlimited amount of blacktop and things
like that, it can have a big effect.''
But in 1984 Williams ousted state Rep. Richard Fryman of
Albany, a fellow Republican. Two years later he succeeded
retiring Sen. Doug Moseley of Columbia and has been re-
elected to the state Senate three times since--the last two
times without opposition.
During his Senate tenure, though, Williams was twice
rejected by the voters in years when his Senate seat was not
up for re-election.
In 1992 he won a Republican primary for the U.S. Senate but
was drubbed in the general election by popular incumbent
Democrat Wendell Ford, who won with 64 percent of the vote.
But perhaps the nadir of Williams' political career came
the following year.
While stewing in a minority faction of the Senate
Republican caucus, Williams decided to try to be a prosecutor
and ran for commonwealth's attorney in his home four-county
district. He lost.
But he never considered dropping out of politics.
``I didn't think any of the losses were due to my lack of
ability or people not liking me,'' he said. ``I'm no Lincoln,
but even Lincoln got beat two or three times.''
Longstanding alliances within the small Senate Republican
caucus had largely kept Williams out of a leadership position
there. But the number of Senate Republicans grew during the
1990s.
During the 1998 session, after the Republican minority had
grown to 18 senators, Williams was part of (but he insists
did not lead) an attempt to oust Sen. Dan Kelly's Republican
leadership team--a coup that failed when Republican senators
voted 9-9.
After the 1998 elections changed the make-up of the caucus,
Williams finally had the

[[Page 22419]]

votes he needed to win election as Senate Republican leader.
And defections of two Democratic senators to the GOP mean
he's likely to become Senate president.

A mix of attorney and preacher

Williams said Kentuckians can expect him to take generally
conservative stands on most issues.
``But I don't hate government,'' he said. ``I'm not a
person who is afraid to use government to effect change. . .
. I come from an area of the state that has needs. I've grown
up and lived with people who have needs. I've grown up in
areas that needed roads, that needed schools.''
In fact, in 1990 Williams was one of only three Senate
Republicans who voted for the Kentucky Education Reform Act,
which included a massive tax increase.
``I voted for it because the school districts in rural
Kentucky did not have adequate resources, the students there
did not have adequate opportunity,'' Williams said. ``I'm not
unalterably wed to every aspect of the Kentucky Education
Reform Act. . . . But I still feel like I cast the right
vote.''
Besides his support of KERA, Williams is known in the
legislature for his long fight to win funding for a resort
lodge at Dale Hollow, his advocacy of workers' compensation
law reform (which Gov. Paul Patton pushed through in 1996),
and helping to increase state spending on adult education.
Williams is better-known, though, for his skill as a
debater. ``David Williams is and has always been one of the
most articulate members of the Senate,'' said Senate
Democratic Leader David Karem of Louisville. ``There's a
wonderful mix of the courtroom attorney and the traditional
Kentucky preacher in the way he delivers his speeches from
the floor.''
Williams said Republicans are inclined to oppose two ideas
Patton has floated this year as ways of raising state
revenue--raising the gas tax and expanding legal gambling.
But he said he's not prepared yet to slam the door on
either idea. ``We haven't seen a bill yet,'' he said.
And if Williams succeeds in leading the Senate, might he
make another race for statewide office?
Williams said he has no plans to seek higher office, though
he's not ruling out the possibility.
Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, said Williams could be a
strong candidate for governor in 2003. ``He hasn't said
anything,'' Buford said. ``But I would watch that.''

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF THE BETHESDA FALCONS

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the
Bethesda Soccer Club Falcons for winning the Under-16 girls Maryland
State Cup Championship.
The Falcons defeated their opponent, the Soccer Club of Baltimore
Force, 11-0. This victory marked the team's seventh consecutive state
title--one for every year that they have been eligible to win--which
also happens to be a Maryland record.
Every Falcons team member was a contributor to this important
victory. On the offensive, the game's leading strikers were Audra
Poulin and Jenny Potter, who had three goals apiece. Jenna Linden added
two goals to the team's fight, while Christi Bird, Stephanie Sybert,
and Allison Dooley chipped in the remaining scores for the Falcons.
This overpowering offense was aided by the passing and play-making
abilities of the Falcons' talented mid-fielders: Beth Hendricks, Tara
Quinn, Jennifer Fields, Susannah Empson, and Tanya Hahnel.
One of the keys to the Falcons' victory was their unwavering and
steadfast defense which allowed no goals and only a few shots by the
unrelenting Baltimore Force. This defense was anchored around defenders
Caitlin Curtis, Amy Salomon and Alison West, while the goal posts were
kept clear by goalies Anna Halse-Strumberg and Kerry York.
It was a fitting ending to the tournament in which the Falcons,
through five games, outscored their hard-working opponents 29-0. The
following day, the Falcons continued their winning efforts by defeating
the Baltimore Soccer Club Pride--another great Maryland team. The
Falcons finished in first place in the Washington Area Girls' Soccer
Association Under-17 Premier Division.
Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I believe we must get
behind our kids and support them in their hard work. The importance of
this principle was demonstrated by Falcons coach, Richie Burke, who did
just that. As a result, the team fought hard and produced a definitive
victory. I'm proud to have such a great team and a fantastic coach in
Maryland, and I'm proud of all the participants in the Maryland State
Cup Championship for their hard work and dedication.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MR. FRANCIS WILSON

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr.
Francis M. Wilson and his wonderful and admirable life.
Mr. Wilson served as a tech-sergeant during World War II in Germany
when he was only 18 years old. He was an engineer in the Detroit Public
School District, a devoted family man, and an active citizen. The
challenges he successfully faced in these capacities have distinguished
him within his family, his town, his state, and his country.
As a very young boy, he sold ``Liberty'' magazines to supplement his
family's income during the Great Depression. Growing up during a time
of financial strife led him to find solace in nature. Mr. Wilson was
exposed to nature during his experience in the military and developed a
love and knowledge of it. As a young adult he was able to identify a
variety of birds, insects, trees, and flowers. He then went on to form
and preside over a group of citizens that forced new construction to
adhere to guidelines designed to protect nearby lakes.
Once he reached adulthood, Mr. Wilson found his real love, Dolores.
Together they found great joy in their children and grandchildren. Mr.
Wilson wanted to ensure that they received all the advantages that he
did not have. He inspired his children to put themselves through
college. He provided them with the opportunity to grow up in a safe
environment, allowing them to mature at a more deliberate pace than the
one that was forced upon him. His wife, Dolores, expresses the best
tribute to Mr. Wilson when she writes ``this brave, honest, dedicated,
ordinary man was to his family and America `the staff of life' that
fuels generations to come.''
Mr. Wilson expressed his passion for education through his
involvement with children as an engineer of thirty years in the Detroit
Public Schools. He gave and received respect from all he knew. He not
only led by lecture but, more importantly and effectively, by example.
He never left any doubt as to where he stood in a debate and firmly
believed in right and wrong. Mr. Wilson offered little patience for
individuals passing on responsibility as an excuse for negligent or bad
behavior. Personifying Winston Churchill's statement, ``We make a
living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give,'' Mr.
Francis M. Wilson left this world an honorable, loyal, selfless servant
to his country and a loved and missed father, grandfather and
husband.

____________________

THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF OAKLAND, MARYLAND

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the
attention of my colleagues the celebration of the 150th anniversary of
the Town of Oakland, Maryland. The Mayor of Oakland, Asa McCain, Jr.,
and the entire community are planning numerous events to commemorate
this milestone.
Like so many of Maryland's historic cities and towns, Oakland, which
was founded in 1849, has carved its own unique place in American
history. At Oakland's center is one of the oldest railroad stations in
the country. The Queen Anne style railroad station designed by E.F.
Baldwin and built in 1885 by the B & O Railroad is now in the National
Registry.
The railroad was responsible for popularization of the Oakland area
as a resort in the late 1800's and resulted in Garrett County's
flourishing export of timber and coal. Recently purchased by the ``Save
the Oakland Station Committee,'' the station will be restored to its
original splendor in an effort to provide a cornerstone for continued
growth in the County. In recognition of Oakland's community effort to
revitalize its economy and preserve its historic past, the Town
received a National Mainstreet Designation from the National Historical
Trust in May of this year.

[[Page 22420]]

Another historically significant location in Oakland is the Church of
the Presidents, built in 1868. Three United States Presidents, Grant,
Harrison, and Cleveland, attended services there and preferred Garrett
County to any other place for their vacations.
Today, Oakland and Garrett County are well known as one of the finest
all-season resort areas, offering abundant sports activities including
fishing, hiking, skiing--both alpine and cross-country--and boating.
The natural beauty of this pristine area of our state led to Oakland's
original name, ``The Wilderness Shall Smile.'' In addition, the town of
Oakland, with its large victorian homes and beautiful tree-lined
streets, enhance the appeal of this cool, mountainous retreat.
Oakland has faced its share of economic difficulties. The departure
in 1996 of Bausch and Lomb, the largest employer in the area, dealt a
severe blow. Nevertheless, Oakland faced the problem head-on and
orchestrated an intense effort to recruit alternative employers. In
April of this year, Simon Pearce, a premier glass maker and Vermont's
largest tourism attraction, opened a factory just outside of Oakland.
Through the inspired leadership of Mayor Asa McCain, the town of
Oakland will continue to thrive and prosper well towards the Town's
200th anniversary.
Oakland is a model of community spirit and cooperation. The
activities planned to commemorate the 150th anniversary exemplify the
deep devotion of its residents to their community. I share the pride of
Mayor McCain and all of Oakland's citizens in their Town's historic
past and optimism for Oakland's continued success in the years to
come.

____________________

VET CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to
publicly acknowledge the five Vet Centers from around this country that
are being recognized for their superior services as ``Vet Centers of
Excellence.'' While I am proud of the fine facilities located in
California, Arizona, Georgia and West Virginia, the one I want to
praise today is in my state of Vermont.
Vermont is very fortunate to have two Vet Centers--in fact we boast
the first in the nation back in the days when the Readjustment
Counseling Service (RCS) was just getting started with pilot sites
strategically located around the country. The nation's first Vet
Center, an excellent facility, was designed to help veterans in the
Burlington, Vermont area.
The Vet Center we honor today opened in mid-1981 and is located in
White River Junction, Vermont. It serves veterans on both sides of the
Connecticut River in Vermont and New Hampshire. The team leader, Tim
Beebe, assesses their work modestly, saying ``we are just doing our
job.'' Maybe they don't understand the impact they have. This
incredible staff go so far above their ``job''. They are caring,
involved and understanding friends, devoted to offering a safe haven to
those veterans suffering the emotional wear and tear of battle, often
thirty years after leaving the service.
I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues in Congress that the
work being done at Vet Centers throughout the Country is enormously
important. Over the years, the Vet Center program has been so
successful in meeting the readjustment needs of Vietnam veterans that
the VA Readjustment Counseling Service expanded the scope of their good
work to veterans of all eras. This move was heartily endorsed by
Congress and is now law. Long before this mandate, however, the White
River Junction Vet Center subscribed to an open door policy to all
veterans. Their message was simply put: ``Welcome home--you are not
alone.''
Mr. President, I believe in the great work being done by Vet Centers
everyday throughout this country. I also know, however, that a ``Vet
Center of Excellence'' award is only given to the those centers that
stand a little taller than the rest. The White River Junction Vet
Center staff exemplifies excellence. I want to offer my warmest
congratulations to this incredibly talented group of professionals and
remind them that they are shining examples to their colleagues in the
206 Vet Centers around the United States.

____________________

NORTH DAKOTA STOCKMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize a
very important organization in my state, the North Dakota Stockmen's
Association. I would also like to congratulate them on their 70th
anniversary as an organization. Over the years, the North Dakota
Stockmen's Association has been an invaluable asset to their members
and to me. In particular, after 70 years of representing North Dakota
family farmers and ranchers, the Stockmen have made great contributions
to the cultural and economic heritage of North Dakota. Their successes
have been accomplished through hard work and their consistent ability
to produce the highest quality beef in the world.
Cattle provide an essential source of income for North Dakota
farmers. Based on that fact alone, it is easy to understand the
importance of the Stockmen's Association to my state's producers. While
keeping the interests of cattle producers in the minds of elected
officials, the members of this organization also provide valuable
stewardship to the land, send their children to rural schools, support
businesses, and help their neighbors through difficult weather and
tough economic times. I would like to express my deep appreciation for
their enduring efforts to support my state's communities, and again, I
congratulate them for 70 years of service to the cattlemen of North
Dakota.

____________________

MICHAEL J. McGINNISS

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Brother
Michael J. McGinnis, who will be inducted as La Salle University's 28th
President on September 24. Brother McGinnis was previously a member of
La Salle's religion department, and for the past five years was
president of Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tennessee.
A native Philadelphian, Brother McGinnis joined the Christian
Brothers University in 1965 and graduated Maxima Cum Laude from La
Salle in 1970 with a degree in English. He obtained his Master's and
Ph.D. in theology from the University of Notre Dame. While a graduate
student at the University of Notre Dame, Brother McGinniss taught
undergraduate courses in the Theology Department.
Brother McGinniss became assistant professor at Washington
Theological Union from 1979 to 1984, and in 1984 joined the faculty at
La Salle on a full-time basis, reaching the rank of full professor in
1993. Recognized for his leadership qualities, Brother McGinnis became
Chair of La Salle's Religion Department in 1991 and the following year
received the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching.
During his tenure as President of Christian Brothers University,
undergraduate enrollment and retention rates increased, a Master's of
Education program was established, the Athletic Department joined the
NCAA Division II Gulf South Conference, and the Center for Global
Enterprise was founded. He also took an active role in the Memphis area
community, serving on the boards of the Economic Club of Memphis, the
Memphis chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and
the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. Brother McGinnis also served on the
Memphis Catholic Diocesan Development Committee and the board of the
Christian Brothers High School.
Brother McGinnis has published numerous articles in scholarly
journals, written chapters in religious books, and edited six volumes
of the Christian Brothers' Spirituality Seminar Series. His book
reviews have appeared in journals such as Horizons, Theological
Studies, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, and Holistic Nursing Practice.
His professional memberships include the Catholic Theological Society
of America, American Academy of Religion, and College Theology Society.

[[Page 22421]]

Mr. President, Brother McGinnis has distinguished himself through his
impressive academic and professional achievements, as well as through
his dedicated service to the community. I ask my colleagues to join me
in congratulating Brother Michael McGinnis on his induction as
President of La Salle University.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE CITIZENS AGAINST LAWSUIT ABUSE

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I would like to
recognize a volunteer group of West Virginians who have joined together
to educate the public on an important issue affecting our state and the
nation. These individuals, who have formed Citizens Against Lawsuit
Abuse, CALA, are disseminating information to the public about our
civil justice system, and they are working to encourage jury service
and personal responsibility in our society.
CALA spokespersons based in Huntington, Charleston, Bluefield, Logan,
Bridgeport, Fairmont, Morgantown and other cities in our state are
educating the public about how lawsuit abuse can affect consumers. The
CALA groups in West Virginia have raised funds to provide scholarships
to students statewide through essay contests where the students address
the important topic of jury service and personal responsibility.
Teaching our children the value of civic responsibility is a vitally
important component of learning, and CALA's efforts have not gone
unnoticed. By emphasizing the virtues of jury service, CALA is helping
to give our children a more well-rounded education and is promoting
values which will serve these children, and our future, well. I am
proud that many of West Virginia's finest students, from our public and
private secondary schools, have participated in these essay contests
and have been recognized for their efforts in our local media. The
winning high school essayists in last year's CALA scholarship contest
were Joshua Linville, Sherman High School, Boone County; Amanda Knapp,
Pt. Pleasant High School, Mason County; Matthew Walker, St. Joseph
Catholic High School, Cabell County; Courtney Ahlborn, Parkersburg
South High School, Wood County; Sarah Mauller, East Fairmont High
School, Marion County; and Misty Lanham, Tygarts Valley High School,
Randolph County.
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups have declared September 19
through 25 to be ``Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week'' in West Virginia. I
commend the citizens for their dedication and commitment and to
acknowledge this week as time of public awareness on the various issues
affecting civil justice in our state. Our citizens should be encouraged
to educate themselves about our civil justice system and how they can
help to make it the best in the world.

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS TO CHIEF JACK KRAKEEL

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge one
of Geogia's outstanding civil servants. On August 29, 1999, Jack
Krakeel, Director of Fayette County's Fire and Emergency Services, was
named Fire Chief of the Year by the International Fire Chief's
Association. This award is a fitting honor to a man who, through his
hard work and leadership, has provided Fayette County with a superior
fire and rescue team and has devised innovative methods to deal with
emergencies.
Under Chief Krakeel's leadership, Fayette County's emergency services
have found creative solutions to deal with ever-changing challenges. An
important program implemented by the Department requires cross-training
of employees. All career members of the Fayette County Department of
Fire and Emergency Services are trained as both firefighters and
paramedics. This gives the department incredible flexibility when
dealing with severe emergency situations.
Fayette County, Georgia, is one of the fastest growing counties in
the nation. In response to this rapid increase in demand for services,
Chief Krakeel has developed plans implemented by the Fayette County
Board of Commissioners which will maintain an average emergency
response time of five minutes. In a business where the difference
between life and death is often measured in seconds, the importance of
this initiative cannot be underestimated.
Chief Krakeel's department also recognizes the need to inform
families, particularly children, on the importance of fire safety.
Under Chief Krakeel's leadership, the department was the first in the
state to enact a multi-family housing sprinkler ordinance and also
created a portable fire safety education home which teaches children
how to escape from a fire.
Jack Krakeel has also serves in a variety of leadership roles related
to emergency services. He is the national Chairman of the National Fire
Protection Association's ``Technical Project in Emergency Medical
Systems.'' Also, Chief Krakeel is in his third year as a member of the
Board of Directors of the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
On a more local level, Chief Krakeel is a member of the Georgia's
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, and is in his twelfth year
of service with the organization. Not long ago he helped lead the
formation the joint EMS Committee of the Georgia Association of Fire
Chiefs and the Georgia Firefighters Association.
Other accomplishments during Chief Krakeel's impressive career are
too numerous to mention. It is not an exagerration to state that few
people have had a greater individual impact on modern emergency service
techniques than Chief Jack Krakeel. Mr. President, I offer my
congratulations to Chief Krakeel for the honor bestowed upon him, and
my hopes that he will continue to provide innovation and leadership for
years to come.

____________________

MR. K. PATRICK OKURA

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this coming weekend a long time
friend of mine, Mr. K. Patrick Okura, will be celebrating his 88th
birthday. For the past decade, Pat has been extraordinarily active in
guiding the Okura Mental Health Leadership Foundation in order to
ensure that young Asian Pacific American health professionals,
representing a wide range of disciplines, will have the skills and
experiences necessary to eventually achieve leadership roles throughout
our nation's health and human services agencies. Pat obtained his
baccalaureate and master's degrees in psychology from the University of
California at Los Angeles and has long been a member of the American
Psychological Association which recently published a special article
highlighting his monumental accomplishments. He is currently on the
Board of Directors of the National Mental Health Association, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, and the Japanese American National Museum.
He is a past-President of the Japanese American Citizens League and
founder of the National Asian Pacific American Families Against
Substance Abuse.
In July of 1971, during the Presidency of Richard Nixon, Pat assumed
the position of Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Institute of Mental Health, NIMH. For the next decade, he remained at a
high level policy position within the NIMH, shepherding to fruition
numerous innovative mental health initiatives. He was an active
participant in the deliberations of President Carter's landmark Mental
Health Commission. For many of us in the U.S. Congress, those were the
glory days for mental health. There was a sense of genuine excitement
and optimism. Our nation was finally beginning to understand and
appreciate the social and cultural aspects of health care, not to
mention the importance of ensuring that all Americans should receive
necessary care. Under Pat's leadership, our nation truly committed
itself to the far reaching ``deinstitutionalization movement,'' an
effort which would eventually bring mental illness out of the closet
and ensure that all of our citizens would retain their individual civil
liberties, notwithstanding any particular diagnosis, lack of economic
resources, or lack of immediate family.

[[Page 22422]]

During the mid-1980s, Pat went on to serve as Special Assistant to
the President of Hahnemann University, once again with a unique focus
on those projects and events that made the university the great
educational institution that it was. As I have already indicated, for
the past decade Pat has continued to ``give back'' to our nation by
ensuring that future generations of Asian Pacific American health
professionals will begin to appreciate their potential for excellence
in leadership. Having had the opportunity of personally meeting with
his Fellows as they come to Capitol Hill each year, I must say that I
have always been extraordinarily impressed by their dedication and
commitment to our nation. Pat Okura has truly been a visionary role
model for all of us and the ultimate public servant. I wish him the
best on this truly special occasion.

____________________

THE INGHAM COUNTY WOMEN'S COMMISSION 25TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and
congratulate the Ingham County Women's Commission, as they celebrate
their 25th Anniversary.
The Ingham County Women's Commission has taken great strides to meet
the needs of women since it was founded in 1974. The commission,
originally established to serve as a study and research center focusing
on the issues concerning women in the county, was restructured in 1976
and took on an advisory role to the Board of Commissioners. They now
focus on issues that impact the women of the county. They have
continued their efforts in researching better ways to meet the needs of
women through county resources.
What is truly remarkable about this select group is their dedication
to helping enrich the lives of women. They work closely with the Equal
Opportunity Commission to overcome discrimination against women. The
commission also provides many important and beneficial services to
women. Their greatest accomplishments include involvement with the New
Way In and Rural Emergency Outreach and the provision of acquaintance
rape education for high school students. Additionally, they have
experienced vast success in helping raise awareness of women's issues
by developing a sexual harassment policy for county employees,
sponsoring the Ingham County Sexual Assault Task Force and the Michigan
Council of Domestic Violence.
This important group of women are to be commended for their
accomplishments over the last 25 years. Their hard work and dedication
to conveying the importance of women's issues will benefit many women
for years to come.

____________________

LANE KIRKLAND

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today, there was a memorial
service for former AFL-CIO president, Joseph Lane Kirkland, on the
campus of Georgetown University. I was deeply saddened to hear of
Lane's passing and would like to reflect for just a few moments on his
life and his enormous contribution to organized labor in America.
Lane Kirland spent virtually his entire working life in the service
of his country. As a young man, he enrolled in the first class of the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and served the duration of World War II as
a transport officer. Following the war, Lane went back to school,
taking night classes at Georgetown, and received a degree in foreign
relations in 1948. He intended to enter the foreign service and
represent American interests abroad, but shortly after graduation he
took a low-level research position with the American Federation of
Labor.
That seemingly temporary sidestep would become the consuming mission
of his working life. An unlikely labor leader, born of a well-to-do
southern family and schooled in international relations, Lane became a
strong advocate for justice in the workplace and a champion of human
dignity. From 1948 until, some would say, the day he died, he fought
for working people--for higher wages, better health care, and greater
protections for workers health and safety. It is a credit to his skill,
intellect and unflagging determination that he was elected president of
the AFL-CIO in 1979, a post he faithfully held for 16 years.
Lane was a titan of the American labor movement. A man of great
personal strength, Lane used his talent and energy to act upon his
convictions, uniting people of diverse backgrounds and improving the
lives of countless working families across this country and around the
world. During Lane's tenure as president, organized labor faced ever-
increasing challenges which called for strong, decisive leadership.
With union membership declining across the country, Lane fought
successfully to unite the Nation's largest and best-known unions under
the AFL-CIO, guaranteeing the continued vitality of organized labor and
ensuring it a position in American political discourse well into the
21st century.
His vision for trade unionism did not stop at the water's edge. Under
Lane's stewardship, the AFL-CIO reached out to workers around the
world. Like few others at the time, Lane understood the global struggle
embodied in the cold war. He was a man of great insight, and he
realized that a fair workplace could be used as a lever to create a
fairer society. Ardently anticommunist, Lane believed personal freedom
was the right of every man, woman, and child and saw the union as a
vehicle of freedom. Thus, he supported trade unions in China, Cuba,
South Africa, Chile, and Poland, where unions were severely suppressed
and personal freedoms denied. When Solidarity assumed power in Poland,
Lane's faith in the power of trade unions and lifetime of work to build
them were irrefutably vindicated.
With Lane's passing, a bright light for trade unions has been
extinguished. He will be greatly missed. My thoughts and prayers are
with his wife, Irena, and his family.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LANE KIRKLAND

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, over the August recess South
Carolina lost one of her most distinguished native sons, Lane Kirkland.
Unless you knew Lane personally, you weren't likely to know he was a
proud South Carolinian. If you did know him personally, there was no
way not to know he was a proud South Carolinian. He went to South
Carolina regularly; sometimes to see his brothers Ranny and Tommy,
sometimes just to go to the wonderful small town of Camden where he
spent his childhood summers. Whenever we would meet, officially or not,
we always spent some time talking about South Carolina.
Lane remembered and cherished his roots, but they did not bind him.
He had grown up with people who could not see through their rich
heritage to the future. Lane was acutely aware of this trap and he
illustrated this brilliantly in a commencement address to the
University of South Carolina in 1985.

I owe to Sidney Hook a thought that I offer as my final
conclusion from all this. From him I learned the difference
between a truth and a deep truth. A deep truth is a truth the
converse of which is equally true. For example, it is true,
as Santayana said, that those who cannot remember the past
are doomed to repeat it. Yet it is equally true that those
who do remember the past may not know when it is over. That
is a deep truth.

Lane Kirkland was a complex person as evidenced by his many
contradictions. He was a Southerner who found his education and
opportunity in New York; he descended from planters but had his first
success as a sea captain; he was a child of privilege who became a
self-described New Dealer; he was an intellectual who fought for miners
and mill workers; and perhaps most importantly, he was a liberal anti-
Communist.
Lane had many triumphs in his life, but none was so important as the
leading role he played in the liberation of Eastern Europe and the fall
of the wall. He committed the resources of the American labor movement
to preserve Lech Walesa and Solidarity. The New York Post wrote that
``Kirkland must be included among a select group of leaders--including
Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa--

[[Page 22423]]

who played a critical role in bringing about the demise of Communism.''
William Safire, no fan of organized labor, wrote this about Lane
Kirkland and Lech Walesa: ``Together these two anti-Communist patriots
fought the Soviet empire when the weak-kneed were bleating
`convergence'. Their refusal to compromise with evil exemplified the
leadership that helped win--the word is `win'--the cold war.''
As a South Carolinian and an American, I am proud of the central role
that Lane played in the central struggle of this century. People in the
United States and around the world know the exhilaration and
opportunity that freedom brings in part because of Lane Kirkland. In
his last speech in South Carolina, Lane addressed the South Carolina
Historical Society. He opened by saying, ``I am honored to be here even
though it suggests that I am history.'' In reality Lane Kirkland made
history.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO HEATHER RENEE FRENCH

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate
Heather Renee French of Maysville, Kentucky, on her recent crowning as
Miss America 1999.
Ms. French is an outstanding young woman who made all Kentuckians
proud of her impressive showing at this year's prestigious Miss America
pageant. She made history with her win on September 18, 1999, as the
first Miss Kentucky ever to be named as the reigning Miss America--and
the goal to help homeless Veterans she's set for her year-long term
will likely make history as well.
Though young, Ms. French has accomplished a great deal in her 24
years. A graduate of the University of Cincinnati (U of C)
undergraduate program and a student in the U of C Masters of Design
school, she currently teaches at the U of C design school, and is
working on a textbook for college-level design students.
Her resume boasts extensive service and volunteer experience,
including working with the Make-A-Wish Foundation, volunteering at VA
hospitals and with the Statewide Vietnam Veterans Awareness Campaign.
It is refreshing to see an intelligent, successful young woman who
takes the time to spend unpaid hours working to help others.
According to post-pageant interviews, Ms. French has indicated that
the top priority with her newly-won title is to lobby Congress on
behalf of America's Veterans. The daughter of a disabled Vietnam
Veteran, Ms. French has become acutely aware of the problems Veterans
face and the obstacles they often have to overcome.
I also would like to congratulate the French family, as this is their
victory as well. They are to be commended for the love and support they
provided throughout Heather's life, and throughout what was surely a
busy summer preparing for the September pageant. Her father, Ron,
deserves recognition as the inspiration for Heather's strong desire to
help America's Veterans and for the Purple Heart he earned during the
Vietnam War. As a father, it would encourage me to know that my
daughters had learned something from a parents' adversity that would
drive them to help others with similar experiences.
My colleagues and I join in congratulating you, Ms. French, on your
success and wish you all the best in what will surely be an exciting
year.

____________________

ALASKA NATIONAL GUARDSMEN RECEIVE MACKAY TROPHY

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take this time
to pay tribute to the men of Air Force Rescue 470, from the 210th
Rescue Squadron in the Alaska Air National Guard. These five men,
stationed at Kulis Air National Guard Base in Anchorage, Alaska,
recently received the Mackay Trophy. The Mackay Trophy is given each
year to the person or crew in the United States Air Force for what is
considered the most meritorious flight of the year. The crew of Air
Force Rescue 470 certainly deserve this prestigious award.
Let me tell you a little bit about the rescue they performed which
led to this recognition. On May 27, 1998, six people, including two
small children, flying in the Tordrillo Mountains, suddenly crashed
into a glacier about 10,500 feet above sea level. These people were
trapped in their plane, with darkness coming and the temperature
dropping. Because they were not dressed for the extreme cold that would
come, these six people would surely not survive the night.
Fortunately for them, they had some of the best trained, best
equipped, and bravest men were on the way to the crash site. This was
not an easy rescue by any means. It was already extremely cold,
visibility was only \1/8\ of a mile, the wind was anywhere between ten
and forty knots, and the crashed plane was high up the mountain.
Normally any one of these factors would make a rescue attempt extremely
risky. But Air Force Rescue 470 had to contend with all sorts of
deterrents in order to rescue these people before nightfall came.
The crew had to fly up to an altitude of over 12,000 feet because of
the visibility problem. The thin air made it difficult for the
helicopter blades to keep the aircraft aloft and for the men to
breathe. As soon as a hole in the clouds appeared, they dove down into
the mountainous terrain to land. The weather was only getting worse,
and the pararescuers had only fifty minutes, because of the limited
fuel supply, to pry open the wreckage of the downed plane, get everyone
out, and get them all safely back to the helicopter, six hundred feet
away. All six lives were saved.
Mr. President, I know that the crew of Air Force Rescue 470 were
simply happy to be serving their country on this day back in May of
1998. I also know that they have made countless other rescues, just as
have other Rescue units around the country. But I am especially proud
that these fine young men of the Alaska Air National Guard were chosen
for the Mackay Trophy. So to Lieutenant Colonel John Jacobs, the pilot,
First Lieutenant Thaddeus Stolar, the copilot, Master Sergeant Scott
Hamilton, Master Sergeant Steve Daigle, and Technical Sergeant Greg
Hopkins, the pararescuers, I congratulate you. Both Alaska and the
Nation thank you for your continued efforts to save lives.

____________________

ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1999

Mr. BOND. Mr. 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 Friday, September 24. Further, I ask unanimous consent
that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the VA-HUD
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
vote on the Wellstone amendment Senator Kerry of Massachusetts be
recognized to offer his amendment which is on the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. Then following 2 minutes of debate, a
vote on the Wellstone amendment regarding atomic veterans will take
place. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote to take place at
approximately 9:35 a.m.
There are a few more amendments on the list that must be disposed of
prior to final passage. Senators can expect votes throughout the
morning. We will attempt to finish the bill by 11 o'clock in the
morning.

[[Page 22424]]

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:38 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, September 24, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate September 23, 1999:

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

IRA BERLIN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JANUARY 26, 2004, VICE JOSEPH H. HAGAN, TERM EXPIRED.
EVELYN EDSON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26,
2004, VICE ALICIA JUARRERO, TERM EXPIRED.

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADES
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be colonel

ROBERT E. WEGMANN, 0000

To be lieutenant colonel

SANDRA K. JAMES, 0000

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADES
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY CHAPLAIN CORPS AND JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 531,
624, AND 3064:

To be colonel

JOHN H. BELSER, JR., 0000 JA

To be lieutenant colonel

DOUGLAS K. KINDER, 0000 CH

To be major

THOMAS R. SHEPARD, 0000 CH

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADES
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL CORPS AND FOR
REGULAR APPOINTMENT (IDENTIFIED BY AN ASTERISK (*)) UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 531, 624, 628 AND 3064:

To be colonel

*KATHLEEN DAVID-BAJAR, 0000 MC

To be major

HARRY D. MCKINNON, 0000 MC
DEAN C. PEDERSEN, 0000 MC

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

Wendell A. Porth, 0000

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

SKILA HARRIS, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR THE REMAINDER
OF THE TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2005, VICE JOHNNY H. HAYES,
RESIGNED.
GLENN L. MCCULLOUGH, JR., OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR
A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2008, VICE WILLIAM H. KENNOY, TERM
EXPIRED.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

September 23, 1999

[[Page 22425]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, September 23, 1999

The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Hefley).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

Washington, DC,

September 23, 1999.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Joel Hefley to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Reverend James David Ford, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
Give us we pray, O gracious God, the vision to see Your will for
righteousness in our world and give us attentive hearts to see the need
for reconciliation and respect in our communities and in our
institutions. We pray that Your good spirit will enlighten us with love
in our own lives so that we will be the people You would have us be and
do those works of justice that benefit every person. As we are open to
Your spirit and armed with Your grace, may we then be empowered to be
Your people in our daily lives. Bless us, O God, this day and every
day, we pray. 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 gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs.
Chenoweth) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. CHENOWETH 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.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain 15 one-minutes on
each side.

____________________

WHO IS TO BLAME FOR DO-NOTHING CONGRESS?

(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the
distinguished minority leaders of both the House and the other body for
settling what to me has long been a confusing issue.
In spite of all the legislation the Republican Congress has passed so
far, the Social Security lockbox, tax relief, and debt reduction, the
Ed-Flex bill, and the military readiness bill, to name just a few, we
have listened for months to Democrats bluster about the do-nothing
Congress.
When I picked up my copy of The Hill yesterday, I finally began to
understand what they mean by a do-nothing Congress. They mean
themselves. On the front page, the distinguished minority leader of the
other body proclaimed his disappointment that the first session of the
106th Congress was not more productive, while only a few lines of
newsprint away the distinguished minority leader of the House claimed
that the Democrats have dominated the Congressional agenda since 1994.
So, Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats are in control and nothing is being
done, then I ask the Members, who is to blame?

____________________

GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for 5 months many of us in this body have
urged the Republican leadership to help us enact common-sense gun
safety measures that will keep guns out of the hands of kids and
criminals. But at every turn we have been stalled and stymied, we have
been told that we are rushing, that we need to wait.
Waiting means more lives are lost. Every day that passes takes a toll
of 13 children, 13 youngsters killed every day by guns. Hundreds of
children have been killed just in the time since the tragedy at
Columbine High School.
Today I join my colleagues in continuing to pay tribute to some of
those children and urge the Congressional leadership to pass gun safety
legislation in their memory.
Paulette Peak, age 8, killed by gunfire on July 31, 1999, Chicago
Illinois;
Reginald McClaine, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 4, 1999,
Bronx, New York;
Aaron Thomas, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 5, 1999, St. Louis,
Missouri;
Tamara Seline, age 17, killed by gunfire on August 6, 1999, West Palm
Beach, Florida.

____________________

GUN CONTROL LAWS

(Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, most people who know me know that I am
never really inclined to praise The Washington Post. But The Washington
Post, to their credit, ran a very fine story this past Sunday about gun
control that surprised me quite a bit.
Apparently, my friends on the other side of the aisle missed that
article or have decided to merely misrepresent this whole issue. The
article points out that none of the gun control bills debated by
Congress this year if passed into law would have stopped any of the
recent shootings which have taken so many of our children's lives.
The reason is quite simple. All of the killers had either bought
their guns legally or found an easy way to get around State and Federal
laws. The article went through each shooting and each killer, the
killers at Columbine; Mike Barton in Atlanta; Buford Furrow, Jr., in
Los Angeles; Benjamin Nathaniel Smith in Illinois and Indiana; and
Larry Geen Ashbrook in Fort Worth, Texas; and it traced the steps
through which the purchase of the guns occurred before those shootings.
Again, no gun control laws so passionately advocated by those on the
other side would have had any impact on these killers.

____________________

CAPTIVE ELEPHANT ACCIDENT PREVENTION ACT

(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, first of all, to
thank game show host Bob Barker for coming to Washington, D.C. in
support of the bill I am introducing today and sorry that he had to
have emergency surgery. We all wish him well as he recovers from this.
Today I am introducing the Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act,

[[Page 22426]]

H.R. 2929, to make circuses more humane for animals and safer for
spectators. I am not interested in seeing the circus industry unduly
hindered or encumbered. My bill is a practical, reasonable bill that
addresses a fundamental wrong in the entertainment industry.
The problem is that we have to break the will of wild beasts, big
beasts that are 10 feet tall, weigh several tons, in order for them to
perform stunts at circuses. They use high-powered electric prods. They
tie them up. And we can see that when an animal goes wild, as this one
did in Honolulu, that the only way to stop them from injuring people is
to shoot them. That is what happened in this case where an animal had
57 rounds shot into him before he was brought down.
Animals like elephants are not horses or dogs. They cannot be trained
for those purposes. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring
H.R. 2929.

____________________

FALN TERRORISTS RELEASED FROM PRISON

(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is the practice in our Nation that victims
of crime and their families be consulted before criminals who have
perpetrated the crimes against them are released from prison.
Well, it just so happens that the victims of the FALN terrorist
attacks were never even consulted; they were never even notified that
these terrorists were about to be set free from prison, another
injustice against the American people and victims of crime by our
President.
Yet, the Clinton-Gore Administration took months talking to the
terrorists and their representatives as they made their decision. We
know that the First Lady was consulted. She first agreed, and then she
said she changed her mind. We are told that the Vice President is
consulted about everything. I wonder what his response or his role was
in granting the terrorists their freedom.
Why were not 139 bombings, 6 people killed, dozens maimed enough to
keep terrorists off of our streets? The American people and the victims
of crime deserve answers to these questions, not silence through
executive privilege.

____________________

CONGRESS TURNS OTHER CHEEK

(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, FBI agents testified that the Justice
Department blocked their investigation of illegal campaign
contributions to the Democrat National Committee in the last campaign.
FBI agents also said, under oath, Justice Department lawyers actually
impeded and delayed and obstructed any investigation.
Beam me up, Mr. Speaker. Whether we are a Republican or a Democrat or
an Independent, this is wrong. This may in fact be criminal. And the
Justice Department warrants a thorough investigation by an independent
counsel, not one of their own peers.
The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, Congress turns the other cheek. Shame,
Congress.
I yield back China Gate. I yield back Travel Gate. I yield back Ruby
Ridge. I yield back Waco. And I yield back more to come.

____________________

DEMOCRATS WANT TO SPEND MORE--REPUBLICANS WANT TO SPEND LESS

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we move to the end of the closure for
our budget this year, on almost every single bill, on almost every
single amendment to every bill, this dispute between the Republicans
and the Democrats comes down to the same thing. The Democrats want to
spend more and more around here. Republicans want to spend less and
provide accountability.
In fact, any attempt by Republicans to limit spending is met by
outrage, accusations by the Democrats that Republicans are mean-
spirited.
Yet, for 40 years while they were in the majority there was hardly a
Government program they did not support, a Government program they did
not expand, or a Government program they did not dream about building.
Yet, now Democrats are actually trying to portray themselves as a party
of fiscal responsibility.
Please spare us, the American people, this rhetoric. Republicans were
elected in 1994, and they forced the President to sign a balanced
budget despite loud protests from the left that it would require savage
cuts. The Republicans believe in fiscal accountability, and they are
trying hard to value the taxpayers' money.

____________________

REMEMBERING FIREFIGHTER STEPHEN MASTO

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the
service and pay tribute to Stephen Joseph Masto. Stephen died in late
August while helping to battle a wildfire in Los Padres National Forest
in my district.
At the young age of 28, Stephen had already devoted his career to
public safety. He spent his career fighting fires all over Southern
California and the central coast. We can never repay Stephen or his
family for his dedication, hard work, and ultimate sacrifice. Rather,
we must honor him by being especially mindful of the brave men and
women firefighters he has left behind.
These individuals have committed themselves to protecting the lives
and safety of their neighbors in times of need. Like Stephen, they are
true heroes in every sense of the word.
I know that I speak for my entire community when I extend my most
heartfelt condolences to Stephen's families and loved ones who will
miss him so terribly. We honor him when we honor the people he has left
behind.

____________________

IT IS TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it seems that rarely does a day go by when
we do not learn of more allegations of mismanagement, stonewalling, and
cover-ups at the Department of Justice.
Yesterday, during the testimony before the Senate committee, FBI
agents assigned to investigate the Clinton White House's involvement in
the widespread campaign financial scandal said that Justice Department
officials blocked their efforts to carry out the investigation.
At one point during the investigation, the special agent in charge of
the Little Rock FBI office personally wrote to FBI Director Louis Freeh
to express his concern about Justice's role in hampering the
investigation, maintaining that the team leading the investigation, at
best, simply was not up to the task.
Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department continues to lose confidence of
the law enforcement community, confidence of the Congress, and
confidence of the American people. It is time to restore that
confidence. It is time to clean House at the Justice Department. It is
time for Attorney General Janet Reno to step down.

____________________

GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, while this Congress delays,
while this Congress continues to look the other way, America's children
are falling victim to gun violence at an alarming rate. The American
people

[[Page 22427]]

are demanding that this House take action to protect our young people
from gun violence.

{time} 1015

That is why I am so proud to stand here with my colleagues in reading
the rollcall of children who have been victims of gun violence since
Columbine. The child safety locks could have prevented many of these
accidental deaths. This Congress should pass this legislation and stop
delaying, delaying, delaying.
Richard Stanley, age 15, killed by gunfire on August 6, 1999, West
Palm Beach, Florida; Erik Kraemer, age 17, killed by gunfire on August
7, 1999, Turtle Lake, Wisconsin; Halley Finch and many more that I will
place in the Record.

____________________

LET US PASS THE INTERSTATE CLASS ACTION JURISDICTION ACT TODAY

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this week of September 19 to
25 marks Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week. I commend members of the Western
Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, WMCALA, for joining thousands
of Americans in informing the general public of the high price we all
pay for frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards.
Today this House has the opportunity to reduce lawsuit abuse by
passing the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act. This bill will
discourage frivolous class action claims.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes and pass
this sensible and important legislation.
Frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards exact a heavy price from
all Americans in the form of higher prices for goods and services,
fewer jobs, loss of safety improvements and product innovations, and
delays in compensation for citizens with legitimate claims. Please pass
the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act today.

____________________

LET US PASS REAL GUN SAFETY REFORM NOW

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stood here yesterday and I
will stand here many more days, if it takes our presence on the floor
to cause this Congress to pass real gun safety reform.
I stand here to continue the rollcall of dead children who have been
killed by gunfire since Columbine. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we
close the gun show loopholes that will disallow criminals and others
who should not have guns from getting guns. It will disallow those who
would kill our children or would put guns in the hands of our children
that they might accidentally shoot each other.
Mr. Speaker, are my colleagues aware that unlike our movie theaters
where one must be accompanied by an adult for certain type movies, that
children can randomly go through gun shows with no supervision? Yes,
Mr. Speaker, we need real gun safety reform, the elimination of
automatic clips. We need to protect our children, and it is for that
reason I stand here today to read the rollcall of our dead children who
died by gunfire:
Timothy Rodriguez, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999,
Peoria, Arizona; Preston Posey, age 14, killed by gunfire on August 8,
1999, Louisville, Kentucky; Jaire Soler, age 15, killed by gunfire on
August 8, 1999, Bronx, New York.

____________________

AMERICA HAS OVERPAID THE COST OF GOVERNMENT

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, imagine going to McDonald's and ordering a
nine-piece chicken nuggets and a large drink. The cost is $4.50. You
give the clerk a $5 bill. The clerk takes your money, gives you the
chicken and the drink but no change. So you ask, where is my fifty
cents? And the clerk says, well, I could give you the fifty cents, but
then I would have to trust you to spend it right.
Well, you would be appalled. You would be angry. It is your money.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what will happen if the President
vetoes the tax cut.
America has overpaid the cost of government. We locked up all Social
Security. We have protected all of Medicare payments. We are even
paying down the publicly held debt, and still we have money left over.
We have overpaid the cost of government. The change is ours.
Well, the President does not trust us to spend it right. He has even
publicly said so. But I trust you, the Republicans trust you, and I
hope the President will change his mind and trust America and give us
back our change and sign the tax relief law.

____________________

CHILDREN KILLED BY GUNFIRE

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to read the
names of children killed by gunfire since the April 20 Columbine
massacre: Anthony Joseph Stroud, age 12, killed by gunfire in July
1999, Houston, Texas; Reginald McClaine, age 16, killed by gunfire on
August 4, 1999, Bronx, New York; Aaron Thomas, age 16, killed by
gunfire on August 5, 1999, St. Louis, Missouri; Erik Kraemer, age 17,
killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Turtle Lake, Wisconsin; Halley
Finch, age 5, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Gary, Indiana;
Jeremy Lee Gearon, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Gary,
Indiana; DeJuan Williams, age 17, killed by gunfire on August 9, 1999,
St. Louis, Missouri; Alexande Durrive, age 14, killed by gunfire on
August 10, 1999, Miami, Dade County, Florida.

____________________

EVERY CHILD IN AMERICA IS NOW SADLY A TARGET OF CHINESE MISSILES,
COURTESY OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I note with interest the recitation of
names by my colleagues on the left. I think it is a tragedy when any
child dies. I think it is likewise a tragedy when we can add to the
rollcall the names of the living. Nicole Irene Hayworth, Scottsdale,
Arizona; Hannah Lynn Hayworth, Scottsdale, Arizona; John Mica Hayworth,
Scottsdale, Arizona; and every child in America now sadly a target of
Chinese missiles, courtesy of transfers of technology, curiously
supported by campaign donations from Chinese interests to the
Democratic National Committee.
Yes, it is a tragedy when any child dies, but the answer is not in
abridging constitutional rights. It is in enforcing existing laws on
the books. Just as current laws for campaign finance have not been
enforced, just as current laws for firearms have not been enforced, the
lawlessness, Mr. Speaker, comes from those who are elected to
faithfully execute the laws.

____________________

WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER MONTH IN OUR CALENDAR TO CONTINUE DOING NOTHING

(Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with only 6 congressional working days
remaining in this Federal fiscal year, only one of the 13
appropriations bills necessary for the continued operation of our
Government has actually been signed into law. This is the kind of
record of inattention to duty, of inaction that brought us the costly
Republican government shutdowns in the all-too-recent past.
It is perhaps most symbolic of this Congress that one of the few
bills that

[[Page 22428]]

has been approved was a commemorative medal for the great explorers
Lewis and Clark, for I think that not even such great explorers could
find any accomplishment in this Congress. In the words of the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), ``We have sort of bumped
into a wall.''
With this Congress, America is bumping into a wall of inaction.
Now the Republican leadership is even considering the creation of a
thirteenth month on the Federal calendar. If they worked more than
halftime during the first 12 months, we would not need such nonsense.

____________________

CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TURNED BLIND EYE TO RUSSIAN CORRUPTION

(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, over the last 7 years, the IMF, with the
backing of the Clinton administration, has loaned the Russian
Government $20 billion. All the while, the administration assured
Congress and the American people that they were working with Russia to
facilitate reforms. Yet as details of the vast money laundering out of
Russia unraveled this month, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
said, quote, ``calm down, world. We have been aware from the beginning
that crime and corruption are a huge problem in Russia and a huge
obstacle to Russian reform.''
Indeed, in 1995, the CIA met with Vice President Gore to present
evidence on the personal corruption of Prime Minister Victor
Chernomyrdin with whom Vice President Gore led a joint American-Russian
commission. According to the New York Times, Mr. Gore rejected that
report.
It is time that the Clinton-Gore administration tell Congress and the
American people what else they have rejected and why they have turned a
blind eye for so long.

____________________

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD RECONSIDER HIS VETO OF THE TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT

(Mr. SCHAFFER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the President's penchant for raising taxes
on America's working-class families, to fund costly, unproven and
inefficient government programs for special interest groups, his
expected veto today of the Taxpayer Relief Act is neither surprising
nor unexpected. However, one would think this President would care to
leave a better legacy than having created the most costly and
overbearing bureaucracy in the history of our Nation.
If and when the President uses his veto pen later today, he will
effectively eliminate the best opportunity we have ever had to protect
Social Security and Medicare, while paying down the massive debt our
country has accrued after 40 years of liberal spending.
There is more, Mr. Speaker. In addition to offering broad relief for
middle-class taxpayers, including the repeal of the death tax, an
across-the-board reduction in income and capital gains tax rates,
marriage tax penalty relief and education, health care and dependent
care assistance, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act contains provisions
specifically designed to assist America's farmers and ranchers
currently enduring the worst farm economy since the Great Depression.
The President's harmful treatment of agriculture is nothing new
either. His affinity for campaign-style rhetoric, broken promises and
outright hostility toward agriculture has resulted in record numbers of
farmers and ranchers facing defaults, foreclosures, and farm auctions.

____________________

STAND FIRM FOR THE BENEFITS EVERY AMERICAN DESERVES: JUSTICE UNDER THE
LAW

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we put
together a $792 billion tax relief package for the people of the United
States of America. There is a tax savings for every American. There is
tax savings for education.
We tried to put America back on track. Guess what the President is
going to do today? He is going to veto that legislation and put a $792
billion tax increase on every American person in this country.
Furthermore, to try to offset the stench of Waco that is going around
today, this White House has the audacity to try to sue an American
industry, the tobacco companies. They are legal operations. The idea is
to take the pressure off of Waco.
We must have justice in this Nation. We are a Nation of justice. We
must stand firm for the benefits that every American deserves, and that
is justice under the law.

____________________

THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY WILL CONTINUE

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today's theme team is proud to present to
the President of the United States the smoke and mirror award for
vetoing the middle-class tax cut. The middle class in America, the
President says, deserves a break. Of course, a couple of years ago,
remember, he was asking these same middle class people to invest in
government and yet today he refused to invest in them by letting us
keep our own money.
Therefore, in Savannah, Georgia, Marilyn and Robert Johnson will
continue to pay the marriage tax penalty that they are having to pay
ever since they were married, because this President does not want to
give them relief.

{time} 1030

Ms. C.C. Jones in Brunswick, Georgia who works out of her house will
continue to not have the 100 percent deduction for buying her health
care, because the President will not give it to her. And then, a good
friend of mine named Jimmy, I am not going to say his last name,
because he is in an income bracket that is not necessarily something
the President cares about, he would have gotten a 7 percent tax
reduction today, but the President says, no, Jimmy, you keep on working
those 50 to 60 hours a week, because Washington is going to grow, not
the American taxpayers. They are not going to keep their money.
To you, Mr. President, I proudly present the Smoke and Mirror Award.
Job well done for government bureaucrats. One more victory for
Washington, one less for middle-class taxpayers.

____________________

TAX BILL DOES NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and
say that I am glad the President is going to veto that tax cut bill,
because talk about smoke and mirrors, over the next 10 years, they
expect to have a $3 trillion surplus if the economy stays as good as it
is today, and $2 trillion of that is Social Security receipts. The
Republicans passed a $790 billion bill for a tax cut. That does not
leave anything for Medicare; it does not leave anything for education.
Of course, why should we expect them to plan for 10 years from now?
Right now, the last appropriations bill we have on this floor, it is
not even here yet, is the education funding bill. It should be first
and not last. They are going to cut Federal aid to education
dramatically to meet their caps, and that is what is wrong.
That is why I am glad the President is vetoing that tax bill, because
it does not plan for the future of our country.

____________________

REPUBLICANS WANT AMERICANS TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY

(Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)

[[Page 22429]]

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the last person in the well made the case
very clearly as to what the debate is about. The Republican's $792
billion tax cut gives money back to the people who earned it. The
Democrats want to spend it. It is just that simple.
We heard the gentleman say we did not have enough money for education
and for the programs he wants to spend it on.
We want you to spend it; they want to spend it for you. It is a very,
very simple issue.
The one thing that we are very clear on is that we passed the Social
Security lockbox. Not one penny of Social Security surpluses will go
for spending or for tax relief; it will go for Social Security. I will
repeat it again. We want you to spend it; they want to spend it for
you.

____________________

HOUSE NEEDS TO PASS GOOD GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION TO KEEP OUR CHILDREN
SAFE

(Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, how long? How long will our
children have to wait before we can pass good gun safety legislation?
How long will our parents, who are petrified to send their children to
school for fear of that fatal call that they will get? How long, Mr.
Speaker, must this House wait to ensure our children the safety that
they deserve when they are in school or in church?
I suggest to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, my bill, the child safety
lock bill that was introduced in the 105th Congress and in the 106th
Congress that has not passed this House yet, would have perhaps
prevented Andre Holmes, age 15, killed by gun fire on September 1, 1999
in Atlanta, Georgia; Larry N. Perry, age 17, killed by gun fire on
September 1, 1999 in Omaha, Nebraska; Kyla Washington, age 1, killed by
gun fire on September 4, 1999, Dolton, Illinois; Christopher Fogleman,
age 12, killed by gun fire on September 4, 1999, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. Let us not forget, the children
are watching.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R.
1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1999

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7C of rule XXII, I
hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on
H.R. 1501 tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Doolittle moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1501 be
instructed to insist that the conference report--
(1) recognize that the primary cause of youth violence in
America is depraved hearts, not inanimate weapons;
(2) recognize that the second amendment to the Constitution
protects the individual right of American citizens to keep
and bear arms; and
(3) not impose unconstitutional restrictions on the second
amendment rights of individuals.

____________________

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2558

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2558.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1875, INTERSTATE CLASS ACTION
JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 295

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1875) to amend title 28, United States Code,
to allow the application of the principles of Federal
diversity jurisdiction to interstate class actions. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be
printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any
series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 295 a modified, open rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction
Act of 1999.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 295 provides one hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides that the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment.
House Resolution 295 also provides that the amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be open to amendment by section. The resolution
provides for the consideration of pro forma amendments and those
amendments printed in the Congressional Record which may be offered
only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and
shall be considered as read.
The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on
any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in the series
of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to eliminate the abuse of the
current class action rules. Today, an attorney can devise a theoretical
case, write it as a class action, and argue that he is pursuing the
claim on behalf of millions of people, none of which solicited that
attorney's assistance. Using this practice, hundreds of frivolous
lawsuits are filed in favorable State courts and used as high-stakes,
court-endorsed blackmail devices against companies which usually settle
rather than face a long and arduous court battle.
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Federal Judicial
Conference has reported that class actions

[[Page 22430]]

have increased 300 to 1,000 percent per company in the last 3 years.
This explosion of class actions, done in the name of the consumer, has
cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars in legal fees and
higher prices. Even worse, legitimate legal claims have been
collusively resolved by lawyers in back rooms while the real victims
have gotten, at best, a handful of coupons for their favorite laundry
detergent.
One of the rules that allows the attorneys to abuse the class action
process is the ``diversity'' requirement. Foreseeing the possibility
that attorneys that would seek the most favorable State court to hear
their case, the Founding Fathers included a provision in article III of
the Constitution that cites numerous situations in which Federal courts
would have jurisdiction when a case included different parties from
different States.
Since that time, however, the threshold for removal of a Federal case
to Federal court has been significantly raised to require that the
claim by each member of the class exceed $75,000 and members of the
class are of different States. These new standards have promoted
``venue shopping'' by attorneys, who go looking for States that would
be particularly favorable to their claim.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 would end this abuse. Under new rules included
in the bill, interstate class actions could be returned to the proper
venue, the Federal courts, where both plaintiff and defendant have an
equal standing. Either a plaintiff or a defendant could have the right
to remove the case to the Federal level. Further, attorneys would have
less of an incentive to file frivolous claims when the venue could be
changed from their favorable State courtroom to a more balanced Federal
bench.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 also protects the jurisdictions of State
courts by ensuring that class actions involving less than $1 million in
claims or fewer than 100 people could still be heard at the State
level. Cases in which State officials or agencies are the primary
defendants would also be left to State courts.
Unfortunately, some will argue today that this bill will prevent
Americans from getting justice. Do not be fooled. What they really mean
is that trial lawyers will not be able to fill their coffers in State
courts at the expense of both the businesses they sue and the citizens
that they supposedly represent. Under current rules, if two lawyers
have entered competing class actions in court, the first to be decided
gets all of the relief and the other action is moot, which leaves the
members of the other action without any recourse in court. H.R. 1875
would allow plaintiffs to remove their case to Federal court, where
these similar actions would be coordinated into a single action,
benefiting the people seeking redress and not the trial lawyers.
H.R. 1875 also includes provisions to ensure that these new rules
will not place unreasonable burdens on the Federal judiciary. While CBO
estimates that H.R. 1875 would have only a minimal impact on the
Federal bench, the bill requires the GAO to complete a study on the
effect that the changes in diversity rules would have on the Federal
judiciary and report to Congress no later than 1 year after the bill's
enactment.
I applaud my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for their good work on this action, which returns our class
action system to the fundamental principles intended by our founders
when they created the Federal judiciary. This bill is fair to all
parties and restores the impartial venue of the Federal courts to class
actions. I encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the
underlying rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. H.R. 1875 has
an innocuous title, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act, but
its content is destructive.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it harder for the little guy to have his
day in court. It seriously limits the ability of Americans to seek
redress for injuries caused by large corporations. This legislation
also represents an unwarranted incursion into State court prerogatives
and by doing so will further clog the already backlogged and overloaded
Federal court system. This legislation does nothing to curb abuses of
the class action system, but it will ensure that legitimate claims will
be harder to pursue, will be more expensive to pursue, and will take
far longer in the courts than they already are.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad bill, and it deserves to be
defeated.
H.R. 1875 flies directly in the face of the notion of States' rights
that my Republican colleagues are so often heard to extol. The bill
removes every class action from State court, unless all of the primary
defendants are incorporated, or have their principal place of business
in the State where the case is filed, or unless virtually all of the
plaintiffs are citizens of that State.

{time} 1045

The Attorneys General of New York and Oklahoma have written to the
Speaker raising objections to this bill based on the very notion of
States' rights. They write, ``Such a radical transfer of jurisdiction
in cases that most commonly raise questions of State law would undercut
State courts' ability to manage their own court systems and
consistently interpret State laws.''
The President of the Conference of Chief Justices wrote to the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to say, and again I quote,
``We believe that H.R. 1875 in its present form is an unwarranted
incursion on the principles of Federalism underlying our system of
government.''
Mr. Speaker, some proponents of this legislation say that it is a
simple procedural fix. Others contend that it was designed to fix
abuses of the class action system. But Mr. Speaker, there are those of
us who ask, how could an unwarranted incursion on the principles of
judicial Federalism represent a simple procedural fix?
There are others of us who ask why, if the intent is to address
abuse, are there no specific remedies for specific problems embodied in
this bill?
Mr. Speaker, this bill faces a certain veto. It is opposed by the
Justice Department, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the
Conference of Chief Justices, the Attorneys General of New York,
Oklahoma, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee, and
West Virginia. It is opposed by a wide range of consumer groups, health
groups, social justice groups, and the trial lawyers.
They are all rightly concerned that H.R. 1875 will remove class
actions from forums which are most convenient for victims of
wrongdoing. They are all rightly concerned that passage of this
legislation would deny class action relief which could remedy
fraudulent behavior, discriminatory practices, or negligence.
I share these concerns, Mr. Speaker, and urge the defeat of this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, for the great tobacco companies; the health maintenance
organizations, for which so many people are asking that this Congress
pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, as this Congress sits on its hands in
inactivity, about abuses of patients in managed care; for the gun
manufacturers and their role in gun violence; for the great insurance
companies; for all of those who believe that personal responsibility is
a wonderful, basic, moral concept for everyone except for themselves,
this is a great piece of legislation.
It is based on the concept that personal responsibility is for
someone else, but for some who engage in wrongdoing, Congress must step
in and insulate and protect them from the consequences of that
wrongdoing. This bill is based on the concept that if you are big
enough and bold enough, and if

[[Page 22431]]

you lubricate the system of government at campaign time enough, and if
you just steal a little bit from everyone, that you are entitled to not
be held accountable for the consequences of your wrongdoing.
That is why over 70 public health and consumer organizations, groups
like the American Lung Association, the American Women's Medical
Association, the National Council of Senior Citizens, have said, well,
if personal responsibility is such a basic American concept, how about
applying it to these entities in this country that are content to just
take a little bit from everyone?
I join them in opposing this misguided legislation. For some reason,
our Republican colleagues are always eager to protect State wrongs. If
a State neglects its citizens, if it is not meeting their needs,
Republicans object to the Federal Government playing any role. That is
the position that Republicans took, for example, with reference to the
creation of Social Security and Medicare, and with reference to Federal
support for education. But if a State has true States' rights, the
Republicans are not a bit reluctant to interfere and take away those
rights.
This bill would take all class actions filed in State courts and rip
them out of the hands of the State judiciary and take them into Federal
courts. Of course, these are Federal courts that are already
overburdened and clogged and unable to meet the responsibilities they
already have.
As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just pointed
out, that is why many within the Federal judiciary oppose this
legislation. The same is true of our State judges, an independent State
judiciary being very fundamental to the organization of our country.
Since most of these class action suits are based upon the law of an
individual State, Mr. Speaker, it is that State judiciary that is most
familiar with the substantive law involved in these various class
action suits.
If a health maintenance organization in Texas abuses a Texas citizen,
I have confidence in the Texas judiciary within our State to examine
State law and determine whether our State deceptive practices act or
other provision of our Insurance Code has been violated, not just with
regard to one Texan, but with regard to many Texans, rather than
shifting that into the Federal judiciary.
I believe that Texas ought to have the right to establish its own law
to protect its consumers in health maintenance organizations, as it
took the lead in doing, and have those actions disposed of by our Texas
judiciary.
This legislation would destroy that right and shift into a crowded
and overwhelmed Federal judiciary the job of policing the wrongdoing of
the few against the many. It is the taking away of States' rights that,
as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has rightfully noted, has
caused the attorneys general of these States, has caused State judges,
to say, do not interfere with what we are doing.
There has been no case made that our State courts are abusing their
responsibilities, are not fulfilling their responsibilities, to justify
this amazing assumption of power by the Federal courts, a right they do
not want in the Federal judiciary, and which, at the same time, will
cut out the heart of the right of the States to decide cases
interpreting State law as it affects the citizens of their State.
The only justification for this legislation is for those who have
committed some of the greatest wrongs in this country, the tobacco
companies that continue to addict 3,000 children a day to nicotine
addiction, the insurance companies and the health maintenance
organizations that continue to have a stranglehold on this Congress, to
not pass a Patients' Bill of Rights.
Other wrongdoers in our society are now influencing this Congress to
take away one of the only effective remedies that our citizens have.
That is to come together in an efficient way in the court system, when
the Congress will not act, to turn to the courts and seek a remedy
there in front of a jury of their peers. If someone has taken a little
from the many, not to bar the courthouse door, the way citizens have
been blocked out of this Congress, but permitting Americans to join
together before a local State judge and proceed in the State judiciary
and seek some remedy for wrongdoing that has occurred, which this
Congress would not address.
Now that same crowd of special interests, which has encouraged this
as an inactive do-nothing Congress, is saying, close off the one remedy
the people have to join together in their individual States. It is
wrong. This bill should be rejected.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my colleague on the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for consideration of
the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. The underlying
legislation will streamline the ability of courts to deal with class
action lawsuits. This is very important for Americans, and as my
colleague from Texas has argued, it is important for people who live in
States and local jurisdictions.
However, we believe that it is important for us to make sure that
people who do need remedy in class action lawsuits are handled
properly. Today we offer this change in the law to ensure that multiple
litigants who reside outside of a particular State who wish to become a
party to a class action lawsuit must file that action within Federal
court.
Our Founding Fathers did not intend for one State to judge class
action lawsuits involving many other States. The Federal courts are
better equipped with not only resources but also the staff to handle
class action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States.
This rule makes in order any germane amendments to exempt industries
from class action reform. These amendments, however, should be
rejected. Such amendments go against the underlying principles of this
bill, that Federal courts are the appropriate venues to try large class
action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States, and that applies
no less to tobacco, guns, or HMO litigation.
Since there are no specific reasons to carve out a specific industry,
any amendment to do so can only be intended to derail the bill or apply
a political correctness test to what should be neutral rules of civil
procedure.
Mr. Speaker, these are contentious issues. They are important issues
to our entire Nation, and as such, should be treated properly at the
Federal level. This is a proper way to handle contentious national
problems. It is important to recognize that this rule has been crafted
to accommodate amendments that are objectionable to many Members of
this body, including myself.
But what we are trying to do is to make sure that we craft a rule
that allows open debate, to allow other people who disagree with us to
be able to bring these amendments, such as they are, to try and carve
out these three areas. I simply disagree with them.
Therefore, this rule sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) I believe is fair, it deserves the support of this body, and it
is, I believe, important for our colleagues to recognize that we should
not carve out three areas that are contentious political debates in
this country to put them to specific State district courts within a
State and expect a State to not only have the burden of that cost, but
also to where we take it outside of where a Federal remedy is
necessary.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation ignores a fundamental fact about the
way the judiciary is organized in the United States.
In the Federal court system, the same Federal judges hear both civil
and criminal cases. In the State court system, as in my State of Texas,
there is a complete separate set of judges that hear civil cases and a
separate set of judges that hear criminal cases.
What the Republican majority has done during the last 5 years is
vastly

[[Page 22432]]

increase the number of crimes that are now heard in Federal court, so
that they have overburdened the Federal court system by adding
additional cases that must be heard by Federal judges, and now they
want to further overburden the Federal court system by bucking almost
all class actions to the Federal court level.
They ignore the fact that our State courts are structured with two
separate types of courts, one for civil jurisdiction and one for
criminal jurisdiction, and our Federal judiciary must hear both civil
and criminal cases before the exact same judges. They are putting an
inexcusably difficult burden on the Federal judiciary.
I had the opportunity as a very young man right out of law school to
clerk for a Federal judge. I do have some understanding of the way the
Federal judiciary in this country operates. We are now piling so many
cases on the backs of Federal judges that we are going to make it
impossible for real justice to be achieved through the Federal system.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

{time} 1100

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
familiar with the record of this Congress on appointments and vacancies
in the Federal judiciary in Texas and across the country as to whether
or not, over the last several years, there have been literally dozens
of vacancies left in our Federal trial courts and in our Federal
appellate courts, which are the very ones that will now have shifted to
them significant and expansive new litigation?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond. In fact, I very much
am. There is an article in today's Washington Post describing that
exact situation about how slow the current Congress, the members of the
other body have been to fill Federal vacancies during the last several
years.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, so will not the effect of this legislation
be to shift the rights of those who have been wronged to Federal
courthouses where the bench and the office is empty because the same
Republican Congress that is proposing this legislation will not approve
judges to sit in the seats to deal with the business that those courts
have that they are overburdened with today?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the case. As I indicated,
this same Congress has been adding jurisdiction to the Federal courts
on the criminal side so that more and more time is taken up with
hearing criminal cases. Now they want to increase the civil
jurisdiction of the Federal court system and, as the gentleman has
pointed out, not fill those judgeships so that all those matters can be
handled in a prompt way.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back in just a moment. I would
urge that the rule be defeated. I would urge that the bill be defeated.
This is a bad piece of legislation that is going to substantially harm
the Federal judiciary and substantially harm the rights of litigants in
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules, for the closing arguments on a very fair rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia
(Mr. Linder), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules
and Organization of the House, for his fine leadership on the Committee
on Rules and his management of this and his moving it so expeditiously.
I am not going to take a long period of time other than to say I
cannot believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) would advocate
opposing an open rule which simply had a prefiling requirement for the
Congressional Record. I mean, it is a modified open rule. Seven
amendments have been filed.
We are going to see what obviously will be a free-flowing debate, I
suspect not unlike the exchange we saw between the two gentlemen from
Texas, Mr. Doggett and Mr. Frost, just now.
This bill is not about attorney bashing. I mean, the trial lawyers
are often criticized around here. But that is really not the issue. The
fact of the matter is, in my State of California, we have often seen
judge shopping take place. That is what is going on right now all
around the country.
What has that done? It has unfortunately increased cost to consumers,
and it has created an amazing burden. That is the reason that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and others are going to be
moving forward with what I believe to be a very fair and balanced
measure which will have a free and open debate. It is the right thing
for us to do. We want to make sure that people do, in fact, have their
day in court.
I will tell both of the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Doggett and Mr.
Frost, that I am looking forward to superb judicial appointments coming
from the next administration. I am looking forward to a United States
Senate which will, at the speed of light, confirm those spectacular
appointments.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 181, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 437]

YEAS--241

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune

[[Page 22433]]

Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--181

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--11

Coble
Diaz-Balart
Engel
Hall (OH)
Holden
Jefferson
Rangel
Royce
Scarborough
Sweeney
Waters

{time} 1127

Messrs. DELAHUNT, SPRATT, TAYLOR of Mississippi and RODRIQUEZ changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT
OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The unfinished business is the
question of agreeing to the motion to instruct on the bill (H.R. 1501)
to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to
provide grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile
offenders; to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 1974 to provide quality prevention programs and accountability
programs relating to juvenile delinquency; and for other purposes,
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be
instructed to insist that the committee of conference
recommend a conference substitute that--
(1) includes a loophole-free system that assures that no
criminals or other prohibited purchasers (e.g. murderers,
rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice,
undocumented aliens, stalkers, and batterers) obtain firearms
from non-licensed persons and federally licensed firearms
dealers at gun shows;
(2) does not include provisions that weaken current gun
safety law; and
(3) includes provisions that aid in the enforcement of
current laws against criminals who use guns (e.g. murderers,
rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice, stalkers
and batterers).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 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 305,
nays 117, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 438]

YEAS--305

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--117

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Berry
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Cubin
Danner
DeLay
DeMint
Dingell
Emerson
Everett
Fletcher
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hostettler
Hulshof
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kingston
LaHood

[[Page 22434]]

Lampson
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McIntosh
McIntyre
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Rahall
Riley
Rogers
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Sanford
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Vitter
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Whitfield
Wicker

NOT VOTING--11

Cannon
Coble
Cox
Engel
Hall (OH)
Holden
Istook
Jefferson
Rangel
Royce
Scarborough

{time} 1137

Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, NEY, DeLAY, SHOWS, WHITFIELD, ADERHOLT,
STRICKLAND, LARGENT, and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. RADANOVICH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted in favor of the
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 offered by Ms. Lofgren. My
vote should have been recorded as a vote in opposition to the motion.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1875, the bill to be
considered in the Committee on the Whole shortly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.

____________________

INTERSTATE CLASS ACTION JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 295
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. 1875.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) as chairman
of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) to assume the chair temporarily.

{time} 1138

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. 1875) to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow the
application of the principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to
interstate class actions, with Mr. Hefley (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 Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this much-needed bipartisan legislation corrects a
serious flaw in our Federal jurisdiction statutes. At present, those
statutes forbid our Federal courts from hearing most interstate class
actions, the lawsuits that involve more money and touch more Americans
than virtually any other litigation pending in our legal system.
Mr. Chairman, the class action device is a necessary and important
part of our legal system. It promotes efficiency by allowing plaintiffs
with similar claims to adjudicate their cases in one proceeding. It
also allows claims to be heard in cases where there are small harms to
a large number of people, which would go otherwise unaddressed because
the cost to the individuals suing could far exceed the benefit to the
individual. However, class actions have been used with an increasing
frequency and in ways that do not promote the interests they were
intended to serve.
In recent years, State courts have been flooded with class actions.
As a result of the adoption of different class action certification
standards in the various States, the same class might be certifiable in
one State and not another or certifiable in State court but not in
Federal court. This creates the potential for abuse of the class action
device, particularly when the class involves parties from multiple
States or requires the application of the laws of many States.
For example, some State courts routinely certify classes before the
defendant is even served with a complaint and given a chance to defend.
Other State courts employ very lax class certification criteria
rendering virtually any controversy subject to class action treatment.
There are instances where a State court, in order to certify a class,
has determined that the law of that State applies to all claims,
including those of purported class members who live in other
jurisdictions. This has the effect of making the law of that State
applicable nationwide.
The existence of State courts which broadly apply class certification
rules encourages plaintiffs to forum shop for the court which is most
likely to certify a purported class. In addition to forum shopping,
parties frequently exploit major loopholes in the Federal jurisdiction
statutes to block the removal of class actions that belong in Federal
court.
For example, plaintiffs' counsel may name parties that are not really
relevant to the class claims in an effort to destroy diversity. In
other cases, counsel may waive Federal law claims or shave the amount
of damages claimed to ensure that the action will remain in State
court.
Another problem created by the ability of State courts to certify
class actions which adjudicate the right of citizens of many States is
that oftentimes more than one case involving the same class is
certified at the same time. In the Federal court system, these cases
involving common questions of fact may be transferred to one district
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
When these class actions are pending in State courts, however, there
is no corresponding mechanism for consolidating the competing suits.
Instead, a settlement or judgment in any of the cases make the other
class actions moot. This creates an incentive for each class counsel to
obtain a quick settlement of the case and an opportunity for the
defendant to play the various class counsel against each other and
drive the settlement value down. The loser in this system is the class
member whose claim is extinguished by the settlement at the expense of
counsel seeking to be the one entitled to recovery of fees.
Our bill is designed to prevent these abuses by allowing large
interstate class action cases to be heard in Federal court. It would
expand the statutory diversity jurisdiction of the Federal courts to
allow class action cases involving minimal diversity. That is when any
plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of different States to be
brought in or removed to Federal court.
Article 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to establish Federal
jurisdiction over diversity cases, cases between citizens of different
States. The grant of Federal diversity jurisdiction was premised on
concerns that State courts might discriminate against out-of-state
defendants.
In a class action, only the citizenship of the named plaintiff is
considered for determining diversity, which means that Federal
diversity jurisdiction will not exist if the named plaintiff is a
citizen of the same State as the defendant regardless of the
citizenship of the rest of the class.

[[Page 22435]]

{time} 1145

Congress also imposes a monetary threshold, now $75,000, for Federal
diversity claims. However the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied in a class action only if all of the class members are
seeking damages in excess of the minimum required by the statute.
These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years ago, well
before the modern class action arose, and they now lead to perverse
results. For example, under current law a citizen of one State may
bring in Federal court a simple $75,001 slip-and-fall claim against a
party from another State. However, if a class of 25 million product
owners, each having a claim of $10,000 living in all 50 States, brings
claims collectively worth $250 billion against the manufacturer, the
lawsuit cannot be heard in Federal court.
This result is certainly not what the framers had in mind when they
established Federal diversity jurisdiction. Our bill offers a solution
by making it easier for plaintiff class members and defendants to
remove class actions to Federal court where cases involving multiple
State laws are more appropriately heard. Under our bill, if a removed
class action is found not to meet the requirements for proceeding on a
class basis, the Federal court would dismiss the action without
prejudice, and the action could be refiled in the State court.
This legislation does not limit the ability of anyone to file a class
action lawsuit. It does not change anybody's rights to recovery. Our
bill specifically provides that it will not alter the substantive law
governing any claims as to which jurisdiction is conferred. Our
legislation merely closes the loophole allowing Federal courts to hear
big lawsuits involving truly interstate issues while ensuring that
purely local controversies remain in State courts. That is exactly what
the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they established
Federal diversity jurisdiction.
I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a measure, H.R. 1875, that will remove class
actions involving State law issues from State courts, the forum most
convenient for victims of wrongdoing to litigate and most familiar with
the substantive law involved, to the Federal courts where the class is
less likely to be certified and the case will take longer to resolve.
Now why is this being done in the face of all the arguments for
States rights, the concern about the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution that reminds us that all powers not explicitly delegated
to the Federal system is reserved to the States? Why are we here with a
bill that would now take this power from the State courts and subject
it to Federal rule?
Although this bill is described by its proponents as a simple
procedural fix, in actuality it rewrites a major rewrite of the class
action rules that would bar most forms of State class actions. That is
right; it would bar most forms of State class actions. H.R. 1875 is
appropriately opposed by the Department of Justice, both the State and
Federal courts, by consumer interest groups, and public interest groups
as well.
Now class action procedures offer a valuable mechanism for
aggregating small claims that otherwise might not warrant individual
litigation. This legislation will undercut that important principle by
making it far more burdensome, expensive and time consuming for injured
persons to obtain access to justice in the State courts.
In doing so, it will make it more difficult to protect our citizens
against violations of consumer health, safety and environmental laws,
to name but a few important ones. Thus, the bill will benefit only one
class of litigants, corporate wrongdoers. The most obvious examples of
corporate defendants that have been susceptible to State class actions
are, as we know, tobacco, gun, and managed care industries.
H.R. 1875 will also damage both the Federal and State courts. As a
result of Congress' increasing propensity to federalize State crimes
and the Senate, the United States Senate's, unwillingness to confirm
judges, the Federal courts are already facing a dangerous work-load
crisis. By forcing resource-intensive class actions into Federal court,
H.R. 1875 will effectively further aggravate those problems and cause
victims to wait in line even longer, as much as 3 years or more, to
obtain trial. Moreover, to the extent class actions are remanded to
State court, the legislation effectively only permits case-by-case
adjudications, potentially draining away precious State court resources
as well.
Now finally, the legislation raises constitutional issues because
H.R. 1875 does not merely operate to preempt an area of State law,
which is onerous enough, but rather it unilaterally strips the State
courts of their ability to use class actions' procedural device to
resolve State law disputes. The courts have previously indicated that
efforts by the Congress to dictate such State court procedures
implicate important Tenth Amendment issues and should be avoided. These
powers that are not explicitly granted the Federal system are reserved
to the States, and we are taking this very important judicial tool away
from the States.
So H.R. 1875's incursion into State court prerogatives is no less
dangerous to the public than many of the radical forms of tort reform
that were rejected of court stripping that was rejected by both the
Congress and the administration, and thus I urge that H.R. 1875,
Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1995, likewise be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation,
a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and my friend.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1875, which I am pleased to be co-authoring with my friend and Virginia
colleague, the gentleman from Roanoke (Mr. Goodlatte). Our measure
makes a much needed reform in an area that has been subjected to
substantial abuse.
Increasingly, lawsuits that are truly national in scope are being
filed as State class actions, and a range of problems attends this
growing practice. Some State judges employ an almost anything-goes
approach that renders virtually any controversy subject to
certification as a State class action.
Some State courts routinely engage in a practice that is best
described as drive-by class certifications in which the decision to
certify the class is made before the defendant is even served with the
complaint and given an opportunity to contest the class certification.
In such an environment, defendants and even plaintiffs are being denied
the most routine of rights as there is a rush to certify classes and a
rush to settle the cases.
For example, in order to prevent removal of cases to Federal courts,
the amount that is sued for is sometimes kept artificially below the
$75,000 jurisdictional threshold for Federal court actions, and that is
done even though in many of these instances the plaintiffs would be
entitled to recover more than $75,000. In the same vein, class action
complaints in many cases will not raise Federal causes of action that
could legitimately be raised; also, for the purpose of denying the
defendants the opportunity to remove the cases to Federal court.
These practices are clearly not in the interests of the plaintiffs on
whose behalf the class actions have been filed, and neither are the
quick settlements that often follow and that yield large fees for the
plaintiff's attorneys and negligible returns for the plaintiffs
themselves.
Another major problem arises from the inability of States to
consolidate class action proceedings that often are filed in more than
one State and that involve the same issues of law and fact, that
involve the same causes of action, and that involve the same class
members on both the plaintiff's side and also the same defendants.

[[Page 22436]]

Frequently, these parallel cases proceed in numerous States at the
same time to the disadvantage of all parties concerned. This
circumstance sometimes leads to competition among the States in order
to get the certification first and to achieve the first settlement,
whatever the cost of that settlement to the plaintiffs on whose behalf
the class action has been filed. In the Federal courts, of course,
multidistrict litigation can be consolidated, thereby eliminating and
avoiding all of these problems.
The legislation that is before the House today seeks to address these
concerns by permitting cases that are truly national in scope to be
removed to Federal court even if the traditional diversity requirements
are not met. Today, the target defendant is almost always a large out-
of-state corporation. To prevent removal under current rules an in-
state defendant, such as a retailer or distributor of the product that
is the subject of the action against whom recovery is generally not
sought, will be joined as a party defendant simply to prevent there
being complete diversity and to prevent the removal of the case to
Federal court.
Our legislation would permit removal in that instance if the center
of gravity of the case is truly national in scope. The legislation is
carefully drafted to provide that cases which are local, and we refer
to these as interstate cases, will not be entertained in the Federal
courts unless the traditional removal rules are met. If the defendant
and the majority of the plaintiffs are in-state parties, and if the law
of that State will govern disposition of the proceedings, then the
Federal judge will be required to remand that case for proceedings in
State court.
Some of the opponents of this legislation claim that it essentially
federalizes all class actions. That simply is not the case. If the case
is local in nature, if the majority of the plaintiffs, if the defendant
are residents of the State in which the class action is filed, and if
the law of that State would be dispositive of the proceeding, then the
Federal judge under this legislation would be required to return that
case as a class action to the State courts, and so State class actions
can proceed under those arrangements where the cases are, in fact,
purely local.
The legislation sensibly improves our legal system without limiting
anyone's right to file a class action or to receive recovery; and I am
pleased to be joined in co-authoring this measure with the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran),
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant). And this morning I am
pleased to strongly urge its adoption by the House.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute before yielding to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) because both the previous
speakers supporting the bill have talked about the ability of courts to
allow the certifying of class actions before the defendants have had an
opportunity to respond, and I would like to point out that not only is
this barred by the Constitution, that there is a Supreme Court case on
it preventing it; and the two Alabama State court cases have both held
that classes may not be certified without notice and full opportunity
for defendants to respond, and the class certification criteria must be
rigorously applied.
So I just want to lay that chestnut to rest as the debate goes on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding this time to me.

{time} 1200

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class
Action Jurisdiction Act. As someone who has served as a State Senator
in Ohio, I am here to confirm that the purpose of State courts should
not be diminished. State courts exist to assure the people of the State
access to justice, equal protection under the law, right to due process
and right to redress for injuries.
Now, I represent the people of the United States through being a
Member of this Congress, but I also represent the people of the State
of Ohio. The people of my State will not yield their legal rights to
H.R. 1875. The fact that a legal issue may have national implications
should not and does not mean that the State does not have an abiding
interest in the legal architecture which has been set up to provide the
people of a State with access to the justice system, and this
legislation constitutes an attack on the legal right, not only of the
people of the State but of the State itself.
It protects the makers of dangerous products by taking away the
rights of consumers to get their day in court. It will give the makers
of dangerous products the special right to shop for a court they
believe will favor them.
How many other accused can choose the judge that will judge them? We
should not give those who make dangerous products advantage over our
constituents in that way. It will delay justice for injured consumers.
Makers of dangerous products will be able to choose courts that are
seriously backlogged. We should not delay justice for injured
consumers. It would deprive consumers of the right to have their case
heard by State court judges and, as such, represents a manipulation of
the jurisdictions and a depriving of people the right of due process at
a State level.
I believe that economic rights and the right to justice are
interconnected. This law would be an attempt to deconstruct those
rights simultaneously and individually. This legislation ought to be
defeated, and I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1875.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), another of our lead cosponsors on this
legislation.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation. It is needed legislation. So
I rise in strong support of this legislation, because it will correct a
statutory anomaly that conflicts with the original intent of the
Framers of our Constitution. When the Framers drafted the Constitution,
they created so-called diversity jurisdiction to protect parties
against bias in State courts and to allow interstate lawsuits to be
heard in Federal court. Diversity jurisdiction was codified in statute
with individual lawsuits in mind.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the class action device, and
I believe that it is an important tool in our legal system to provide
justice for injured parties. Class actions improve the efficiency of
our legal system and are often the best way to fairly adjudicate
claims.
With that said, though, we must also recognize the jurisdictional
flaw in our system and the abuses that stem from it. We have a
responsibility to ensure that plaintiff's and defendant's rights are
both fairly protected.
In 1966, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules created rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It allowed similar claims to be heard
together. No one at that time considered the unique nature of class
actions and that the diversity jurisdiction statute did not make sense
for class actions.
The result of all of this is an historical anomaly that prevents
interstate class actions, exactly the type of cases that should be
heard in Federal court, from being heard in Federal court where they
belong. It was never intended that State court justices in one State
should be able to overturn the laws of other States. That does not make
sense. It was never intended that that be the case by the Framers of
the Constitution.
Under current law, though, most interstate class action lawsuits
cannot be heard in Federal court because they do not meet the technical
requirements of diversity jurisdiction, or too often due to gaming of
the system by plaintiffs' attorneys oftentimes. A plaintiff's attorney
will find someone in a State where the defendant is located and as soon
as they can do that it goes right into State court. That was not

[[Page 22437]]

the original intent of the Framers. A case may be worth billions of
dollars but a Federal court cannot hear it if each plaintiff's damages
are not at least $75,000. It may involve millions of plaintiff class
members across the country, but if there is one named plaintiff from
the same State as one defendant then that case cannot be heard in
Federal court.
Recently, there was a case in Alabama and the attorney for the
plaintiff said if anybody wants to claim more than $75,000 then they
have to opt out.
They are gaming the system. If somebody has a claim worth more than
that then they should be able to get that claim and not be used as
pawns to manipulate class action lawsuits.
Most of the recent class action lawsuits filed in State courts are
not single State cases. Plaintiffs' attorneys generally file these as
nationwide actions, to create the most leverage to force defendants to
settle, and that is what the game is all about, forcing large
settlements because they know they have nationwide costly implications.
The result of all of this is that one State or county court judge in
a forum hand picked by plaintiff's counsel ends up dictating what the
law is for the other 49 States.
I do not want Virginia to have its laws decided by a judge in Texas
or California or Illinois or New York. My colleagues should not want a
State or county court judge in some other State adjudicating their
constituents' rights without any accountability to the people of their
own State, but that is what is happening today.
This year in a House Committee on the Judiciary hearing, former
Clinton administration Solicitor General, and the famous Duke Law
School constitutional scholar Walter Dellinger, described what is going
on as false federalism, because instead of having a Federal judge
decide for all 50 States, a judge of one State is deciding for the
other 49 States.
It does not make sense. This false federalism is made worse by the
rampant abuses that have been going on in some State courts and the lax
certification standards that those courts apply.
It is not right. It should not continue. We need to change it. It is
important to recognize this is not a radical change to our legal
system. This is only to correct an anomaly that should have been
corrected and that until it is corrected will lead to wide scale abuse
that is not acceptable.
I strongly urge support for this contrustive corrective legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my distinguished friend, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), that the limit was raised from
$50,000 to $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction by the Federal court
system itself. They were trying to make it a higher level to prevent
gaming, not to encourage gaming.
Then I should point out to the gentleman that the Judicial Conference
of the United States, the chief justice himself presiding, pointed out
that 1875 creates a couple of problems. One is that, in effect, they do
not have the ability to deal with increased caseload. And they
expressed opposition to these class action provisions and also the
conflict between these provisions of the bills and longest recognized
principles of federalism, and they encourage further deliberate study
of the complicated issues raised.
So although the gentleman thinks this is new material, it has been
very carefully considered by the Federal judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 1875. This
is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem. Worse, it is
an ill-conceived solution that actually creates a problem. Class action
suits are not clogging State courts as proponents assert, but H.R. 1875
would virtually assure that Federal courts get clogged.
The real problem is that children, families, communities, and small
businesses are being injured by dangerous, even reckless, corporate
behavior. They need access to our civil justice system. While most
businesses take care to sell safe products, some do not. Consider
families whose children became ill or died after eating E. coli tainted
hamburgers, small businesses and consumers who were overcharged on
electric rates, communities whose drinking water was contaminated by
pesticides, drivers whose auto insurance policies were unfairly
canceled. All of them joined together in class action suits. If H.R.
1875 had been in effect, they would have all found it far more
difficult, if not impossible, to get their fair day in court.
I join with consumer groups and senior groups in opposing this
legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just address some of the
comments my colleagues made. Contrary to the assertion that H.R. 1875
would not take away any authority from State courts or otherwise offend
well-established principles of federalism, this particular legislation,
I think, recognizes that the expansion of Federal diversity
jurisdiction over interstate class actions envisioned in this
legislation is entirely consistent with the current concept of such
jurisdiction.
At present, the statutory gatekeeper for Federal diversity
jurisdictions is 28 U.S.C. 1332, which essentially allows Federal
courts to hear cases that are large in terms of the amounts in
controversy and that have interstate implications in terms of involving
citizens from multiple jurisdictions.
By their nature, though, these class actions typically fulfill these
requirements. Class actions normally involve so many people and so many
claims, that they invariably put huge dollar sums into dispute and
implicate parties from multiple jurisdictions. Yet, because section
1332 was originally enacted before the rise of the modern day class
actions, it does not take account of the unique circumstances presented
by class actions.
As a result, as interpreted by Federal courts, that section has
served to potentially exclude class actions from Federal courts while
allowing Federal courts much smaller cases having few, if any,
interstate ramifications.
That technical problem would be corrected by this legislation. I
think it was put together by former solicitor general Walter Dellinger,
as he testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on
the bill that if Congress were to rewrite completely the Federal
diversity legislation statute, there would be really little legitimate
debate that interstate class actions should be the first and foremost
type of case to be included within the scope of this statute. So I
think the implication there is clear.
I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), for introducing this legislation. We have worked together
on so many legal reforms and technology-related pieces and to bring it
to where it is today, where I think it is on the verge of passage.
This particular legislation implements procedural reforms for
interstate class action lawsuits. I think it reduces costs to
consumers. It solidifies the rights of plaintiffs, of plaintiffs, by
ensuring that they and not their lawyers receive the majority of
compensation when they have proven their claims in the court.
Now, what does this bill do? It is intended to correct a technical
flaw in the current Federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction which
tends to prevent interstate class actions from being adjudicated in
Federal courts. Federal courts will be able to handle class action
lawsuits that truly involve interstate issues. This legislation makes
it easier for plaintiff class members and defendants to remove cases to
Federal court where multiple State laws are more appropriately heard.
Interstate class actions filed in State court could be removed to
Federal court using existing removal procedures with three new
features.

[[Page 22438]]

Unnamed class members who are plaintiffs may remove to Federal court
class actions in which their claims are being asserted within 30 days
after formal notice. Any party, any party whose name can be removed,
the consent of the other parties is not required. So plaintiffs' rights
are protected in this case and the bar on removing cases to Federal
court after one year would not apply to class actions, although removal
would still be required within 30 days of the first notice.
If a removed class action is found to not meet the requirements for
proceeding on a class basis, the Federal court would dismiss the action
without prejudice. Plaintiffs could then refile their claims in the
State court, and the statute of limitations on individual class
members' claims in such a dismissed class action will not run during
the period of action that it was pending in the Federal court.
What could be fairer to all concerned? The act applies only to claims
that are filed after the date of enactment.
I think this is good legislation. I think when we look back at the
history, that most interstate class actions cannot be heard in Federal
court today due to the Federal diversity jurisdiction statutes that
allow attorneys to literally, as my friend, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) said, game the system, or making statements about the
amounts in controversy and then reversing those statements later on.
This legislation is needed. I hope my colleagues will vote to adopt
it.

{time} 1215

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary
and who has worked very vigorously on this subject.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership. I thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my good friend, Mr. Chairman,
who has offered this legislation in good faith and good intentions.
The previous speaker and I have shared a common training in law
school, and so it certainly causes me stress to rise in opposition to
his position. However, I would argue vigorously that rather than ease
the burden of litigants going into the court system, in fact, Mr.
Chairman, this represents a sealed, locked, closed and forever
impenetrable door to justice in the United States. I say that with a
good deal of documentation.
First of all, albeit the testimony in our hearings, there is no
concrete evidence that State courts are not doing justice in class
action lawsuits; that there is no bias toward the defendant or bias
against the defendant, or bias for the plaintiff, or bias against the
plaintiff.
We realize that class actions were initially created in State courts
based on equity and common law, and I certainly do not want to drain
our interests in defining both of those, but it simply means that one
comes into a court of equity and we balance the rights and try to be
fair for those who would petition the court for justice. It was a way
for the common person, common law, to get inside the courthouse and to
find justice.
With this legislation that creates partial diversity, what we are
saying is, one is blocked from going into the courthouse. Any iota of
diversity, that means if one has a class action that inquires or
incorporates thousands of Texans, and by the way, the Texas State
courts have handled class action lawsuits very ably. But if one has a
diversity case or a class action case, this particular statute allows
one lone person, a citizen of a State different from the defendant, to
add or confuse the mix, if you will, and move this case immediately to
the Federal court.
What a shock to those plaintiffs who have organized around an issue,
and more importantly, Mr. Chairman, what a shock to the Federal courts
who, more often than not, do not certify class action cases and have
already indicated to us that they are overwhelmed and overworked with
not enough Federal courts, not enough Federal judges, and not enough
opportunity to do justice to the cases that they are already in.
Might I say that many of us who have joined in this overload of the
Federal courts, many times who have federalized drug laws, and some are
very much concerned about the overload, we federalize any number of
cases, and now we find, particularly in the State of Texas, I will tell
my colleagues that our Federal courts, particularly in the southern
district, are overwhelmed with drug cases.
They do drug cases maybe 80 percent of the time, criminal drug cases.
We may disagree with the fact that those cases are there and we are
criminalizing the smallest amount of drug cases; we are not getting the
kingpins, we are just throwing any Tom, Dick and Harry in jail and not
solving the problem, but these courts are overwhelmed.
Now, this particular statute offering itself as a justice statute is
everything but that. What it does is, it takes the class action
lawsuits like a tobacco case lawsuit that is smoothly running through
the courts in the State system and throws it into the deadlock of the
Federal system; one, they might not have even gotten there, but more
importantly, more importantly, most of these cases will not be
certified.
This statute would also diversify or throw it to the Federal courts
if a citizen of a State is different from any defendant, a foreign
state or citizen of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a
state, or a citizen of a state and any defendant is a citizen or
subject of a foreign state. So this is seeking to implode the class
action litigation. It is seeking to imbalance the rights of an
individual citizen who would join in a class action against a
conglomerate, Mr. Chairman.
I would simply say to my colleagues that this particular Interstate
Class Action Jurisdiction Act should not be supported. The President
intends to veto this particular statute, and I would hope that we would
find a better compromise to serve the scales of justice in the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege to listen to the testimony of
many distinguished witnesses when this measure came before the full
Committee on the Judiciary. I had hoped that the supporters of this
bill in its present form could have persuaded me otherwise, but I
simply cannot approve of this measure in its present form as it
contains too many potential problems. I am sympathetic to the
proponents of this legislation's desire to ensure that class actions
are used for their intended purposes. This bill, H.R. 1875, the
``Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999,'' as drafted goes
too far.
As you may well be aware, class action suits were initially created
in State courts based on equity and common law. In 1849, class action
suits became statutory under the Field Code. In 1938, a Federal class
action rule was first enacted in the form of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and in 1966, Rule 23 was amended to grant more
flexibility with regard to class actions, particularly with respect to
actions seeking monetary damages.
Thirty-six States have adopted the amended Federal Rule 23. Seven
States still use class action rules modeled on the original Federal
Rule 23. Four States use the Field Code-based class rules. Three States
still permit class action suits at common law have no formal class
rules.
Article III of Constitution provides for ``limited federal court
jurisdiction court based upon diversity.'' Currently, disputes may
reach Federal court where the plaintiffs and defendants are residents
of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The
status quo allows action suits only if every plaintiff is diverse with
respect to the defendant. Given the sheer number of plaintiffs in a
class action suit, diversity often cannot be achieved.
By amending 28 U.S.C. 1332 (the diversity statute), this bill
provides Federal jurisdiction as long as any member of a proposed
plaintiff class is (1) a citizen of a State different from any
defendant; (2) a foreign state or citizen of a foreign state and any
defendant is a citizen of a State; or (3) a citizen of a State and any
defendant is a citizen or subject of a foreign state.
This creation of partial diversity, then, drastically changes the
nature of Federal jurisdiction. While this measure would provide some
sense of uniformity to class actions, I am afraid that this contravenes
the Supreme

[[Page 22439]]

Court's requirement of complete diversity between all named plaintiffs
and defendants as articulated in Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267
(1806).
I am concerned that this measure is not driven by the desire to
streamline the Federal justice system, but instead by the want to
protect large corporations. Corporations want Federal jurisdiction as
they perceive this arena as more favorable. This bill would funnel
class action suits into Federal courts, which has the potential to
permit corporations to avoid more stringent State laws.
As currently drafted, the bill's partial diversity standard that
likely would result in an explosion in the number of civil cases
extending well beyond the capacity of the Federal courts. Congress has
been increasingly federalizing State law in general, and State criminal
law in particular. In 1997, alone, 22,603 civil cases were pending for
3 years or more. More importantly, the Senate has failed to fill a
number of Federal vacancies (over 10 percent of the Federal judicial
positions remain vacant).
In addition, H.R. 1875 could result in less efficient litigation.
Since Federal courts would still require complete diversity in all
other Federal diversity cases, plaintiffs likely would seek to
formulate class action suits simply to satisfy the partial diversity
requirement created for class action claims. Again, this situation
likely would drive more cases into Federal court and increase the
burden on the courts.
This legislation simply raises too many questions and presents too
many quandaries. Unless these problems are rectified, I cannot support
this measure.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to a
couple of points.
First of all, the President has not indicated that he intends to veto
this legislation. There have been communications from his
representatives that they might recommend that to him, but that is not
the same thing as a veto threat.
Secondly, I would point out to my colleague from Michigan that while
the diversity amount, the amount in controversy was raised from $50,000
to $75,000 by the Federal judiciary, the purpose of that is to screen
out small lawsuits from going into Federal court. But that is not the
case here at all. This is about bringing large lawsuits to Federal
court.
The legislation requires a minimum of $1 million in controversy to
bring a diversity case class action into Federal court, so we eliminate
the anomaly of a situation where somebody with a $75,000 claim can get
into Federal court, but somebody who has a class action suit with
100,000 plaintiffs and an amount in controversy of $10,000 each, or a
$1 billion claim, cannot get into Federal court today because they do
not meet that diversity requirement. This changes that discrepancy in
the law and allows big, diverse cases to come into Federal court.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is opposed to the bill and who serves on the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a radical response to a handful of court
decisions that some disagree with. The response is to use political
clout just to change the system.
Now, this is not the first time that we have changed the system when
we disagree with a court decision. Even pending cases, for example, in
the Oklahoma bombing case, we changed the law right in the middle of
the case and forced the judge to reverse a preliminary ruling. After an
airline case just a couple of years ago, we changed the law after the
crash to enable some plaintiffs to get increased damages. The Committee
on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Chairman, has already reported a
bill which will have the effect of reversing a lower court decision.
The case is now on appeal. That bill, if passed, would reverse the
lower court decision. We even enacted legislation about a year or two
ago which had the effect of entering final judgment in a child custody
case that was pending.
So, Mr. Chairman, if one has the political clout, one can come to
Congress and change the system to one's advantage and receive special
treatment, rather than being relegated to going through the regular
court process. That is not fair.
This is also a bad bill, Mr. Chairman, because it is not good policy
to continually federalize court proceedings. The Federal judiciary has
already complained, the Chief Justice has complained about cases being
transferred to Federal court. We have even now street crimes, juvenile
crimes being more and more handled by Federal courts. Those are
supposed to be handled by the State courts and here we are again
federalizing cases.
Now, the proponents complain that the State courts rule on interests
of out-of-state parties. That has always been the case and it will
always be the case, and this bill does not change it. In fact, if one
has multiple defendants of large corporations, multiple plaintiffs, but
not technically a class, State courts can continually hear these cases.
One can have billion dollar cases, complex, multi-State, but if one has
a plaintiff and a defendant both from the same State, the Federal court
will not hear that case, but the State court will rule on other State
laws, other State interests.
Mr. Chairman, the only people that will be denied the access to State
courts will be those who are consumers that need the procedure of a
class action to actually hear their cases. Those are cases which are
small and cannot be brought as individual cases, so the consumers will
be denied, but the large corporations will not.
This bill does not reform; it just transfers the cases of consumers
into Federal courts and denies them State access. For those consumers
who are affected, this bill will cause confusion, because if a State
case is filed, this bill allows anybody who alleges that they are
affected by the case to start filing motions. The person is not a
plaintiff; the person is not a defendant, just a stranger, so that if
one is talking about gaming the system, let us have a defendant that
does not like being in State court, finds a friend from out of State,
brings them in, and starts filing motions in Federal court.
Now, the person who is filing, if they do not like being in the
class, they can opt out of the class, so they have no legitimate
purpose other than to add confusion to the case. So rather than having
the plaintiff and the defendant proceeding with the trial or with
settlement, this bill allows strangers to come in and delay the
proceedings, adding expense and making it less likely that the merits
of the case will ever be considered.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is unneeded and it is unfair to consumers. It
only benefits corporate wrongdoers who want to delay and complicate the
cases and, therefore, should be defeated.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), another lead cosponsor of the legislation.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with a bipartisan group of Members
of this House to sponsor this change in this law that is very much
needed. As my predecessor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
said, sometimes it is necessary to change a law, and that is what we
are doing here.
Over the past several years there has been an outburst of the filing
of a number of class action lawsuits in State courts. Now, this is
proper under law, but the system is also being gamed in doing that by
using the principle of diversity and defeating that principle of
diversity to end up in State court and prevent the proper removal or
possibility of removal to a Federal court. This bill simply corrects
this.
Because of the amount of exposure that sometimes these defendants
face in a class action lawsuit, the economics of the situation, the
expense of having to go through a lengthy trial, the number of
claimants involved, very often the defendants have to settle the case
out of court. The trial lawyers know this and that is why they file the
case like they do, and they do this.
In many of those cases, unfortunately, these class action lawsuits,
the plaintiffs, the people who have actually sustained the injuries
that the lawsuit is all about, receive very little. I know we have
heard a lot about that already,

[[Page 22440]]

anything from certificates to actually, in some cases, owing money
back, whereas the lawyers are the main ones that benefit from this
system in terms of receiving enormous fee awards.
That is simply not right. That is part of the gaming of the system
where they go out and forum shop and select, rather than a Federal
court which is better prepared to handle these types of cases. They
select a particular State court around the country that probably is
lacking in many ways the ability to handle these lawsuits.
The Federal judges, I understand, will complain that they are
overburdened already, and unquestionably, they are. But we hear those
same comments from the State judges in the State courts. Everybody in
the judicial system today is overburdened. That is because there are an
awful lot of criminal cases out there, and there are an awful lot of
civil cases out there. So it is not a question of who is the busiest.
But I would say that the Federal judges have United States magistrate
judges that help them dispose of cases; they have a number of law
clerks that help them that do research and help them, but in most cases
where we are talking about a State judge, these are simply not assets
that are available to a State judge.
In most cases, State judges lack the experience in handling complex,
complicated class-action lawsuits, so in terms of actually getting a
forum that is best suited, that is most appropriate to give fair
justice, there is no question that the Federal courts are better suited
to handle these class-action lawsuits.

{time} 1230

But again, because of the current law that deals with diversity, that
it can easily be affected by adding one party to that to defeat that
diversity, this is not occurring, the fact that the Federal courts are
not hearing the class action lawsuits as they should because they are
being sent to the State courts and being kept there.
Under our bill, nothing changes about the substantive law, the law
that will govern this case. The law that whatever judge that hears this
case will apply is still the same. This is simply a matter of
correcting the venue, the forum, the place that the trial would be
held.
In terms of dealing with a company that perhaps does business across
the country, in terms of dealing with plaintiffs, alleged victims of
this company or these companies that live in all 50 States that could
very well make up the members of that class, it simply is unfair that
one State court, whether it is Tennessee, that I represent, or Alabama,
or Oregon, should be able to hear that type of case.
Originally, I believe the forefathers put this in our Constitution in
terms of setting up the trial system, and our law evolved over the
years to create a diversity, so when we had citizens from different
States, that we could avoid the home cooking that sometimes occurs when
one does not belong to that State, they are sued there, and they have
to go in and defend themselves.
The courts recognized that. The Congress has recognized that by
creating this diversity so they can have a level playing field, they
can be treated fairly. In some cases that was not always the situation
because, again, they went into a home cooking environment.
I would suggest that is happening in some of these cases. That is
basically the reason that we are here. We are trying to ensure that
fair justice is there for all parties. Even though they might be
tobacco, firearms, or big corporations, we are all entitled to equal
justice, and I think this is a big first step to ensure that occurs.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me make several points, as many points as my time
will allow me to make, about this bill, and encourage my colleagues to
vote against this proposal.
First of all, I practiced law for a number of years before I ever
thought about running for Congress. There is just a basic fairness
argument that I think we all need to be aware of.
If a plaintiff is injured, he goes and hires a lawyer, they
cultivate, research, put together a case, decide where the appropriate
place is to litigate that case, spend months and months preparing for
the case, file the case. Two days later somebody who has done
absolutely nothing to get that case to trial under this bill has the
ability to walk in and move that case to another forum. There is
something patently unfair about that. I just want us to focus on that.
The second point I would make is that in 1994, when my Republican
colleagues came riding into the House, one of the principles that they
gave major lip service to was the whole notion that there was too much
going on at the Federal level, that we needed to decentralize
government, that our whole system of Federalism was in jeopardy, and we
needed to return power to the States.
Time after time after time since 1994 we have seen our Republican
colleagues say, well, we do not like the result that we got at the
State level, so let us federalize this and let us just take it over, an
absolute erosion of States' rights in the criminal law area.
In the area of tort reform they have tried to do it, in the area of
juvenile law they have tried to do it. We do not even have a juvenile
court, a juvenile judge, a juvenile counselor, and yet, we have tried
to federalize juvenile law, and the people who are behind that are the
very same people who in 1994 were railing and rhetorically saying, this
is terrible, to federalize all this stuff. We need to be returning
rights and responsibilities to the most local level, to the State
level, the local level, the individual level. Here we are again in this
matter trying to bring something else into a Federal court.
The third point I want to make, the Federal courts are hopelessly
backlogged. They cannot handle the business that they are doing now. We
cannot get the Senate to confirm enough people to fill the vacancies
that exist on the Federal bench. Even if they did fill them, there
would not be enough judicial power to handle all of these cases.
Yet, here we are in our infinite wisdom saying that the Federal
courts know better; the State law, the Federal law, we know everything
at this level. This is absolutely contrary to the horse that my
colleagues rode into this House on, the States' rights horse. We should
not sanction this. It is just a bad idea.
The final point I want to make, and I will talk about this a little
bit more in the context of an amendment that I have to offer, is that
even if this were a good idea, this bill is so badly drafted, there are
some irrationalities in the drafting of the bill, that we are going to
try to correct some of them during the course of the debate, and
hopefully we will get some of those things worked out.
But there are some just severe unintended, or maybe they are
intended. I never know whether my colleagues are accomplishing things
that they intend or accomplishing things they do not intend, since they
told me they intended to preserve States' rights, and they keep cutting
the legs from under it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this bill because it is
part of a two-part pincers movement aimed at the heart of impartial
justice.
Part one, represented by this bill, shifts to the Federal bench most
important class action lawsuits. Part two, the other part of the
pincer, is to make sure those Federal benches are empty or overburdened
with other work.
We know that additional work has been shifted to the Federal
judiciary. We know most of the judicial appointments of the President
have been held up. But we had a right to think that the other body
would in due time act on those judicial appointments. Now I want to
commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules for revealing the

[[Page 22441]]

previously secret part of the Republican plan. It is to keep the
Federal judicial benches empty until such time as there is a Republican
president.
So what does this bill do? It says you cannot go to a State judge,
and you cannot have a Federal judge, unless appointed by a Republican
president. So the only judges that can hear class action lawsuits are
those that pass a Republican litmus test, and they have the gall to
complain about forum shopping.
This takes forum shopping to a new level, because the second part of
this pincers movement is nationwide forum tampering, politicizing the
Federal courts. The least we could do in this body is to suspend action
on this bill until the other body acts upon the President's judicial
appointments, confirming those who are qualified, rejecting those who
are not qualified, not on the basis of a political litmus test but on
the basis of judicial qualifications.
The small in our society will be able to demand justice from the
powerful only if we defeat this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I get all wound up on this and then I realize it is
time to calm down, because we are not really legislating here. This
bill, if it passes both bodies, is going to be vetoed by the President.
This is never going to become law. This is political pontificating.
This is not real legislating. We are simply here wasting time in the
guise of addressing a serious problem.
I look forward to the day when we work out a genuine bipartisan
solution that has wide support, not narrow support, wide support on
both sides of the aisle, and deal with tort reform.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in that regard, it is my pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), yet another
Member from the other side.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues on this side of the aisle and
rise in support of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction
Act of 1999.
I will repeat some of the things that have already been said today. I
bring to this debate maybe a unique perspective. I am a lawyer and I am
from Alabama. My State has been the butt of many class action jokes. We
have seen the proliferation of class actions, frivolous actions, in our
State courts.
We have all heard about drive-by certifications, in which classes
were certified on the same day that classes were filed, sometimes even
before the defendants were notified about the lawsuits. People have
heard about the judge who certified I think in a 2-year period of time
more class actions than all of the Federal judiciary combined.
Some say if Alabama has a problem, Alabama ought to settle that
problem or deal with that problem. We in fact have. The Alabama Supreme
Court, the Alabama legislature, they have taken actions to end same-day
certifications. We have now made clear that we follow Federal rule
XXIII.
It is a good step, but that does not end the problem. These
interstate class action lawsuits do not belong in State and county
courts in the first place. I do not want a judge in New York
determining the rights of citizens in Alabama, and I do not think
judges in Alabama should do the same thing for people who live in New
York.
There is an important constitutional issue at stake here. I think
interstate class actions are meant for the Federal diversity
jurisdiction. The Framers of the Constitution intended for large
interstate lawsuits to be heard in Federal court.
Members have heard a lot today about what the bill does do. I want to
close with what it does not do. This is not a broad tort reform bill.
It does not preempt any State laws or change the laws under which a
claim will be heard. It does not prevent any claim from being heard, or
close the courthouse doors.
This in fact makes sense, and we should pass H.R. 1875, the
Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have many points that will be made during the amendments, Mr.
Chairman. I would just respond to the suggestion that this will clear
up the situation where complex cases will have to be heard in Federal
court.
Mr. Chairman, if we have 10 corporations suing 18 different
corporations from a number of States, if one plaintiff corporation and
one defendant corporation are from the same State, that case involving
many different States, involving many different State laws, would be
heard in State court.
However, if there is a corporation that is systematically ripping off
consumers, a simple systematic theft, not complicated, they cannot use
the State court. They are relegated to Federal court by this bill.

{time} 1245

Now, it would only serve to complicate the litigation for the
consumers trying to get justice against a wrongdoing corporation.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bad bill. It serves no constructive
purpose. There is no need for it. It is unfair to consumers and,
therefore, should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, this is very good legislation that serves very good
practical purposes, and let me point out two of them.
First of all, it ends the abuse of nationwide forum shopping to find
the one judge in the one court in the one State that thinks that
anything goes with regard to class actions. We have seen those abuses.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) cited the fact that his State
has seen class action abuse in the past. There are 4,700 different
court jurisdictions in this country. When one has a class action, it is
unlike a case where an individual might have two or three different
jurisdictions where they can bring their own personal injury suit or
contract action. In a nationwide class action suit, they can often
choose from all 4,700 different jurisdictions. They should not have the
opportunity to do that. There should be more standardized procedures,
and we accomplish that by allowing the removal of truly nationwide
class action suits to Federal court.
Secondly, the most diverse cases in this country involving millions
and even billions of dollars are currently unable to be brought in the
court that can best handle them, the Federal courts. This legislation
cures this.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
oppose the amendments.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R.
1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. I believe
strongly that action must be taken to address the widespread abuse of
class action rules. This legislation, however, would have the effect of
removing the vast majority of class action lawsuits to the already
overburdened federal courts and denying plaintiffs in legitimate class
actions their right to due process.
There is little dispute that in recent years the class action device
has resulted in serious and rampant abuses of our legal system. Federal
rules of civil procedure currently make it exceedingly difficult for
defendants to remove a class action case to federal court, even when a
case is clearly interstate in nature. Federal ``complete diversity''
rules have allowed endless forum shopping to keep class action cases
out of the federal courts. In some cases, plaintiffs are named in class
action cases based only on their state of residence, simply to destroy
complete diversity.
Such legal maneuvers have even been conducted at the expense of
plaintiffs involved. In one recent state court class action settlement,
consumer class members actually ended up losing money--each one was
required to pay $91.13--while the lawyers who brought the lawsuit made
$8.5 million. Other such examples abound in which class members
received virtually no compensation. Action must be taken to protect
both consumers and corporations from such abuses of the legal system.
Although I believe strongly in the need for class action tort reform,
I reluctantly oppose H.R. 1875 in its current form. By establishing
``minimal diversity'' rules of jurisdiction, H.R. 1875 would shift
jurisdiction of most class action lawsuits from state court to federal
court. This would have the practical effect of overburdening the
already understaffed federal courts, while further delaying and
possibly denying justice for injured plaintiffs.

[[Page 22442]]

Mr. Chairman, although I do not support this particular vehicle for
class action tort reform, I remain committed to correcting the abuses
of our legal system. I am hopeful that my concerns with H.R. 1875 can
be resolved as the bill moves through the Senate, so that I may support
the conference report for this legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1875, the
Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. This so-called ``tort
reform'' measure proposes to create a huge new roadblock to justice for
class action litigants.
If enacted, H.R. 1875 will harm consumers and benefit corporate
defendants--among them managed care plans, gun manufacturers and
tobacco companies. Although ERISA does not permit injured enrollees to
sue their HMO under state malpractice laws, recently some class actions
have been successfully filed alleging violations of state consumer
fraud and unfair trade practice laws. These class actions are being
used to require HMOs to provide needed treatments, access to
specialists, and continuity of care.
Yet H.R. 1875 would reverse these gains by making it far easier for
managed care plans to force removal of cases filed under state consumer
fraud laws to federal court--where outcomes could be inconsistent and
unfair.
Currently, most class actions are brought under state law with state
court judges interpreting and applying the standards litigants must
meet. H.R. 1875 would divest state courts of many of these cases,
requiring federal judges to interpret and apply state law. This opens
the door to inconsistent interpretation by judges not familiar with
state law.
Our current class action system is a win-win-win--for the courts, for
litigants, and for society. Class actions are now heard by judges
knowledgeable in the area and familiar with the law. The federal bench
lacks the resources to handle these cases in its already overburdened
docket.
Under present guidelines, class actions may be heard by federal
judges when the damage amount involved is more than $75,000 per
plaintiff and other requirements are met. In state courts, class
actions can be brought when the amount of damage per plaintiff is
modest.
H.R. 1875 eliminates the $75,000 figure and the other requirements.
Thus, corporate defendants could easily request removal of many state
class actions to federal court--over the objections of all plaintiffs
or co-defendants.
If this bill is enacted, it will essentially deny a forum to
thousands who have been injured by exposure to tobacco products,
asbestos and other unsafe products, and thwart reforms that benefit
society as a whole. In effect, the class action device itself would be
destroyed.
If H.R. 1875 becomes law, dozens of class action lawsuits that could
help thousands will simply never be heard. Consumers will again become
victims--this time, of a massive federal judicial logjam.
Tobacco companies, asbestos makers, drug manufacturers, and HMOs are
lobbying strongly for H.R. 1875. The Interstate Class Action
Jurisdiction Act of 1999 gives them relief at the expense of justice
that consumers deserve.
A ``yes'' vote for H.R. 1875 is fundamentally a vote against
consumers' rights. It should be quickly rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). All time for
general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by section as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each section is
considered read.
No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be
printed or his designee and shall be considered as read.
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.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND REFERENCE.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate
Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act reference is made to
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 title 28, United States Code.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) as recently noted by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, interstate class actions are ``the
paradigm for Federal diversity jurisdiction because, in a
constitutional sense, they implicate interstate commerce,
invite discrimination by a local State, and tend to attract
bias against business enterprises'';
(2) most such cases, however, fall outside the scope of
current Federal diversity jurisdiction statutes;
(3) that exclusion is an unintended technicality, inasmuch
as those statutes were enacted by Congress before the rise of
the modern class action and therefore without recognition
that interstate class actions typically are substantial
controversies of the type for which diversity jurisdiction
was designed;
(4) Congress is constitutionally empowered to amend the
current Federal diversity jurisdiction statutes to permit
most interstate class actions to be brought in or removed to
Federal district courts; and
(5) in order to ensure that interstate class actions are
adjudicated in a fair, consistent, and efficient manner and
to correct the unintended, technical exclusion of such cases
from the scope of Federal diversity jurisdiction, it is
appropriate for Congress to amend the Federal diversity
jurisdiction and related statutes to allow more interstate
class actions to be brought in or removed to Federal court.

SEC. 3. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS.

(a) Expansion of Federal Jurisdiction.--Section 1332 is
amended by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and by inserting
after subsection (a) the following:
``(b)(1) The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action which is brought as a class
action and in which--
``(A) any member of a proposed plaintiff class is a citizen
of a State different from any defendant;
``(B) any member of a proposed plaintiff class is a foreign
state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or
``(C) any member of a proposed plaintiff class is a citizen
of a State and any defendant is a citizen or subject of a
foreign state.
As used in this paragraph, the term `foreign state' has the
meaning given that term in section 1603(a).
``(2)(A) The district courts shall not exercise
jurisdiction over a civil action described in paragraph (1)
if the action is--
``(i) an intrastate case,
``(ii) a limited scope case, or
``(iii) a State action case.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) the term `intrastate case' means a class action in
which the record indicates that--
``(I) the claims asserted therein will be governed
primarily by the laws of the State in which the action was
originally filed; and
``(II) the substantial majority of the members of all
proposed plaintiff classes, and the primary defendants, are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed;
``(ii) the term `limited scope case' means a class action
in which the record indicates that all matters in controversy
asserted by all members of all proposed plaintiff classes do
not in the aggregate exceed the sum or value of $1,000,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, or a class action in which
the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in
the aggregate is less than 100; and
``(iii) the term `State action case' means a class action
in which the primary defendants are States, State officials,
or other governmental entities against whom the district
court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.
``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any claim concerning
a covered security as that term is defined in section
16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and section
28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any class action
solely involving a claim that relates to--
``(A) the internal affairs or governance of a corporation
or other form of business enterprise and that arises under or
by virtue of the laws of the State in which such corporation
or business enterprise is incorporated or organized; or
``(B) the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and
obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any
security (as defined under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the regulations issued thereunder).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1332(c) (as redesignated
by this section) is amended by inserting after ``Federal
courts'' the following: ``pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section''.
(c) Determination of Diversity.--Section 1332, as amended
by this section, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

[[Page 22443]]

``(f) For purposes of subsection (b), a member of a
proposed class shall be deemed to be a citizen of a State
different from a defendant corporation only if that member is
a citizen of a State different from all States of which the
defendant corporation is deemed a citizen.''.

SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF CLASS ACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 89 is amended by adding after
section 1452 the following:

``Sec. 1453. Removal of class actions

``(a) In General.--A class action may be removed to a
district court of the United States in accordance with this
chapter, but without regard to whether any defendant is a
citizen of the State in which the action is brought, except
that such action may be removed--
``(1) by any defendant without the consent of all
defendants; or
``(2) by any plaintiff class member who is not a named or
representative class member of the action for which removal
is sought, without the consent of all members of such class.
``(b) When Removable.--This section shall apply to any
class action before or after the entry of any order
certifying a class.
``(c) Procedure for Removal.--The provisions of section
1446(a) relating to a defendant removing a case shall apply
to a plaintiff removing a case under this section. With
respect to the application of subsection (b) of such section,
the requirement relating to the 30-day filing period shall be
met if a plaintiff class member who is not a named or
representative class member of the action for which removal
is sought files notice of removal no later than 30 days after
receipt by such class member, through service or otherwise,
of the initial written notice of the class action provided at
the court's direction.
``(d) Exceptions.--
``(1) Covered securities.--This section shall not apply to
any claim concerning a covered security as that term is
defined in section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
``(2) Internal governance of business entities.--This
section shall not apply to any class action solely involving
a claim that relates to--
``(A) the internal affairs or governance of a corporation
or other form of business enterprise and that arises under or
by virtue of the laws of the State in which such corporation
or business enterprise is incorporated or organized; or
``(B) the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and
obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any
security (as defined under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the regulations issued thereunder).''.
(b) Removal Limitations.--Section 1446(b) is amended in the
second sentence--
(1) by inserting ``, by exercising due diligence,'' after
``ascertained''; and
(2) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``section 1332''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 89 is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 1452 the following:

``1453. Removal of class actions.''.

(d) Application of Substantive State Law.--Nothing in this
section or the amendments made by this section shall alter
the substantive law applicable to an action to which the
amendments made by section 3 of this Act apply.
(e) Procedure After Removal.--Section 1447 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) If, after removal, the court determines that no
aspect of an action that is subject to its jurisdiction
solely under the provisions of section 1332(b) may be
maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it shall dismiss the action. An
action dismissed pursuant to this subsection may be amended
and filed again in a State court, but any such refiled action
may be removed again if it is an action of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction. In
any action that is dismissed pursuant to this subsection and
that is refiled by any of the named plaintiffs therein in the
same State court venue in which the dismissed action was
originally filed, the limitations periods on all reasserted
claims shall be deemed tolled for the period during which the
dismissed class action was pending. The limitations periods
on any claims that were asserted in a class action dismissed
pursuant to this subsection that are subsequently asserted in
an individual action shall be deemed tolled for the period
during which the dismissed class action was pending.''.

SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any action
commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. GAO STUDY.

The Comptroller General of the United States shall, by not
later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, conduct a study of the impact of the amendments made by
this Act on the workload of the Federal courts and report to
the Congress on the results of the study.

Amendment No. 4 Offered By Mr. Nadler

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

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Nadler:
Page 6, line 5, strike the quotation marks and second
period.
Page 6, insert the following after line 5:
``(5)(A) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any class action
that is brought for harm caused by a firearm or ammunition.
``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `firearm'--
``(i) has the meaning given that term in section 921(3) of
title 18; and
``(ii) includes any firearm as defined in section 5845 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
Page 8, line 16, strike the quotation marks and second
period.
Page 8, insert the following after line 16:
``(3) Firearms or ammunition.--(A) This section shall not
apply to any class action that is brought for harm caused by
a firearm or ammunition.
``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `firearm'--
``(i) has the meaning given that term in section 921(3) of
title 18; and
``(ii) includes any firearm as defined in section 5845 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, in effect, exempt
from this bill and allow the existing laws governing class action
lawsuits to continue to apply to cases brought against gun and
ammunition manufacturers.
We have spent months in this House debating how best to combat the
rising tide of gun violence in this country, and we still have nothing
to show for it. Week after week after week after week we hear horror
stories from all over the country of mass murderers, of people walking
into schools and churches and shops and opening fire on innocent
people.
How does the leadership of this House propose to address this
problem? With this legislation that will actually protect gun makers
from the consequences of their actions and will not protect the victims
of gun violence.
Mr. Chairman, guns kill almost twice as many Americans every year, as
all other household and recreational products combined. Despite this
grim fact, the gun industry is the last unregulated manufacturer of a
consumer product. All other manufacturers are regulated, not the gun
manufacturers.
Currently, citizen lawsuits serve as practically the only safety
regulation, if we can call it that, of the firearms industries.
Lawsuits have been the only way to force manufacturers to make their
guns safer. A 1995 class action suit against Remington Arms, which
settled for $31.5 million, led to the implementation of greater safety
protections for owners of shotguns.
Look at what is happening all across the country. The victims of gun
violence are beginning to sue gun manufacturers for their injuries as a
consequence of the negligence of the gun manufacturers. Over 20
American cities, as well as the NAACP, have filed lawsuits against gun
manufacturers to hold them accountable for the millions of dollars that
the public sector must spend coping with the consequences of gun
violence.
Gun plaintiffs, like tobacco plaintiffs and others, must sue the gun
manufacturers in class action lawsuits because suing as single
plaintiffs is almost invariably prohibitively expensive. We should not
handicap these important civil suits just as they are beginning.
As my colleagues know, in addition to expanding Federal jurisdiction
over class actions, this bill would give gun manufacturers a tremendous
advantage in these cases by allowing them to remove these cases to
Federal court.
These cases are, of course, determined on the basis of State tort
law. The Federal courts that would decide these cases are bound by
Federal law to apply, not Federal law, but the State law. But the
Federal courts are always going to be much more hesitant to expand the
State law from previous decisions than the State courts will, because
their expertise is Federal law, not State law.
So by taking these cases from the State forum, where the States can
apply and interpret their own laws, to a Federal forum, which are going
to be more hesitant to interpret them in new ways and to realize the
full implications of the law, we are saying to the defendants they have
a much easier forum. To the plaintiffs, to the victims of gun violence,
we are going to stack the decks against them.
Now, I think this is a terrible bill in general for a lot of
different reasons. But even assuming we want to pass this bill, why not
just allow victims of

[[Page 22444]]

gun violence to continue to bring their cases in State courts? Why
bring them before a Federal judge who will have less expertise on the
State law, will have to divert his or her attention from cases
involving, for example, violence against women or access to clinic or
multijurisdiction interstate cases? Are not our Federal judges busy
enough?
We know that the average case, if removed to Federal court, will take
6 to 8 years to reach trial; whereas, in most State courts, it will get
there in a year or two. Gun victims often cannot wait that extra time.
Do we really need the Federal courts to take on thousands of new cases
for their dockets?
We should support the victims of gun violence in their efforts to
hold the firearms industry accountable when its products cause injury
or death and when they are responsible through their negligence,
because that obviously is something that has to be proven, when they
were negligent and who they sell the guns to and making unsafe products
and not putting safety standards or guns or whatever. When that can be
proven, we should not stack the decks against the victims of gun
violence by pushing this out of the local courts and into the Federal
courts.
Victims of gun violence, the American people, deserve comprehensive
legislation to get the guns off the streets and protect our children in
the schools and protect our people in our churches and day-care
centers.
They do not deserve this almost contemptuous treatment in which we
say we are not doing anything to protect them, but we are going to make
it harder for them if they are injured to prove the negligence of the
gun manufacturers. We are going to make it more expensive. We are going
to make it farther in time. We are going to make it farther in
distance. We do not trust the State courts. We do not believe in States
rights. We do not believe in local government despite the rhetoric on
this floor. We think State courts are too generous to people. They know
the people, the situation a little better than some far-off Federal
court. So, therefore, let us move it to a far-off Federal court to make
it harder for the plaintiffs in gun violence cases.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, if we are going to pass this
malevolent bill, at least let us exempt from it cases alleging
negligence resulting in violence to victims of gun violence. We should
not make it easier for the malefactors of the gun industry. We should
make it harder. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment and what may
prove to be a series of so-called carve-out amendments. Principled
Members, whether they support the underlying legislation or not, will
oppose this amendment and other amendments that attempt to pour their
views about any particular issue that faces this Congress or any
particular litigation that may go before our courts into this
procedural debate about how all litigation should be considered in the
form of class actions and whether or not one believes they should be
removed to Federal court or not, my colleagues should not support
carving out individual sectors of our economy or individual types of
lawsuits.
That is exactly how this amendment was treated in a bipartisan
fashion by the Committee on the Judiciary in the markup of this bill
when this particular amendment or one very like it was defeated by a
bipartisan 16 to 6 vote. There are good reasons why it was rejected
there, and there are good reasons why it should be rejected here.
This industry-specific exemption from Federal jurisdiction makes no
sense. It is like a bill of attainder. It irrationally singles out one
industry and slams the Federal courthouse door in its face.
All of us strive to be sure that justice is blind. But when one
identifies one group of people and says they are not entitled to the
same treatment under the law that everyone else is, justice is not
blind.
The amendment is wholly inconsistent with what the Framers had in
mind in establishing diversity jurisdiction in Article III of our
Constitution. They wanted to allow interstate businesses to have claims
against them heard in Federal court so as to avoid local biases.
Nowhere in this concept is the idea that certain industries should be
exempted from this right, that certain kinds of businesses are less
entitled to Federal court protection.
One may not like gun manufacturers, but think of the things that one
does like and consider whether if a similar amendment were offered to
single out something that is important to one and say that those who
promote and support that particular idea, that particular industry,
whatever the case might be, that they are not entitled to sit in the
same forum of justice that everyone else in this country is entitled
to.
The amendment clearly is designed to single out the firearms industry
because, in some quarters, it is unpopular. But that is exactly what
the Framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid. They are trying
to ensure a fair, evenhanded Federal court forum for defendants that
may otherwise be hailed into a local court less concerned about
protecting the rights of an out-of-State company.
It is very interesting that in the committee report, the additional
dissenting views submitted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
and others on the gun issue, makes a big point of the fact that the
NAACP has filed a class action against the gun industry, seeking to
recover for money that the public sector must pay for the consequences
of gun violence.
The report goes on to say that we should not handicap such important
civil suits before they have even begun.
What I find very interesting about that point is that the NAACP filed
their lawsuit in Federal court, not State court. That choice presumably
was made because the lawyers filing the NAACP suit know that the
Federal courts are more appropriate for dealing with these interstate
issues presented by these cases.
This bill would make it easier for groups like the NAACP to bring
such cases in Federal court because it works both ways. It expands the
rights of plaintiffs to bring interstate cases in Federal court as well
as expanding the ability of defendants to remove interstate cases to
Federal court.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is a bad policy to carve out exceptions in a bill
like this because it creates one system for those that are popular with
political clout, another system for those without political support
that are unpopular.
As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) pointed out, the
constitutional principle of equal protection is violated when we have
those that get one system and those in another. That principle of equal
protection and constitutional protection is particularly needed when we
have unpopular individuals. Those are the ones that really need the
constitutional protection.
Whatever reason that this carve-out might make sense, those arguments
should have been made to the bill in general. But to carve out and have
a special exemption I think is wrong, and the carve-out and the
amendment, therefore, should be defeated.

{time} 1300

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. Now, as a general idea,
I do not think it is a good idea to have specific carve-outs from
legislation. But if we are going to enact egregious legislation, then
we can mitigate the damages in the most obvious situations.
And for the gentleman on the other side who got up and said it is
terrible, we should not carve out, let me read some of the carve-outs
supported by the Republicans for similar legislation. The Biomaterials
Access Insurance Act of 1997 passed into law and carves out an
exception for breast implant lawsuits. It also carves out an exception
for lawsuits by health care providers.

[[Page 22445]]

In the 104th Congress, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal
Reform Act carved out an exception from the bill's provisions for
lawsuits for commercial losses. This very bill carves out an exception
from the bill's provisions for lawsuits for commercial losses.
The Senate version of a similar bill, S. 2236, had specific carve-
outs for negligence actions involving firearms or ammunitions in
negative entrustment actions.
So, Mr. Chairman, the real issue is not should there be carve-outs,
because the people on the other side sponsoring this legislation have
supported carve-outs. Indeed, this bill contains a carve-out. The
question is which carve-outs.
And I would submit that if this bill is going to carve out an
exception for lawsuits brought under the Securities Act of 1933, or the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as well as corporate government
actions, all of which are carved out of this bill, we can carve out an
exception so as not to rip the lawsuits started by States and local
governments and individuals in class actions out of the State courts
into Federal courts for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers
when they can prove negligence resulting in death or injury.
The question, as I said, is not are carve-outs a good idea. The
question is, as long as we are going to have carve-outs and pass
legislation in this bill, should gun manufacturers be subject to carve-
outs they do not want, or should we only carve out protections for
people accused of violations of securities laws.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would agree with my
colleague that there should not have been carve-outs in those previous
bills, there should not have been carve-outs in this bill; and,
therefore, this amendment should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 295, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that has
been made in order by the rule.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 6, line 5, strike the quotation marks and second
period.
Page 6, insert the following after line 5:
``(5)(A) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any class action
that is brought for harm caused by a tobacco product.
``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `tobacco product'
means--
``(i) a cigarette, as defined in section 3 of the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332);
``(ii) a little cigar, as defined in section 3 of the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C.
1332);
``(iii) a cigar, as defined in section 5702(a), of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(iv) pipe tobacco;
``(v) loose rolling tobacco and papers used to contain that
tobacco;
``(vi) a product referred to as smokeless tobacco, as
defined in section 9 of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4408); and
``(vii) any other form of tobacco intended for human
consumption.''.
Page 8, line 16, strike the quotation marks and second
period.
Page 8, insert the following after line 16:
``(3) Tobacco products.--(A) This section shall not apply
to any class action that is brought for harm caused by a
tobacco product.
``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `tobacco product'
means--
``(i) a cigarette, as defined in section 3 of the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332);
``(ii) a little cigar, as defined in section 3 of the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C.
1332);
``(iii) a cigar, as defined in section 5702(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(iv) pipe tobacco;
``(v) loose rolling tobacco and papers used to contain that
tobacco;
``(vi) a product referred to as smokeless tobacco, as
defined in section 9 of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4408); and
``(vii) any other form of tobacco intended for human
consumption.''.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I started this debate by
acknowledging that the class-action procedure had begun historically
with a desire to give equity and justice to the people of the United
States of America. I am delighted that over the years we have kept that
promise to the American people. We have provided them State courts that
have given us equity, given us justice, and provided the opportunity
for the individual, the less-of-a-giant person, to go against the giant
and prevail.
And, Mr. Chairman, whether it has been in improving car safety in
America; whether it has been in providing greater assistance for
efforts against manufacturers who would make defective products that
would injure large numbers of people; whether it has been in health
care, to improve health policy in America, the individual has been
protected by the vehicle of a class action and allowing that individual
to go into the State court.
Today, I offer an amendment to protect that individual again. Because
I am concerned that if this bill is left unamended, it would, for the
first time, give Federal courts jurisdiction over all of the State
class-action claims, even those involving primarily interstate disputes
over State law.
This bill will allow tobacco companies to take State class-action
claims away from State courts and put them into Federal courts over the
objection of plaintiffs. And, Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues
why that is a problem. All of the class-action lawsuits that we have
heard of, and that the American people have participated in and have
welcomed in getting relief for the heinousness of tobacco and its
impact on health in America, would not have been allowed into the
Federal courts because the Federal courts had the opportunity to
certify class-action tobacco cases and they refused.
Now, in giving some deference to the Federal courts, I have already
said they are overwhelmed and oversaturated. In fact, let me tell my
colleagues that the Judicial Conference of the United States, Federal
judges themselves, have written and said,

I want to inform you that the executive committee of the
conference voted to express its opposition to class action
provisions in H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action
Jurisdiction of 1999.

These are the Federal judges.
Mr. Chairman, they do that because they too believe in justice, and
they realize that they are overwhelmed and understaffed. There are not
enough judges and not enough courts. So by permitting the transfer from
State courts to the Federal courts, this legislation will cause
indeterminable delay for class-action cases against the tobacco
industry, both increasing the cost of suing the industry and in
delaying justice for the individual plaintiffs.
This amendment, offered by myself and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman), would ensure that this bill does not apply to any class
action that is brought for harm caused by a tobacco product. And let me
say that this effort is not new. Members of Congress, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and others have been working on this fight
for years. And out of their efforts we have seen the opportunity for
the individual victim to come forward, and we have seen the tobacco
industry exposed for its efforts toward promoting its product, knowing
that it was dangerous to our health.
This legislation, as currently worded, would allow tobacco companies
to remove class actions involving State causes of action to Federal
Court involving tobacco cases, it seems. In fact, since the tobacco
companies are principally domiciled in States where class actions are
not being brought, minimal diversity, as defined by this bill, will
always exist between the plaintiffs and the tobacco companies. And
unlike the Florida case, which was rendered by the State court, which
showed the devastation to those plaintiffs there, those

[[Page 22446]]

plaintiffs' rights would be violated by moving them to a Federal Court
who might ultimately not certify the case. Mr. Chairman, is this
justice?
So I urge my colleagues to look seriously at the facts and to
understand that the President has indicated that this is an unbalanced
law; to understand that Save Lives and Not Tobacco, an organization
that has worked with the victims of tobacco, has indicated that this is
a bad bill; and the American Heart Association has said this is a bad
bill. The Conference of Chief Justices have said this, Mr. Chairman.
These are the State court chief justices:

With regular communication and cooperative effort, State
and Federal courts have developed a delicate, complimentary
role in class action jurisprudence. H.R. 1875 would radically
alter this relationship.

I tell my business friends that they have relief. I would ask that we
work together between the State and the Federal system to find relief
for them, but I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and
not to extinguish the rights of the victims of all of these tragedies
in America. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, as I did
to the previous amendment that was offered. This is another carve-out
amendment. It is wrong for the same reasons I cited previously. It
singles out a particular group of people, a particular industry, for
unfair treatment under our judicial system, and we should not establish
that type of principle.
The principal position, whether we are in favor of this legislation
or we are opposed to this legislation, is to oppose this amendment
because we should not carve out individual groups of people.
It is true that Congress has expanded Federal jurisdiction to
encompass cases involving certain subject matters, civil rights,
antitrust, environmental, consumer warranty, but those are exercises of
Federal question jurisdiction. There is no basis and no precedent for
carving out an industry from diversity jurisdiction and extinguishing
its right to have cases subject to Federal jurisdiction heard in
Federal Court.
Contrary to the premise of this amendment, H.R. 1875 would not turn
tobacco litigation upside down. Most money obtained through tobacco
litigation has come in State attorneys general cases. These are not
class actions and will not be affected by this legislation. Most other
tobacco cases are individual actions which, likewise, are unaffected by
this legislation.
H.R. 1875 is also prospective only. It would not affect any pending
cases, be they class action or otherwise.
Contrary to another premise of this amendment, there is no evidence
that tobacco cases are less likely to succeed in Federal Court. Tobacco
classes have been certified by both Federal and State courts. Tobacco
classes have been rejected by both Federal and State courts.
There is no evidence that class members will get better treatment in
State court. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. In the only
tobacco class action to reach conclusion, the Broin case, that case
ultimately settled in State court. But the class members received no
money at all. Under the terms of the settlement, they obtained only a
right to sue individually. Meanwhile, the class counsel, the lawyers,
were awarded $49 million. One law professor assessed the settlement as
follows: ``Is the system just when it allows the plaintiffs' lawyers to
make $49 million for making the class worse off?''
There is no evidence that tobacco cases would get tried more quickly
in State courts. It took 6 years to get the first tobacco class action
to trial in State court; the second took over 4 years. The average time
to trial in Federal Court is shorter.
No matter where we may stand on the tobacco issue, we should strongly
oppose this amendment. And for all the reasons I just cited, I urge my
colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in opposing the amendment, I would make the broad point
that industry-specific denials of access to the judicial process at
either the State or the Federal levels are simply not appropriate. Over
the entrance to the United States Supreme Court are words which, in a
phrase, define our basic belief in the rule of law. That phrase says,
``Equal justice under the law.'' To honor that principle, any attempt
to close the courthouse door to any specific litigant, whether an
individual, a specific corporation, or an entire industry should be
defeated.
The amendment would close the door to the courthouse to any company
within the tobacco industry that seeks to use the removal provisions of
this legislation. That simply is not the American way. That approach
violates our basic principles of fairness and our principles of equal
justice. By a wide bipartisan majority the amendment was rejected by
the House Committee on the Judiciary, and I strongly urge the committee
here on the floor of the House today to reject this amendment as well.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons that the last carve-out was bad
policy, this carve-out is a bad policy. It sets up one system for the
popular, another for the unpopular. It violates the principle of equal
protection.
And whatever arguments are being made for why this carve-out makes
sense should have been made against the bill. The carve-outs, all of
the carve-outs, should be defeated, and the bill should be defeated.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, if this legislation is enacted, it will provide the
tobacco industry with unprecedented legal protection. It is nothing
less than a back door immunity from class-action lawsuits, the Holy
Grail of the tobacco industry.

{time} 1315

This bill reminds me of the attempt last Congress to give the tobacco
industry a $50-billion tax break. This motion, which was slipped into a
massive budget bill, was only repealed when Democrats discovered the
provision and the public outcry began. This legislation, too, is a gift
for the big tobacco.
Today, most tobacco class action litigation occurs in State courts,
but this bill would allow tobacco companies to remove these cases from
the State courthouses all over the country. This is exactly what the
industry has long sought to do. The industry knows that the rules for
certifying and maintaining class actions are far more favorable to
corporate defendants in Federal courts. They know that they have been
able to defeat class action cases in Federal courts on procedural
grounds.
This legislation will make it virtually impossible for Americans to
successfully bring class action lawsuits against the tobacco companies.
It is designed to create barriers, to raise hurdles, to wear down
plaintiffs so that they will give up in frustration and despair.
All across America, people know about the outrageous behavior of
tobacco companies. They now know how the companies target our kids, try
to addict our teenagers, and have lied to the American people for 4
decades. And this House, in light of all this information, has
repeatedly failed to respond to the public health crisis from cigarette
smoking in this Nation.
This Congress has failed to pass comprehensive tobacco control
legislation. It has failed to pass even narrow tobacco control
legislation. It has turned over billions of Federal dollars to the
States, dollars recovered from the tobacco settlements, without
insisting that even a small portion be spent to protect our kids from
tobacco. Instead, this Congress has done nothing. But now it is
considering passing legislation that will actually give the tobacco
companies special liability protection.
This legislation is a gift to the tobacco industry rendered at the
expense of those who wish to hold that industry accountable.

[[Page 22447]]

Now, some will argue and have argued that this legislation simply
treats tobacco like any other business in America. But it is important
to remember three facts.
First, tobacco companies are selling a lethal and addictive drug.
Second, the product sold by the tobacco companies are the only consumer
product in America that kills when used as directed. And third, the
tobacco companies have lied to and deceived the public for over 40
years. These companies have operated for decades with utter disregard
to the hundreds of thousands of Americans that are killed each year.
We should put public health first and not make it more difficult to
hold the tobacco companies accountable for their actions. They deserve
no reward. This is a public health issue. It is about fairness for the
victims of tobacco. It is time for Congress to protect our children and
public health, not big tobacco.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The time of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
joining me on this amendment.
I wanted to add to the statement of the gentleman that there have
been a number of carve-outs. In fact, we will find that there is a
corporate governance carve-out that was requested. I think my colleague
raised the issue that some of these were dealing with Federal
questions, but some of these were dealing with the fact that the
individual State interests wanted a carve-out.
In particular, in Delaware, the corporate governance was carved out
because they like what is going on in State courts in Delaware.
It seems to me, with so many carve-outs, like the securities, this
begs the question on a Federal issue. This is life or death. These
lawsuits are life or death.
The Castano case would have never come if it had not come to the
State court system. People are dying. It is important that this
legislation, if passed, does not affect the ability of people who have
died or are dying their day in court.
I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment because we are dealing
with life or death.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a lot of people are for
States' rights in this House. Except when it comes to the question of
whether tobacco companies say they do not want States' rights, they
want it to be a Federal issue, and then they are willing to go along
with big tobacco against the chance of people who have a legitimate
lawsuit to bring their case on a class action basis.
I, too, urge support for the amendment.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. I do not think that we
should exempt our carve-out to tobacco industry from other business,
corporations, and industries across this country. They should be
treated just like any other entity under the provisions of 1875.
It is going to impact tobacco companies negatively if this carve-out
is allowed. Tobacco growers in my area have already suffered greatly.
In the flue-cured tobacco country, we have had a quota cut of 35
percent over the last 2 years. What does that mean? That means that
they have a reduction of 35 percent of their gross income and their
expenses stay about the same.
This year prices are down all across the old belt tobacco market, and
growers are suffering. Many tobacco farmers are going out of business.
They cannot continue along the course that has been thrust upon them.
If we single out the tobacco industry for different treatment than
the rest of the businesses and companies in this country, we will be
driving a further nail in the coffin of the tobacco companies. If we do
not have them, we will not have buyers. Then the tobacco that is
utilized in this country by those adults who choose to use it will come
from China, it will come from Zimbabwe, it will come from Brazil.
I want us to be fair to the American tobacco grower, be fair to the
American tobacco industry. And I hope that those that want to utilize
tobacco in this country will have the opportunity to always purchase
American tobacco instead of foreign tobacco. We do not need this unfair
treatment for American businesses.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. If
passed and enacted, the class action bill is going to provide
significant protections to corporate defendants against class action
lawsuits and no industry will benefit more than the tobacco industry.
I think it is somewhat ironic that here we are today and the Justice
Department has announced that they are filing a civil lawsuit seeking
billions and billions of dollars' worth of damage for the taxpayers of
this country, the attorneys general from around the States have
negotiated a settlement worth another $250 billion, the courts are
going in the direction of holding the tobacco companies accountable for
decades of duplicity; and what are we doing in this House? We are going
in the opposite direction. We are saying, that is okay when it comes to
big tobacco.
The tobacco companies win whenever there is a debate in this House,
but the people in America lose. And when we go into the courts, the
only place where we have been able to level the playing field, the
sponsors of this legislation want to give a special carve-out to the
tobacco industry.
Currently, most tobacco class action litigation occur in State court
since the plaintiffs' claims against the industry typically involve
State law claims. However, this bill would allow the tobacco companies
to remove these cases from State courthouses all across the country,
giving the industry back-door immunity from lawsuits.
Not surprisingly, the tobacco industry has long sought to remove
State class actions from Federal court. The industry knows the rules of
the games of certifying classes and maintaining class actions are more
favorable to corporate defendants in Federal courts than in State
courts. So the tobacco companies want to have their way. They want to
be able to go into Federal court and defeat class actions on procedural
grounds.
Now, in the last Congress, the tobacco industry sought a complete ban
on class actions and these provisions were widely criticized by the
public health community and rejected in the Senate. By severely
limiting State class actions, this bill will provide the tobacco
industry with special protection from civil class action liability,
which is exactly what the Congress and the health community has already
rejected. Even if we support the changes to the class action laws that
are in this bill, it makes sense to make sure that the tobacco industry
is held accountable.
We are at a pivotal point in time in our history in terms of holding
the tobacco company accountable. It is the leading preventable cause of
death in the United States. Over 400,000 people a year die as a result
of tobacco-related illnesses. The least we can do, the least we can do,
is give the American people who have been victims through negligence of
the tobacco companies their opportunity to join together and fight big
tobacco.
The fight against big tobacco is not going to be won, unfortunately,
on the floor of this House. But Americans across this country, at a
minimum, should have the ability and the right to go into court and
State class actions to hold these tobacco companies accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding.

[[Page 22448]]

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize another case. I thank the gentleman
for recounting this whole problem of getting into courts. If we had not
had the opportunity to go into State courts, cases like Engle versus
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a successful class action case in
Florida, as I mentioned, would not have had the opportunity for trial.
Broin versus Philip Morris, which considered the claims of some 60,000
flight attendants harmed by secondhand smoke, would not have been
allowed into the courthouse.
So I want to see a balance between business interests and individual
interests, but in this instance the scales of justice are weighed
heavily in the opposite direction without this carve-out.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, before coming to this body, I served as a
justice on the Texas Supreme Court; and I know that on our courthouse
and courthouses across Texas, and I expect in the State of my
colleague, as well, there are the scales of justice. We expect that
every litigant will be treated fairly and that those scales will be in
balance.
When we apply those scales of justice in this body on this Jackson-
Lee amendment, on one side we have every public health organization,
some 70 consumer groups, State judges, Federal judges, the State
attorneys general, I am sure other law enforcement groups, and on the
other side of that scale we have got the big tobacco lobby.
Would not my colleague say it is easy to draw the appropriate balance
as between the opponents and supporters of the Jackson-Lee amendment?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say that that
is very easy.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for the last several years, this Republican Congress
has stood idle as each day some 3,000 of our children across America
have had the opportunity to be introduced to nicotine. Many of them,
perhaps as many as a thousand per day, will die prematurely because of
their nicotine addiction.
Secret tobacco documents discovered in the course of class action
litigation indicate that these tobacco giants targeted children as
young as 12 years old with their propaganda about the joys of smoking.
Before Congress grants this tobacco industry special protection, we
need to weigh the heavy consequences of the deplorable history of
targeting our youngest Americans to take up smoking, proven in industry
documents discovered in these class action suits in State court.
I believe that we must place a high priority on the deadly
relationship between children and nicotine. We have to protect our
children from the tobacco companies that spend over $5 billion a year,
almost $14 million every single day of every single year, to promote
their products because they need to replace the thousands of smokers
that die off from using their products with new, young victims.
This legislation is truly back-door immunity for the tobacco
industry. I commend my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her
courage in taking on that industry and declining to give them that
back-door immunity.

{time} 1330

These are the same tobacco giants that sought to ban class actions in
1997, that have known about the deadly consequences of their product
for decades, and that are now back here again asking for special
treatment.
As my colleagues know, the relationship between the Republicans in
this Congress and the tobacco industry runs very deep and constant. The
only thing this House has ever done in response to this vital public
health issue in the last two sessions was to approve a $50 billion tax
loophole for the tobacco industry.
And when people discovered it tucked in under a title called ``Small
Business Protection'', the House Republican leadership got so
embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, that they withdrew the whole matter. Just
when we thought perhaps the Republican leadership had learned the
lesson of that misdeed, they again have stood with the tobacco industry
to offer them this major break from responsibility.
Oh, yes, the Republican leadership talks about personal
responsibility, but they do not mean personal responsibility for those
who have produced the leading cause of preventable death in this
country today, the tobacco industry. The victories that have been won
in so many of these important States have occurred in our State courts.
The States' attorneys general have played a critical role in exposing
tobacco industry wrongdoing. In their pursuit of cases at the State
level, they have been invaluable allies of the public health community.
If this bill had been law, we would still be waiting for an answer
because our Federal courts are overwhelmed and backlogged in too much
of the country. Florida citizens would not know as they learned through
the litigation that, ``tobacco companies have engaged in a persistent
pattern of fraud, of conspiracy to commit fraud and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.''
If this bill had been law, Minnesota State courts would never have
had the chance to tell Americans around the country that the tobacco
companies set out, ``get smokers as young as possible'' and that our
own children were purposefully targeted for nicotine addiction. For
these tobacco companies children ``represent tomorrow's cigarette
business . . . and will account for the key share of total cigarette
volume for at least the next 25 years.'' Those are the words right out
of the secret tobacco documents discovered in state court proceedings.
The Congress is not the only body, of course, that has considered
changing its class action procedures. The same forces, the tobacco
industry and its allies, that are attempting to destroy this useful
remedy in this Congress came before the State capitol in the city I
represent in Austin, Texas. They sought through other devices, along
with their allies--the health maintenance organization and the
insurance companies--to bar the doors of the courthouses of the State
of Texas. Fortunately, the Texas Legislature had the wisdom to reject
their entreaties, and I hope this Congress will do the same thing.
As my colleagues know, a Federal civil lawsuit in too many
jurisdictions is little more than a ticket to delay.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The time of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. DOGGETT. Should this bill pass, Mr. Chairman, the delay will not
only be for those involved in tobacco class-action suits. Certainly
they will be damaged, but every litigant, be it corporate, individual,
governmental, that has a claim pending, a legitimate claim in our
Federal court system throughout this country, will find the already
overwhelmed Federal courts to be logjammed even more.
There are over 4,000 State courts that can handle State class actions
compared to a much smaller number of our Federal district courts. If
Congress today adds to these cases, the noise we will hear in the
background will be the wheels of justice coming to a screeching halt.
Tobacco companies will have successfully avoided any real threat of
being held accountable, of being personally responsible for the damages
resulting from their purposeful deceit.
This Congress failed the American people by failing to approve
comprehensive tobacco legislation. Let us not fail the American people
once again by trampling on their rights to turn to the courthouse in
their own State, in their own locality, when the Congress would not
respond.
Mr. Chairman, I would add one further note to my colleagues. Because
of the stranglehold, and it is a strong stranglehold, that results from
their having well oiled the machinery of Government here in Washington,
the

[[Page 22449]]

tobacco companies really face little threat in this Congress. We will
not be able to get to the floor of this Congress meaningful legislation
to reduce youth smoking; and my colleagues need to know that this vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will probably be
the only vote this year by which the American people and the
constituency in each district of the Members of Congress will have an
opportunity to judge them as to whether they stand with big tobacco and
its wrongdoing or they stand with the children and the public health
organizations of America to have an effective remedy for such
wrongdoing.
I urge approval of the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I do not understand
why we are considering carving out tobacco when this legislation simply
ensures that the Federal courts are available to parties involved in
massive and complex class-action lawsuits. This amendment, by singling
out the tobacco industry, I think establishes a very dangerous
precedent. What politically incorrect industry will be singled out
next? Will it be alcohol? Fatty foods? Or will it be big oil? Such a
precedent, that threatens all legal businesses whose products may be
considered controversial by some person or political parties.
But let me make my point very clear today. My main concern lies not
necessarily with the manufacturers, but they are important because last
time I checked, they are the only people who buy any tobacco from our
farmers. It really lies with the tobacco farmers.
Mr. Chairman, farmers in my district have born the brunt of this
nationwide campaign against tobacco. Sharecroppers, not shareholders.
Let me repeat that. Sharecroppers, not shareholders, are the ones who
are paying the heavy price, and they continue to pay. The shareholders
are getting their money; the sharecroppers are being punished. Tobacco
families, tobacco farmers and their communities have been severely
harmed by the ongoing campaign. Over the past 2 years these farmers
have lost 35 percent of their gross income. My colleagues can imagine
what that has done to their net income, and their communities are
suffering.
A recent study by VPI and NC State University in North Carolina
clearly demonstrates that the tobacco farmers are bearing the burden of
the anti-campaign. The study concluded that these lawsuits are
particularly punishing to farmers because they are unable to recoup the
losses through price increases, as the manufacturers have done. Instead
of punishing manufacturers, we are punishing the very people that we
want to help, the farmers, and their communities and their families. If
we adopt this amendment and single out tobacco industry, tobacco
farmers, Mr. Chairman, not the manufacturers, will continue to carry
the heaviest load that we are talking about.
And people stand here and say they want to help. They are punishing
the people they want to help. The people in my district, Mr. Chairman,
are on their backs right now from a hurricane. They cannot stand any
more help from this Congress. They need real help in funding that will
go to help them get back on their feet. I oppose this amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to stand here on the floor of this
House and listen to the debate and especially on an issue like this
that should be dwelling on the issue of fairness versus the very
emotional issue on the political incorrectness of tobacco; and some
would say, I have heard repeated several times today, that some here on
this side of the aisle came to Washington to talk about moving many of
the rights back to the States and how this is just the opposite of
that. But many of those very same people believe in bigger government,
and yet today they are saying that, well, we do not think the Federal
Government ought to have a role in this, that it ought to be back in
the States.
Mr. Chairman, I say this simply to point out to the public that no
one has a monopoly on hypocrisy, if that is what we are talking about
here. I think each case has to be decided by its merits, and this case,
given the history of our law on diversity and given the statute on
class-action lawsuits, and that concept that even big businesses and
even big unpopular businesses ought to be treated fairly, and
especially if they are interstate, they ought to have that right to
avoid the local biases that often come out in local courts, and they
have been able to go into court, into Federal court and Federal courts
are scattered all throughout the country, it is almost like somehow we
are talking about we are denying anyone the right to go to court.
We are not doing that. The Federal courts are open; the State courts
remain open, and if they are removed to Federal court, it is a local
court in their State, every State has Federal courts; and as I point
out in my opening statement, they are probably better equipped to
handle these class-action lawsuits because they have law clerks; they
have U.S. magistrate judges and all kinds of assistance; they have the
experience in complex litigation.
But in the end what we are talking about on this amendment is a carve
out, and some have said, Well, you've carved out for securities
litigation. Well, the reason we carved out for securities litigation
was that we enacted a bill in this Congress a year or two ago that
reformed that, that made those changes, so there is no reason to bring
this into play as to that subject and cause conflict.
But the last speaker, I want to close my remarks by saying he was
familiar with the courthouse, and how the scales of justice is there
and how it should be balanced; but I think the key of the lady of
justice holding the scales of justice is that she is wearing a
blindfold, not that the scales are balanced, and if my colleagues vote
for this amendment and carve out a politically unpopular entity such as
tobacco and treat them unfairly, different than the rest of them, you
have got that lady of justice peeking out from that blindfold, and no
longer is justice blind, no longer is justice fair.
Vote against this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Tennessee, and I appreciate both his tone and his work, but I think
that if my colleagues might, let me cite for them again from the
Conference of Chief Justices who have indicated there is a very fine
balance of relationship that they have developed between the Federal
court system and the State court system on class actions, and we are
not here to try to create an imbalance between large companies or
unpopular industries. Frankly my colleagues have already carved out a
carve-out for the securities industry, and what we are saying is we do
not want to implode the opportunities of victims who have been the
victims of tobacco usage and tobacco companies.
Mr. BRYANT. Reclaiming my time, as I explained earlier, we carved out
the securities litigation because we have already acted on that. There
is no sense in passing something that would be inconsistent or cause
any problems.
But, again, I think the point we have got to look at here we are
making exception, we are singling out something that is not popular;
and again under our system of justice, under our lady of justice,
justice should be blind. Even though it is tobacco, even though it is
firearms, it should be treated the same as any other company; and we
certainly are not closing the doors to the courthouse.
In fact, I have complete confidence in the Federal court system to
adjudicate this type of litigation and, in fact, would prefer this type
of litigation if this type of court venue, if it is a complex case like
a class-action lawsuit.
Mr. Chairman, I think both the plaintiffs and defendants deserve this
type of treatment.

[[Page 22450]]

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson-Lee amendment, but
both the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) and Mr. Nadler's amendment really point up the problem with this
legislation and what happens when we do not have a central principle
that controls when you are going to be in Federal court and when you
are going to be in State court and opens you up to efforts to try to
pick out one industry or the other and exempt them or not exempt them.
The problem is that there is no central core principle here. We have
left the central core principle that our constitutional framework gave
to us.

{time} 1345

That principle says if there is not something in the Constitution
that gives a matter to the Federal Government, that matter is reserved
to the States. That is what the constitutional principle is. Once we
start to stray away from that constitutional principle, then we do not
have a central principle that we are operating from anymore and then we
get subjected to this kind of let us make this exception because we do
not like this industry or make that exception because we do not like
that industry. And we end up with a hodgepodge of jurisdictional
standards for when one can get in the State court and when one can get
in the Federal court.
Now we have had a long-standing diversity jurisdiction principle that
has been at play for years and years and years. It says when someone
can get into Federal court; and because the supporters of this
legislation do not like that, they start to make exceptions to that
principle. And because then people who do not like particular
industries do not like that exception then they start making exceptions
to the exception, and that is what we are engaged in right now.
The underlying bill is an exception to a long-standing principle. The
amendments of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) want to make an exception to the
exception, and none of it makes sense. So what we ought to do is reject
the exception to the exception, the Jackson-Lee and the Nadler
amendments and any other carve-outs that somebody comes to the floor
with during the course of this debate.
More importantly, we ought to reject the underlying bill which is an
exception to the generally-accepted rules that we are operating under
because then we do not have a central principle if we do not reject the
underlying bill.
That is really where we ought to end up on this piece of legislation.
So that is why I am rising in opposition to the exception to the
exception, but I am also rising in opposition to the bill which is an
exception to the rule, and that rule is that if we did not give it to
the Federal Government then it is reserved to the State governments,
and that is the principle that we ought to be controlled by.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Is there
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know this debate is coming
to a close. I could not agree more with my colleague from North
Carolina on opposition to the underlying bill, and as well I think it
is important to note that this is not a popularity contest. There is no
attempt here to select unpopular industries.
I would have hoped that my colleagues had not carved out originally
the securities carve-out. I would have hoped they had not carved out
the corporate governance carve-out because representatives from the
State of Delaware were interested in making sure that those actions
stayed in State courts in Delaware developing the massive corporate law
of America.
I think in this instance we have a situation where we need to be
aware that one-third of high school age adolescents in the United
States smoke or use smokeless tobacco, and smoking prevalence still
exists among our teenagers. We need to realize that children are being
attracted to smoking. What we are simply saying here is not to create
an imbalance between unpopular industries and popular, or to create an
imbalance between any litigant going into the court of justice, but
what we are saying is this legislation will allow one diverse litigant,
one, to move a massive class action that has been filed in a State
court to a Federal court of which the Conference of Judges in the
Federal system have indicated we cannot take it.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, it literally locks the courthouse door because
our Federal courts are overwhelmed and understaffed, and we have
already seen where tobacco cases have not been certified in the Federal
court. And we would not have had the cases that we have had that were
filed in Florida and the one filed on behalf of the airline stewards
for secondhand smoke. We would have been in an abyss or a crisis or a
limbo or a bottomless hole where individual litigants who get their
strength from a class action to allow themselves to be able to access,
the equity court, the court of justice in State courts, would be
denied.
So I would ask my colleagues to consider this not as a bias toward an
unpopular industry but a creating of a balance of the scales of justice
for those victims who have been closed out of the Court system because
they are alone, they are by themselves, they are frail, they have less
money and they are not able to access justice.
Class actions are the access for that and this amendment would help
those victims of tobacco usage, and I ask my colleagues to support it
and to vote against the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering the following amendment to H.R. 1875, The
Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. I am concerned that
this bill if left unamended would for the first time, give federal
courts jurisdiction over almost all state class action claims, even
those involving primarily intra-state disputes over state law. This
bill will allow tobacco companies to take state class action claims
away from state courts and put them into federal courts over the
objections of plaintiffs.
By permitting the transfer from state courts to the federal courts,
this legislation will cause indeterminable delay for class action cases
against the tobacco industry, both increasing the costs of suing the
industry and delaying justice.
My amendment would ensure that this bill does not apply to any class
action that is brought for harm caused by a tobacco product. This
legislation as currently worded would allow tobacco companies to remove
class actions involving state causes of action to federal court. In
fact, since the major tobacco companies are principally domiciled in
states where class actions are not being brought, ``minimal diversity''
as defined by this bill will always exist between the plaintiffs and
the tobacco companies.
The legislation, therefore, can be said to effectively grant the
tobacco industry a free pass to federal court where it will be more
difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in class action cases.
My amendment responds to the concerns that many of us have and I urge
my colleagues to support this measure.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 295, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina

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

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina:
Page 7, line 10, strike ``before or''.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have already expressed my

[[Page 22451]]

opposition to this bill for a number of reasons, and in the opening
debate I also alluded to some internal drafting concerns that I have
about the bill. One of those drafting concerns is that the bill allows
someone who purports to be a member of a class to come in and remove a
case to Federal court before that person is even determined to be a
member of the class; before there is a class certification.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to strike two words from the
bill. The relevant provision in the bill says this section shall apply
to any class action before or after the entry of any order certifying a
class. All my amendment would seek to do is to strike two words,
``before or,'' so that at least a person would have to be determined to
be a member of the class before that person could pick the lawsuit up
and move it to the Federal court.
I am not sure what the objective was to give somebody who is not even
determined to be a party to the litigation the right to pick a lawsuit
up and move it when they have not even had any role in the case up to
that point. So I would encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment, although I understand that there may be a substitute for it
which I hope I can be supportive of.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Boucher as a Substitute for Amendment No. 7
Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment offered
as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment Offered by Mr. Boucher as a substitute for
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina:
Page 7, line 11, insert ``, except that a plaintiff class
member who is not a named or representative class member of
the action may not seek removal of the action before an order
certifying a class of which the plaintiff is a class member
has been entered'' before the period.

Mr. BOUCHER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the substitute amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) would permit a plaintiff to remove a State-filed
class action to Federal court only after the State court had entered an
order certifying the class.
In my view, the removal opportunity should arise at an earlier time
for plaintiffs who are named or representative class members. These
plaintiffs should be able to remove at some point before the State
court actually enters the certification order.
The substitute to the gentleman's amendment that I am offering would
permit named or representative class members to remove prior to the
State order certifying the class. Other plaintiff class members could
remove only after the certification order is entered.
I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his
work with the sponsors of the legislation on this aspect of the removal
process. I am hoping that the substitute that we are offering will be
acceptable to the gentleman in addressing his concerns, and I would be
happy to yield to him for his comments.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman from Virginia how much of
a pleasure it has been to try to work toward something that
accommodates his concerns and accommodates my concerns. I believe that
this amendment, while it does not go all the way to the point that I
was trying to get us to, reaches a reasonable balance between the two
approaches. It at least does not allow somebody to walk in off the
street, unknown to the litigation, and pick it up and move it. One has
to be a named class representative or a named plaintiff to move it
before they have the right to remove, and I think this accomplishes
that purpose.
I would encourage my colleagues to support the substitute; and if the
substitute passes, then obviously that would take precedence over the
underlying amendment which I have offered.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Watt) for his remarks. I would be pleased to yield to the prime
sponsor of the underlying bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher) for what I think is a very appropriate secondary amendment to
the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and
commend both gentlemen for working this out. We can certainly accept
this amendment, and we urge our colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) for his support, and I would encourage the committee to
approve the substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) as a substitute for the
amendment offered the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Page 9, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 10,
line 2, and insert the following:
(e) Procedure After Removal.--Section 1447 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) If, after removal, the court determines that any
aspect of an action that is subject to its jurisdiction
solely under the provisions of section 1332(b) may not be
maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it shall remand that aspect of the
action to the State court from which it was removed. In such
event, that State court may certify the action or any part
thereof as a class action pursuant to its State law and such
action cannot be removed to Federal court unless it meets the
requirements of section 1332(a).''.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is the truth in
labeling amendment. This bill was originally presented to me in the
previous Congress as an effort to have more rationality as to whether
or not a particular action ought to be tried at the Federal or the
State level, and I agreed with that.
Indeed if this amendment were adopted, I could be supportive of the
bill, would be supportive of the bill. I had been a sponsor before,
until this particular piece of it evolved. I am not sure where it came
in, but here is the problem: We now have very technical rules about
what gets someone in a Federal court and what gets someone in a State
court. I think it makes sense to change that so that where the bulk of
the plaintiffs and the bulk of the defendants and the bulk of the
issues are in one State it stays in the State court, and where there is
genuine factual diversity it goes to Federal court. That was the
legislation I was prepared to support.
There is a piece of this, however, that I think is, to many of the
sponsors, a central part of the legislation and it says this: If a
class action is filed in State court and can be, under the terms of
this bill, removed, even

[[Page 22452]]

though it did not meet the old technical terms for removal but would
meet our new more substantive test for going into Federal court, if a
Federal judge found that this particular class action did not meet the
rules for class action under the Federal rules it could not be brought
as a class action.

{time} 1400

It could then be returned to the State, but not as a class action. In
other words, this piece of the bill is not to see that certain class
actions are litigated at the Federal level rather than the State level.
I am aiming at a piece of the bill that seeks to prevent certain class
actions from being heard at all.
What came out of the debate is this: some Members of the majority are
disappointed in some States. I guess they are kind of like parents
whose kids have gone bad. I know they are all for States' right. I know
they talk about how much they support States' rights and do not want to
see a Federal override. But the problem is, those darn States will not
always do what they are told. Some of those States actually allow
class-action suits that some businesses do not like, and there is
unhappiness over the willingness of some States to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I will say this. There is a certain delicacy on the
part of my colleagues, they do not like to mention the States. It is
one thing to condemn the States; it is another thing to actually
mention which ones. So you probably will not hear during the course of
the debate any actual States mentioned. There are a few. Off the floor
maybe we can whisper some names.
But the problem they have is, they believe some States are too lax
and too willing to allow class actions, so part of the purpose of this
bill is not simply to get class actions litigated in Federal court
rather than State court, but to keep them from being litigated as class
actions at all. That seems to me to be a grave error.
This amendment is very simple. This amendment says that if one gets
it removed under the general provisions of this bill, and this bill
will make it easier to remove from State to Federal court, and I
support that part of it, the amendment says if one gets it removed and
a Federal judge says, no, one cannot have it as a class action, then
one can go back to State court and have it as a class action in State
court. In other words, one's choice is one wants it to be a Federal
class action or a State class action, and that I think the bill
addresses correctly. But using this as a way to prevent class actions
at all is an error, and only this amendment will keep this from
happening.
What the amendment says is that if a Federal judge rules that it
cannot be a class action, one has the opportunity of going back to the
State from which it was removed and maintaining it as a class action. I
do not think it is appropriate for us to simply say, as this bill
otherwise will after this amendment, hey, some of you States have not
gotten it right and you States are allowing class actions that should
not be class actions and we, the Federal Government will step in.
This is a proposal to substitute the wisdom and discretion of the
Federal courts for State courts as to whether or not class actions
ought to be maintained at all.
As I said, and I want to be very clear, to a bill whose purpose it is
to have certain actions tried in the Federal rather than a State court
because it makes more sense for the class action to be tried there, I
am supportive. But a bill whose purpose it is to prevent any class
action at all, and that is part of the purpose of this bill, that, I
think, is in error.
This amendment would return the bill to what it was advertised as to
me: an effort to put class actions where they ought to be, but it would
remove from the bill that provision that says, some States have been
imprudent in allowing class actions that should not be allowed. I do
not think that is a wise decision for the Federal Government to make.
We certainly have had no record for it and if, in fact, we are going to
have legislation passed that rules that some States have been
imprudent, let us have hearings. Let us give those States a chance to
defend themselves.
This is a gravely mistaken assault on States who have not been given
a chance to defend themselves.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would defeat the whole purpose of H.R.
1875. I must strongly disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), with regard to the issue of States' rights. It is not a
States' rights issue to allow one State court judge to determine the
law in 20 or 30 or 40 other States, and that is what happens now when
nationwide class-action lawsuits with tens or hundreds of thousands of
plaintiffs cannot be removed to Federal court because of this flaw that
has existed in our diversity rules that says that a $75,000 slip and
fall involving parties between two States can be removed to Federal
court, but a multimillion dollar or multibillion dollar lawsuit
involving tens of thousands of parties cannot be removed to Federal
court.
To allow one State court judge in one county in one State to
determine the laws of a multitude of other States; to allow a judge in
the State of Alabama to interpret the laws of New York and New Jersey
and Pennsylvania and California and Texas is wrong, and that is what
this bill is designed to do.
If the gentleman's amendment passes, the effect will be to say, once
the matter is removed to Federal court, if the Federal court does not
believe that the legislation constitutes a class action and refuses to
certify it as a class action, then it would go right back to the State
court and they could proceed with their lawsuit just as if nothing had
ever happened. It would defeat the entire purpose of eliminating forum
shopping and it would defeat the entire purpose of making sure that
State court judges do not interpret the laws of a multitude of other
States.
The whole purpose is to allow the removal of more interstate class
actions to Federal courts where they are most appropriately heard. This
amendment would make that change worthless.
The amendment would constitute a full endorsement, not a correction,
of the rampant class-action abuse that is occurring in State courts.
When a Federal court denies class certification in a case, it is
typically because litigating the case on a class basis would likely
result in a denial of a class member's or a defendant's due process
rights or basic fairness principles. This amendment would invite State
courts to overrule such Federal court determinations; it would invite
State courts to advance class actions that a Federal court has
determined would deny due process rights or be unfair to unnamed class
members.
The amendment is based on the myth that most States have class-action
rules radically different from the Federal class-action rule, and that
if a Federal judge judges that a class case may not proceed as a class
action under the Federal rule, counsel should be able to take their
case back to State court and try their luck under the State rule. In
reality, the vast majority of States have class action rules that track
the Federal court class-action rule, or have held that the Federal
court precedence should guide State courts in making class
certification determinations. The problem is that when the rules are
largely the same, local judges in many States do not rigorously follow
these rules, and their misguided class certification determinations are
not readily subject to proper review.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
that statement, because I think that makes it clear what we are talking
about.
The gentleman has just said that the problem is that the rules are
the same but a lot of local, i.e. State, judges, are misguided. So this
is not a statement that the Federal judges have superior wisdom; and it
is, as the gentleman said, an effort to prevent the misguided actions
of State judges who cannot be

[[Page 22453]]

trusted to carry out their own State laws.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the legislation does
not make any distinction between the wisdom of State court judges in
general or Federal court judges in general; it says that State court
judges should not be determining the law of other States.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, the gentleman just referred to misguided State
judges. He acknowledges that the rules are largely the same, and what
he is saying is, the Federal judges will be guided and they will have
to guide those misguided State judges. It is okay to think that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, all I am
saying to the gentleman is that we should not allow anybody to have two
bites of the apple, and that is what the gentleman's amendment provides
for.
The amendment would create enormous inefficiencies and a parade of
abuses. In particular, if a defendant fights to defeat class
certification and wins in Federal court, it will have to turn around
and mount the fight all over again.
The amendment is premised on the false assumption that class
proponents will not get a full opportunity to obtain class
certification under the current bill. They will. As presently drafted,
the legislation will allow litigants multiple chances to obtain
certification of proposed classes after removal to Federal court. If
the first class proposal in a removed action fails, nothing in this
bill precludes the class representatives from making revised class
proposals to the Federal court.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, even after the case is dismissed in
Federal court, it can be refiled in State court. After the class
certification fails, it would not preclude the plaintiff from offering
additional class proposals. They just cannot go back in with the same
class proposal, because that class has not been certified in Federal
court.
Suggestions that H.R. 1875 would federalize all class action rules
ignore the current situation, and it ignores the situation that I
referred to earlier. It has been suggested that this amendment would
prevent H.R. 1875 from federalizing class action rules. In reality, the
amendment would perpetuate the federalization of class action rules
that is occurring now. At present, a handful of State courts dictate
Federal class action policy.
By taking an ``anything goes'' approach to class actions, those few
State courts have become a magnet for class actions. Such courts hear a
disproportionate number of multi-State and nationwide class actions
because they are very lax about what they will certify for class
treatment. Passing this bill will standardize the process and make sure
that no one State court drives the policy.
Oppose this amendment and support the bill.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in stating my opposition to this
amendment. If the amendment is adopted, the basic reform that we are
seeking in this legislation simply would not be achieved. Some cases
simply should not be certified as class actions, either in State or in
Federal courts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is narrowly drawn so
as to protect the normal rights of both plaintiffs and defendants.
Under rule 23, cases that are overly broad will not be certified as
class actions.
When cases are denied class action status, all of the individual
members of the purported class are then free to file their individual
actions for damages. And so, in the failure of class certification,
absolutely no one is denied the opportunity to seek recovery for
whatever damages they may have incurred.
If the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts is adopted, any
case which, because of its broad scope, fails to meet the class
certification requirements of rule 23 of the Federal rules, and
therefore, is dismissed as a class action in Federal court, could then
be certified as a class action in the State that has looser
certification standards. That State would then be the final arbiter of
whether or not the class would be certified, because removal to the
Federal court would then no longer be allowed.
The national cases that involve the residents of many States that are
our concern and that underlie this legislation would, under this
amendment, still be heard in State courts, and so our basic purpose
would not be achieved. The reform that we are seeking would not be put
into effect, and for that reason, I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, because I want to straighten something out now.
The previous speaker said that some of us were operating under a
myth, but the myth was just propagated by my friend from Virginia, not
by us. I would say to my other friend from Virginia, he accused the
sponsor of this amendment of holding the view that there were different
State and Federal standards for certifying, and he said that was not
the case, it is just that the Federal Government is better at this than
the State judges. But as the gentleman from Virginia now standing who
graciously yielded to me just said that some of the States have looser
standards.
So I do want to point out that there appears to be some difference
between the two gentlemen from Virginia here.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that it is
true that most of the States have standards that are roughly coincident
with rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but there are
some States that have not adopted that rule. There are some States
that, in fact, do have broader and looser standards than Federal rule
23; and in many of the instances where abuses have arisen, it is
because of those somewhat broader standards.
We have a whole series of cases that the gentleman and I discussed
when this matter was in the committee where the State that is
certifying a class will be applying its law in such a way as to bind
all of the Members of the class and make sure that that particular
State's law dominates the decision, notwithstanding the fact that in
the State of the residents of many of those individuals, the law is
very different. That reversed federalism, which does enormous damages
to our traditional principles of federalism is yet another abuse that
we are seeking to remedy.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again
yield, I just wanted to point out that that argument, that there are
some States with different standards, is contrary to the argument given
by our other colleague from Virginia. I just wanted to point that out.
He said we were operating under the myth that there were these States
with different standards, and that, in fact, the standards detract from
each other.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is now acknowledging that
there are some States with different standards, and I think that is
frankly a better way to go than to have the argument that we previously
heard that there were these misguided State judges who were misapplying
the rules.
In any case, I would say this. I would like to have a hearing and
call forward officials from those States; I think it would be useful.
Which States are we talking about? Which are the States that are
abusive? We ought to be able to know which States we are talking about,
and I think we ought to give those States, because I do not remember
hearing where we asked those States to come and justify their loose
procedures.

{time} 1415

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 22454]]

Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Would it not be possible that both facts are true; that in some
States the certification process is different than the standards
followed in the Federal courts and followed by most of the other
States, and it could also be true that in some States some judges do
not follow standards that are loosely applied?
Mr. BOUCHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman
from Virginia is precisely right. Even in those States that have
standards that approximate Federal rule XXIII, there is a divergence
oftentimes in the courts of that very State in terms of how those
standards are applied.
Oftentimes, the States do not offer the right of interlocutory appeal
on the pure question of class certification. So for the defendants to
have an opportunity to challenge the application of that particular
State's certification rules, the entire process of the trial has to be
undertaken, has to be concluded. That is a waste of time, resources,
and money for all parties concerned.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I agree that intellectually both can be true.
I would simply point out to the gentleman from Virginia, he is one
who referred to one of those truths as a myth. The gentleman from
Virginia first declared it was a myth, and then announced it was true.
I am willing to wait for his judgment as to which he means.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that as we weigh the
intelligence and ability of the Federal judges versus the State judges,
it is the Federal judges and the Judicial Conference of the United
States that do not want this bill.
They have used the most delicate language imaginable: ``Concern was
also expressed about the conflict between these provisions of the bill
and long-recognized principles of Federalism.'' Get it? That is what
they are saying: Please do not give us this. They demean the State
court judges, but the Federal judges to whom they are giving this do
not want it.
But since they insist on giving it to them, the Frank-Conyers-Berman-
Meehan amendment, this amendment, merely gives the State court the
opportunity to reject or accept a class certification determination.
The debate that has been going on here assumes that anything that
comes back to the State court is going to automatically be certified as
a class action. The State court has the option of determining whether
there will be a certification. They may well turn it down. What it does
do, this amendment, is to stop the merry-go-round effect of always
allowing any State court determination to be removed to the State
court.
So this amendment provides simply that if, after removal, the Federal
court determines that no aspect of an action that is subject to its
jurisdiction may be maintained as a class action under rule 23, the
court shall remand the class action to the State court, without the
opportunity to be removed again to the Federal court. The State could
then proceed with a class certification determination.
After the determination, if the district court determines that the
action subject to its jurisdiction does not satisfy the rule 23
requirements, then the court must dismiss the action. This has the
effect of striking the class action claim. While the class action claim
may be refiled again, any such refiled action may be remanded again if
the district court has original jurisdiction.
Therefore, even if a State court would subsequently certify the
class, it could be removed again, creating a revolving door between the
Federal and State court.
Mr. Chairman, all we are doing is stopping the revolving door action.
It is a modest improvement to a measure that is likely not to be kindly
received by the administration. This would make it a little bit better.
This provision unfairly prohibits class action lawsuits from being
certified by State courts under the State class action rules, which
could be more lenient than Federal rule 23. As a result, individual
actions could be the only recourse for the plaintiff, and this will
eliminate the benefits of a class action in the first place. This is
why class actions were created, to seek compensation as a class from
the industry because individual lawsuits are too costly.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, which will allow the
Federal courts the first opportunity to review a class action, but not
cut off other class action rights in the State courts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment addresses, really, the central
point of this debate: Is this a bill about banning all kinds of class
actions, or is this debate really about making a change in the
diversity rules?
The proponents of this bill argue that this bill represents a minor
change in the rules of civil procedure and has no impact on the
meritorious class action lawsuits. The way the bill is drafted,
however, belies that claim. Instead, it would prohibit the formation of
almost all State class actions.
This amendment would correct that problem by only permitting the
defendant to remove a class action suit to Federal court once. If it is
removed and does not receive Federal certification, then the class can
go forward with their class action on the State level if and only if
they succeed in receiving certification under the rules of that
particular State.
By ending the possibility of repeated removals, this amendment ends
the merry-go-round of removals and preserves meritorious State claims
actions. Without this amendment, almost no class actions would be able
to form on the State level without defendants being able to repeatedly
whisk them away to Federal court.
The goal of this legislation is supposed to be a technical change to
the diversity jurisdiction rules, not a preclusion of all class action
lawsuits. Unfortunately, the way this bill is drafted clearly
demonstrates that it intends to preclude class actions, not simply
correct diversity jurisdiction problems.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, this may seem to be a corrective
measure. The problem is that this is a classic loophole. There are a
handful of States that have lax certification standards.
Some might argue that that is what this legislation is all about,
that there are certain States that are havens for frivolous class
action lawsuits. What this does is to say, you play by the rules, you
go to the Federal court, the Federal court finds that your suit is
without sufficient merit, and then if you lose, you have the recourse
to go right back to the States with the most lax certification
standards and start the case over again.
That is the problem with this. If we were talking about having an
opportunity to appeal to a Federal court, that would be a more
legitimate alternative and one that I think would have merit,
personally. I cannot speak for the other sponsors, but I think that
might have had merit. This, what this does is to open up a loophole. It
is a loophole that in fact will become the standard course of action on
the part of plaintiff's attorneys who have figured out how to best
abuse the existing system.
So that is why I have to oppose this legislation. Even though my very
good friends and people whose judgment I highly respect have offered
this amendment, I am afraid that perhaps unwittingly, I am sure
unwittingly, they are offering legislation that will open up a loophole
that will really nullify the intent of this corrective reform
legislation. For that reason, I really think our colleagues should
oppose it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

[[Page 22455]]

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my friend,
in his experience, has he ever heard himself or any other Member refer
flatteringly to a Member whose amendment he intended to support?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Actually, not. We offer the most ungenuine
flattery to those who we intend to oppose most vigorously. But that
does not mean that I did not mean it when I say that the gentleman is a
friend and a very credible and respected colleague, I say to the
gentleman from Massachusetts. It is just that the gentleman's
legislation does not make sense.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the future, I would trade three
compliments for one vote.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The gentleman will not get that. He will have
all the compliments he wants, but I certainly would not vote for this
legislation. I would not encourage any of my colleagues to vote for it,
either.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 295, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 10, line 4, strike ``The'' and insert ``(a) In
General.--The''.
Page 10, lines 5 and 6, strike ``date of the enactment of
this Act'' and insert ``date certified by the Judicial
Conference under subsection (b)''.
Page 10, insert the following after line 6:
(b) Certification by Judicial Conference.--The Judicial
Conference of the United States shall certify in writing to
the Congress the first date on or after the date of the
enactment of this Action which the number of vacancies of
judgeships authorized for the United States courts of
appeals, the United States district courts, and the United
States Court of Federal Claims, is less than 3 percent of all
such judgeships.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that this bill,
H.R. 1875, would take effect only once the Judicial Conference of the
United States has certified in writing that fewer than 3 percent of
Federal judgeships remain unfilled.
I remain firm in my opposition to H.R. 1875 because the bill as
designed will dramatically increase the workload of the Federal
judiciary. The bill's very purpose is to transfer to the Federal courts
a large portion of class action lawsuits currently handled by State
courts.
The current workload of the Federal judiciary is already hampered by
the backlog of cases, largely due in part because of low-level drug
crimes prosecuted under the ill-conceived mandatory minimum drug
sentence. The over-federalization of crimes, coupled with the judicial
vacancies on the Federal bench, results in meritorious civil claims not
being heard.
I come from a people who are all too familiar with the maxim,
``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' On May 11, 1998, the
conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the
Senate is ``moving too slowly in filling the vacancies on the Federal
bench.'' He also criticized the Congress and the President for ``their
propensity to enact more and more legislation, which brings more cases
into the Federal court system.''
He said, ``We need more vacancies to deal with the cases arising
under existing laws, but if Congress enacts and the President signs new
laws allowing more cases to be brought into Federal courts, just
filling the vacancies will not be enough. We need additional
judgeships.''
Mr. Chairman, allow me to detail the judicial vacancy crisis.
Currently, there are 68 Federal judicial vacancies, or approximately
8.5 percent of the Federal judicial positions. On average, Federal
District Court judges have 398 civil filings pending.
The Senate in 1999 has confirmed only seven judges. Forty more await
action, either on the floor or in the Committee on the Judiciary. Yet,
Mr. Chairman, Senator Trent Lott has clearly indicated that filling
judicial vacancies is not a priority. Last week, in regard to the
nomination of a judiciary candidate, the Senator stated, ``There are
not a lot of people saying, give us more Federal judges.'' He further
said, ``I am trying to move this thing along, but getting more Federal
judges is not what I came here to do.''
Meanwhile, 23 vacancies are categorized by the Judicial Conference as
judicial emergencies, meaning either that the court in question is
facing a burdensome caseload, or that the slot has been vacant for 18
months. As of June 1, fully one-fourth of the positions on the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had not been filled. The Third Circuit
has a whopping 20.3 percent judicial vacancy.
Mr. Chairman, the failure of movement on the judicial nominations to
the Federal court borders on malpractice.

{time} 1430

Clearly, the majority has decided to play political football with the
President's nominees at the expense of the American people who have
cases that are in need of resolution.
I understand that this body does not have the power to order the
other body to confirm the judicial nominees. However, this amendment
would provide that the judiciary not undertake additional cases unless
there are enough judges to address the suits before the courts.
This amendment is reasonable and is one that should be supported. Mr.
Chairman, these numbers speak for themselves. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Let me just conclude by saying I do not have to make a further case.
We all know this. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on the
other side of the aisle is even smiling because the case is so clear.
Here we are talking about putting an additional burden on our Federal
courts, and we cannot fill the vacancies, and we have no movement from
the very people who claim that this must be done in the interest of
fairness.
Well, I do not think they can make a case for this. I do not think
anybody believes this. They do not even believe it. They know that the
courts are backed up, and they know that even those in their own party
have spoken about this terrible problem that we have with these
vacancies.
Do not try and overburden these courts even more and back up the
cases. If they really want to do something, they will get in their
conference, and they will urge Senator Lott and the others on the other
side of the aisle to move these judgeships so we can take care of the
cases that are already there.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I must say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) the reason I was smiling is because, to state it kindly, this
amendment is sort of a sneak attack on the bill, because it has the
effect of gutting the bill.
What her amendment provides for is the bill does not go into effect
until the Federal court vacancies are below 3 percent. Well, guess
what? In the last 15 years, the Federal court vacancies have never been
below 3 percent, including a number of instances where there have been
Democratically controlled U.S. Senates and Republican Presidents.
So I do not think we should inject ourselves into that debate going
on over in the Senate. In fact, the time that the vacancy rate was the
highest was just before when President Bush went out in 1991. Instead
of the over 8 percent vacancy rate that the gentlewoman cited that
exists today, the vacancy rate in 1991 was 16.4 percent.
So there is no doubt that the purpose of this amendment is simply to
defeat the legislation; and, therefore, I strongly oppose it.

[[Page 22456]]

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I am delighted to yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Virginia like to
substitute the 3 percent for any number that he thinks is fair and
reasonable?
Mr. GOODLATTE. No, Mr. Chairman. Reclaiming my time, I must say that
I do not want to inject us into that dispute going on between the
Senate and the President for this legislation or any other legislation
we have on the floor. This legislation should stand on its own merits,
and it does.
One of the concerns addressed is that somehow we are overloading the
Federal judiciary. But let me point out that the concern fails to look
at our judicial system as a whole.
One of the reasons we need this bill is that many of our State courts
are not equipped to deal with these massive complicated class action
cases. Indeed, many State courts have crushing case loads and far less
staffing, such as magistrate judges and law clerks and other staff,
available to manage such cases.
Civil filings in State courts of general jurisdiction have increased
28 percent since 1984 versus only 4 percent increase in our Federal
courts. By barring interstate class actions from Federal court one is
not solving any problem. One is just keeping these cases before courts
that cannot deal with them effectively and fairly.
This concern also ignores the fact that the number of diversity
jurisdiction cases being filed in Federal court is going down
dramatically. During the 12-month period ending March 31, 1998,
diversity jurisdiction case filings in Federal courts fell 6 percent.
Through the end of 1998, the decrease is even more dramatic.
This concern also ignores the fact that, since 1990, the number of
Federal district court judgeships that Congress has authorized to deal
with the workload has increased 12.3 percent to 646 judgeships and that
the number of senior judges with staff who are now assisting with the
case load is up 64 percent, now 276 judges since 1985.
This concern also fails to take account of the fact that this bill
actually has the potential to reduce judicial workload. At present,
when identical class actions are filed in Federal and State courts all
over the country, as often occurs, there is no mechanism for
consolidating those cases before one judge for efficient uniform
treatment. So numerous different judges are dealing with the same
cases, processing the same issues, and all dealing with the same
problems.
However, if these cases were in Federal court, all of those cases
would be consolidated before one judge who could deal with the issues
once and be done with it.
The opponents' arguments also do not take account of the fact that
many completely frivolous lawsuits are being filed because attorneys
know they can get away with it before certain State courts. I doubt
that many of these wasteful suits would be filed if the attorneys know
that they will be facing a Federal district court judge.
Finally, I note that this amendment effectively states that we will
let interstate class actions into Federal court if they have the time.
That is horrible policy.
What we are talking about here is a right conferred to those engaged
in interstate commerce by Article III of the Constitution to have
access to our Federal courts to avoid the biases that might be
encountered in State courts.
When it comes to criminal rights issues, we do not say to defendants
they can have them if the court has time. When it comes to civil rights
cases, we do not say that plaintiffs can have access to Federal courts
if they have time. Why should this be any different?
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with this legislation, and it is not a
problem with the intent whatsoever, and I respect the intent that we do
not want to overburden Federal judges so that they cannot judiciously
consider every case before them, but the problem is that we are passing
legislation that is intended to pass the test of time. We are passing
it presumably for generations to come.
So we can very well have a situation where we might double, triple,
quadruple the number of Federal judges. We could have more Federal
judges than we would ever need. But if 97 percent of those judges are
the maximum slots that we can fill, if at any time we have a 3 percent
vacancy, no matter what the total number of judges is, then we would
say no class actions can be filed at the Federal court in terms of the
class actions that we are trying to deal with. It has no set number.
So we could deal with the situation where we could have twice, three
times the number of Federal judges we have today, and still this
amendment would be operable, and one would not be able to implement
this amendment because one did not have 97 percent of the slots filled
even though many of those slots might one day be in excess of the need
that was actually required.
That is the problem with the legislation, not the intent, but the
possibility that this might create a situation that, in fact, was
irrational and that, in fact, would undermine the intent of the
legislation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from
Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran) ever know of a situation where we have added more Federal judges
when we did not need them in our Federal system? Have we ever actually
added Federal judges when the case loads did not warrant it?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman
from Colorado that we are not passing legislation to serve the
interests of the past. We are passing legislation to serve the
interests of the future. So what has been the case in the past is not
as relevant as what might be the case in the future.
It is very well possible that we may substantially increase the
number of Federal judges and then, just because we have a 3 percent
vacancy, the intent of this legislation is essentially null and void.
That is not a situation that I am sure my colleague would want to
create.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the question was asked, but let me just
frame it a little bit differently. Has there ever been a time in the
history of this Nation that the gentleman from Virginia can identify
when we were overstaffed in the Federal court?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, I would say to the
gentlewoman from California, my friend and respected colleague, that
what has happened in the past, while it might be precedent, is not as
relevant to this legislation as what will happen in the future. We are
not passing legislation to apply to the past. We are passing
legislation to apply to the future.
I would hope that this Congress, in concert with the Senate, would in
fact increase the number of Federal judiciary slots to meet the need.
Even if it exceeded the need, if in fact it was a 3 percent vacancy
which might be rational at some point in time, then it would nullify
this legislation. That is not a situation I am sure that my colleague
would want to create.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, certainly the gentleman does not believe
that we are attempting to pass legislation for the past.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. That is right.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we refer to the history of the court, the
fact that it has never been overstaffed, that the vacancy problem has
grown because we have the documentation that shows that we need more
and more judges to take care of the case loads that they are now
confronted with.

[[Page 22457]]

So the idea of the legislation is not to legislate for the past, but
certainly documentation and information that indicate the path that it
has traveled in the past would be relevant to the legislation that we
are attempting to pass today.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the
gentlewoman wants to propose legislation to substantially increase the
number of Federal judiciary positions, I would cosponsor that
legislation in a New York minute or a Los Angeles minute. I certainly
think we ought to increase the number of Federal judges, but I do not
think we should pass this legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, rather than legislation that would increase
the number of judgeships, could the gentleman kindly say to the people
he is supporting on this legislation to urge the Senate and the
Republican leadership to simply do their job.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I represent the people of the
United States presumably. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is
not a good idea to tie the receipt by the Federal court of cases based
on the number of judges that they have.
It has been pointed out just in some discussions about this here
that, what happens if we have pending cases and the percent rises above
the 3 percent, is that then that we have to move those cases out? It
just is very complicated and most unusual.
But what I would like to do at this point is simply bring some
context to this debate on Federal judges. The United States district
judges are the judges that these cases first come to. We have appellate
judges beyond that up to the Supreme Court.
But we are talking about the district court judges that would hear
these cases. Currently, there are 636 United States district judges
across the country generally broken down among 93, I think it is 93
districts. We have 93 U.S. attorneys. It is 93 or 94, somewhere in that
number. We have 636 district judges of which there are 30 district
judges pending in the Senate. There are 12 vacancies where the
President has not submitted any names. So roughly 42 pending and 636 in
place.
If we average that out, again this is purely an average over the 93
districts, we see somewhere between six and seven judges per district,
and something less than one-half a judge short in each district.
So the numbers are not quite as dramatic as one might argue here. We
are at roughly 95 percent right now. It looks like there is enough
blame to go around on both sides, with the President not submitting
names and the Congress not acting to account for the 42 different
judges.
But, again, the underlying law, the underlying amendment itself is
not good, and I urge my colleagues to vote against that.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us would take another step in
overwhelming our Federal court system. The legislation will also serve
to weaken the ability of consumers to enforce consumer health and
safety, environmental, and civil rights laws.

{time} 1445

For these reasons and others, I will oppose the legislation. But if
we are going to pass the legislation, the very least we can do is pass
this important amendment to protect the Federal court system from being
further taxed.
Congress' responsibility vis-a-vis the courts is funding the
judiciary, creating the appropriate number of Federal courts, and
filling Federal vacancies, and maintaining a delicate balance between
what should be a Federal issue and what should properly be addressed in
the State courts. Now, how are we doing on these issues? Contrary to
what we have just heard, the House, for example, provided the Federal
court system with around $240 million less than that requested by the
administration. With reduced funding, the court certainly cannot handle
additional caseloads, as this bill calls for.
What happens in the Federal courts, as someone who was just
practicing in them as recently as 3 years ago, and rightly so because
of speedy trial concerns, criminal cases take precedence to civil
cases. So all of these civil cases we are moving to the Federal courts
will simply languish if we do not have Federal judges to hear them.
As we have heard, the Federal court system has 64 vacancies currently
and anticipates 17 more vacancies shortly. Regrettably, many of these
vacancies are concentrated in districts where, as my colleagues have
also heard, we have judicial emergencies. What does this mean? At its
March 1999 session, the Judicial Conference of the United States said
that judicial emergency means as follows: any vacancy in a district
court where the waited filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship, or
any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where the waited filings
are between 430 to 600 per judgeship. And it goes on.
Six hundred per judgeship. And all of the proponents of this bill are
saying, well, we need to move the more complex cases to Federal Court
because the judges will have time to hear them. If we do not fill these
open judgeships, we will not have time to hear these complex cases.
In my own district of Colorado, not the largest judicial district in
this country, we have one open judgeship that has been open for almost
2 years. We have two more coming up, and we have another coming up in
the 10th Circuit. This is in a very small judicial district. And this
plays havoc with the ability to hear any case whatsoever.
We can put the blame on whoever we want. We can put the blame on the
White House. We can put the blame on the Senate or whoever, but the
point is the people who are constitutionally required in this country
to appoint judges need to do so before we can have true justice for
anybody in either a civil or a criminal case, but most especially in
the civil cases that are languishing now in our courts, the civil
rights cases, the consumer cases, the complex environmental cases. We
need to fill these judgeships before we can put even more cases into
those courts.
So I urge my colleagues, let us put some impetus into filling these
vacancies. Let us pass this amendment, at the very least, if we are
going to pass this legislation.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt).
We have heard in this discussion that the vacancy rate in Federal
courts is approximately 9 percent today. And of course when that
happens, we end up with a stacking of cases. So what we have here is
the Republicans blocking appointments to fill the vacancies, to lessen
the burden of the workload. And as a result of that blocking, we have
stacking. We have blocking and stacking, blocking and stacking.
And now, on top of all of that, the proposal in the bill seeks to
stack even further against those who need a place where they can raise
their issues of social conscience, of economic justice, of
environmental concerns, and consumer concerns.
Mr. Chairman, some years ago, hundreds of people in the State of
Washington fell ill, seriously ill. Many of them began to convulse
uncontrollably, others suffered from kidney failure and, in fact, three
children died. The public health officials searched frantically to find
the cause of this epidemic, and they soon found it. The culprit, of
course, was deadly E. Coli bacteria in undercooked hamburger that was
sold at the Jack in the Box restaurants.
Well, I do not think there is anybody in this chamber or watching who
would argue with the fact that the giant corporation that runs this
chain should be held responsible, should be held accountable for what
happened here.

[[Page 22458]]

They should be responsible for their negligence because of what
happened to these people and because of the death of these three
children. Under current American law, those who have been wronged or
have been injured have a right to seek restitution. That is the way the
system works. And under the current law they can join together to seek
this justice. And in the case of the contaminated hamburgers, they did
just that. Unfortunately, under this legislation that we are
considering today, these victims would have little recourse.
Under this legislation, they would have had no choice but to choke
down this toxic meat. And under this legislation, consumers would find
it much, much harder to come together, to join together as a group to
fight some of the most powerful, strongest institutions or
organizations in this country. That is what class action is all about,
organizations that sometimes, unfortunately, abuse their trust, our
trust, rip consumers off, or put, in this case of the E. Coli bacteria,
put their lives at risk.
The current tort system may have its flaws, Mr. Chairman, but at its
core it still offers Americans the best and, in many cases, their only
shot at justice. So I want to urge my colleagues to support the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman
from Massachusetts. I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
that amendment and to cast a vote for accountability, a vote for
justice, a vote for environmental concerns, a vote for economic justice
concerns and consumer concerns, and vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, among the many benefits of this procedure of clustering
votes after the debate on a number of amendments, in addition to the
far better use of a Member's time, is the fact that a Member who comes
in too late to debate the amendment he wanted to debate, gets a chance
to debate that amendment on the next amendment. So I rise in support of
the Waters amendment but also in support and speaking on behalf of the
Frank amendment.
We have heard a lot about the problems of judicial vacancies in the
context of this particular amendment. I think it cannot be disputed
that as a result of what this bill seeks to do, with its very open and
permissive abilities to remove class-action suits to Federal court, the
vast majority of class action suits, which raise State law issues and
only State law issues, will end up being heard in the Federal courts.
This in a system bogged down with large backlogs; bogged down with a
number of judicial vacancies.
I am sure no one could have put it better than the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), whom I missed in terms of his debate on his
amendment, the relative absurdity of the situation where now, with very
permissive removal rules, a class-action case involving a State law is
removed to a Federal court, and the Federal judge determines that,
applying his notions of the law, that that class is not appropriately
certified. At that particular point one would normally expect that it
could be remanded back to the State level for a determination by the
State courts of whether under State law it is appropriate to certify
the class. Without the Frank amendment, such an action will then again,
with the new lawsuit, be removed back to Federal Court. And we will
never get out of this revolving door.
So the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which makes it
clear that once a Federal judge has refused to certify the class, that
action may be brought in State court, cannot be removed, and it will be
up to the State justice system to decide whether there is an
appropriate class to certify makes a little bit of sense out of this
otherwise both, I think, damaging and somewhat senseless proposal that,
in effect, will deprive huge numbers of people of class action remedies
in State courts or in Federal courts on matters that are essentially
matters of State law.
I support the Frank amendment; I support the Waters amendment. If
those amendments do not pass, I urge this bill be defeated.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me echo the words expressed by the gentlewoman from
Colorado. This is not about blame. This is not about blaming the Senate
or blaming the White House. This is really about justice for the
American people. I do not think there is any debate that justice
delayed is justice denied. And that is happening now. That is happening
every day in our court system now.
Now, this amendment provides that the bill would take effect only
once the judicial conference of the United States has certified in
writing that fewer than 3 percent of the Federal judgeships remain
unfulfilled. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the
depleted ranks of the Federal branch are restored to their full
strength before the courts are asked to take on a new massive workload
that this bill would generate.
There should be no doubt that 1875 will have a dramatic impact on the
workload of the Federal courts, because its very purpose is to transfer
to the Federal system a large proportion of the class-action cases that
are currently handled at the State level. The Federal courts, if the
underlying bill should pass, will be swamped at a moment when they are
already overwhelmed by mounting caseloads.
Since 1990, the number of civil cases filed in Federal court have
increased by 22 percent, criminal cases by 25 percent, and appeals by
more than 30 percent. In response to this judicial crisis, the Judicial
Conference has asked Congress to authorize an additional 69 judgeships,
yet not one new judgeship has been authorized or created since 1990,
for almost 10 years. And of the 843 judgeships that currently exist,
65, more than 8 percent, are currently vacant. Many have remained
unfulfilled for more than a year and a half.
Last year, the Chief Justice himself took the unprecedented step of
publicly chastising the Senate for its failure to act on pending
nominations and warned of the consequences if Congress continues to
enact legislation, exactly like the bill that is before us now, that
expands the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. His concerns have been
echoed by the Justice Department, the American Bar Association, and the
Judicial Conference. Let us listen to those who have to deal with the
problem every day. Every day.
Just yesterday, a nonpartisan organization known as Citizens for
Independent Courts issued a report which found that the average time it
takes to nominate and confirm a Federal judge has increased
dramatically over the past 20 years. And at the same time, here we are
considering a bill that would impose a major new burden on the
Judiciary without regard to its impact on that branch of Government,
and without giving our courts the resources they need to do the job.
I daresay, Mr. Chairman, if there was an impact statement that was
mandated to be filed with this legislation, it would never be here on
the floor of the House. It would not happen.

{time} 1500

I believe and suggest and submit that this is irresponsible on those
grounds alone. I urge support for the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 295, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 295, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from
New

[[Page 22459]]

York (Mr. Nadler), Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and Amendment No. 6 offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 277, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 439]

AYES--152

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klink
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mc1Carthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stabenow
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--277

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Coble
Holden
Jefferson
Scarborough

{time} 1523

Messrs. UPTON, KNOLLENBERG and GILMAN changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Mr. CLYBURN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 295, 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 amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 266, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 440]

AYES--162

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clement
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klink
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan

[[Page 22460]]

Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stabenow
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--266

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Coble
Holden
Jefferson
Roukema
Scarborough

{time} 1531

Mr. LoBIONDO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROEMER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment no. 2 offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

[Roll No. 441]

AYES--202

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Phelps
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--225

[[Page 22461]]

Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Coble
Holden
Jefferson
Miller, George
Murtha
Scarborough

{time} 1538

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 442]

AYES--185

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--241

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Coble
Emerson
Gutierrez
Holden
Jefferson
Radanovich
Scarborough

{time} 1546

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, 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. 1875) to amend
title 28, United States Code, to allow the application of the
principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate class
actions, pursuant to House Resolution 295, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 207, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page 22462]]

[Roll No. 443]

AYES--222

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Dooley
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--207

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Graham
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--4

Coble
Holden
Jefferson
Scarborough

{time} 1604

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R.
1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1999

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I
hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on
H.R. 1501 tomorrow.
The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Doolittle moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1501 to be
instructed to insist that the conference report not include
Senate provisions that--
(1) do not recognize that the second amendment to the
Constitution protect the individual right of American
citizens to keep and bear arms; and
(2) impose unconstitutional restrictions on the second
amendment rights of individuals.

____________________

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.

____________________

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT
OF 1999

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a privileged
motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 1501) to amend the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide grants to
ensure increased accountability for juvenile offenders; to amend the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to provide
quality prevention programs and accountability programs relating to
juvenile delinquency; and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. McCarthy of New York moves that the managers on the
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
1501, be instructed to insist that--
(1) the committee of conference should this week have its
first substantive meeting to offer amendments and motions,
including gun safety amendments and motions; and
(2) the committee of conference should meet every weekday
in public session until the committee of conference agrees to
recommend a substitute.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7, rule XXII, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I offer a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R.
1501 to meet publicly, beginning this week, and every weekday until we
reach a conference agreement.
Stated more simply, my colleagues and I are asking that we move
forward with the conference on the juvenile justice bill. The motion is
not offered as a criticism. I understand that the chairman and the
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary have met in an attempt
several times to reach a compromise on the gun provisions in the
juvenile justice bill.

[[Page 22463]]

The chairman and the ranking member have worked very hard on this
important legislation, and we do appreciate all the efforts that they
have made.
However, we cannot afford to wait for the completion of behind-
closed-door negotiations while the threat of gun violence hangs over
the heads of our schoolchildren throughout America. Every day Congress
fails to advance juvenile justice legislation is another day that we
lose 13 children to gun violence.
Despite the assurances of the chairman and the ranking member, a
number of my colleagues and I remain concerned about the outcome of the
juvenile justice bill. Since the April 20 shooting at Columbine High
School mobilized the American people to pressure Congress into
addressing the issues of children's access to guns, we have faced a
number of roadblocks and delays. I fear the delays we have faced have
been caused by the congressional leadership's reluctance to enact
meaningful gun safety legislation.
Our motion today is offered as an incentive to move forward and
complete our legislation. Let us listen to the American people and
protect our children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from New York. I
am a little puzzled by the formulation in the motion to instruct,
because we have nothing to do with the calling of the meetings of the
conferees. The chairman is the Senator from Utah, and he has the gavel.
He can call the formal meetings.
But we have been having informal meetings every day, every morning
and every afternoon. We have had two today. We are working with all
dispatch to try and resolve our difficulties.
There were many difficulties, many differences, when we started out.
We have them down to about one or two now. If people want to continue
to breathe down our neck and push us, that is fine, we are all adults
and we can take it. But we are working as expeditiously, as
effectively, as we can. These are complicated, difficult, emotional
issues. Many considerations have to be borne in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I would like us to meet I suppose every day in public,
but I can assure the gentlewoman, if she wants a bill, let us continue
to move as we are. I wish it could have been done yesterday, but I can
assure the gentlewoman that nobody is at fault, other than the
complexity, the difficulties of the issues we are dealing with.
I am convinced to a moral certitude that everybody wants a bill.
Nobody wants this to fail. So we are working the best we can. I wish
the gentlewoman would give some credence to our good faith, as I
certainly do to the gentlewoman's.
I just do not know what to do on this. I want to vote for it because
I like the gentlewoman, and I do not like to be negative. On the other
hand, it just seems pointless for us to be requiring the conference to
meet this week so that motions, including gun safety amendments, could
be offered. We are working those out informally, but they are being
worked out.
Then, we should meet every weekday in public session? I would hope
that we will have an agreement, a text, very soon. I do not know when.
But the process is working. It is fermenting. We will get a text, and
then we can all study it and decide whether it is something we can
support or not, and move forward.
But we are doing our best. There may be others who could do better.
Unfortunately, they are not in positions of authority. I am very
satisfied that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conyers) is serious and
working and trying to be helpful, and is helpful, and I believe he
feels the same about our side.
I will vote no on this, simply because I think it sets out to do
something that is not within our competence; that is, to tell the
Senator to call meetings every day. I am sure he will call them when we
are ready to offer something that can be voted on, and I just assure
the gentlewoman, we are inching closer and closer and closer. I do not
think it is going to be a matter of days, even, until we are ready with
a product that we can all vote up-or-down on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to
respond to the previous speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde),
my respect for the gentleman is tremendous, and this is nothing
personal towards the gentleman whatsoever. It is actually towards,
unfortunately, I feel, some people on the other side.
There have been a lot of quotes in the newspaper, one on June 19
after we had our defeat. ``The defeat of the gun safety bill in the
House is a great personal victory for me,'' from the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
My job is to try and bring this bill forward. If we can put any
pressure, certainly even on the Senate side, then that is what I have
to try and do. As far as the gentleman goes, the gentleman is a
gentleman and I am always privileged to work with him.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the very generous comments of the
gentlewoman from New York, I appreciate them. My admiration for her is
multiplied by her admiration for me.
But I would say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), who
happens to be the Whip, is a person of strong feelings on this issue.
He is entitled to them as an elected Member. But he speaks for himself,
not for the entire Republican side on this issue.
This is an issue that is locally difficult for some and easy for
others. But I can assure the gentlewoman, with all due respect to our
distinguished Whip, that I can muster, he does not make the sole
determination, and we are proceeding, I think, effectively and
efficiently.
I want to assuage her worries that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Delay) speaks for all of us. He does not on this issue. He speaks for
me on a lot of issues, but not this one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the conference committee on this item has
met just once, formally. That was on August 3. I am a member of that
conference committee, as is my colleague, the maker of the motion here
today.
At that meeting, and this is only the second time I have been on a
conference committee, but we made statements at this meeting. I did,
too; we all did. At the conclusion of the statements made by all the
Members of the Senate and all the Members of the House who were
present, I tried to offer a motion that we would continue to work and
to try and get something substantive done.

{time} 1615

It was ruled that that motion was out of order. We could not even
vote on whether we should actually begin work. What was told to me at
that time was that it was necessary for the staff to meet and that they
would meet throughout the recess; and, therefore, we could get this to
a resolution.
There was a lot of hope expressed that, by the time, roughly, that
school started, we would have something ready to go. It is now
September 23, and we are still not ready.
I have listened to the discussion here today. I am aware and do
readily believe that there have been discussions between the ranking
member and the chairman, and I commend those discussions. But there is
an aura of mystery around this.
The other conferees, or at least I will speak for myself, I am not
aware of the substance of what is being discussed. I hear various
things from the press that concern me greatly. I have no way of knowing
whether those press reports are accurate or inaccurate.

[[Page 22464]]

But I am aware that there are some things that really do need to be
in the final product, which is why I think this motion to instruct is a
good one.
The first part of the motion directs that we should have a
substantive meeting. It has been nearly 2 months since we had our first
meeting, and so I think to have our first substantive meeting is not
too much to ask so that we could make motions. There is one motion that
I would like to make, and it is a necessary one, and it has to do with
high capacity clips for assault weapons.
As we know, the Senate had a provision in their bill, and we of
course became grid locked and did not have anything on that subject.
Subsequent to all of that, on really a technicality type of thing, the
Senate's provision was deemed inappropriate since it raised revenue. So
there needs to be some kind of motion for that to be reinstated.
I mention this in particular because I think it is one thing that
really does need that attention. I am aware, as a matter of fact, I am
proud that the amendment here on the House side was the Hyde-Lofgren
amendment. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) certainly
does not oppose the substance of this. I think that we need to do this.
Certainly the loophole that was created when Senator Feinstein and
others pursued this a number of years ago turned out to be nothing that
was anticipated. Millions of these high capacity clips are coming in
from foreign providers.
I would just say that the TEC-DC9 that was used in Columbine could
not have been effective if the ammo was not available. So let us get on
it. Let us do it in public. I believe in sunshine laws, being from
California. I think, if we have a little sunshine on this process, it
will be hard for those opposed to hold their heads up high.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in response to the remarks of the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that I certainly share her
zeal for banning the large clips, cartridge clips. It was her motion
and mine that passed on the floor; but, unfortunately, the bill to
which it was attached was not passed. But it is a part of what we are
talking about, and I do not think that is in serious dispute.
I just would like to remind the folks on the other side, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) that this overriding part of this is juvenile
justice, the H.R. 1501, juvenile justice reform. We have been working
on that 4\1/2\ years. It is that difficult. It has that much emotion
involved, that much philosophy, that much concern. So to expect us to
stampede to a resolution now is just ill-advised. In good faith, we are
doing our best. We are going to succeed, in my opinion.
I have talked to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) at some
length twice today. I met with him once. We are closer than ever.
Please do not push us off the cliff with partisanship. I know how easy
it is. I know how strongly my colleagues feel, how passionately they
feel. I share that passion.
But compromises are difficult. One does not get everything one wants.
One has to make concessions. But those concessions have to be prudent.
We understand that. That is true of both sides.
I can only say my colleagues can continue to berate us, and I know
they put a soft face on it, but they are. There is a predicate to what
they are doing, and that is somehow we are foot dragging. Keep it up.
It is all right. We will be here to respond. One of our Members has one
tomorrow. It is kind of becoming a habit. But we are doing our best,
and we are going to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined with my Democratic women
colleagues to call the role of children who have died from gunfire
since the tragedy at Columbine on April 20. We cannot even get through
the lists. Too many children have lost their lives to senseless gun
violence.
Five months since Columbine, and, still, the Republican leadership
has failed to take common-sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of
children and criminals. Yes, that is the bipartisan compromise that was
agreed to in the Senate. What are we in the House waiting for?
We have all watched children fleeing scenes at Columbine High School,
a Los Angeles day care center, and now a church in Fort Worth. Just
this week we saw a report of a teenage girl in Florida who plotted to
murder her entire family but was stopped by a child safety lock.
But the tragedies on the news are only the most prominent. Single
killings or accidental shootings where a child kills his brother or
sister with a gun thought to be hidden safely in the closet happen with
sickening regularity. It all adds up to 13 American children each day
dying due to gunfire.
Yesterday morning, one of my Republican colleagues suggested that
efforts to keep kids and crooks from getting guns were an insult to the
wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Well, this Children's Defense Fund
poster captures my response to that notion. It reads, ``This can't be
what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Children in the United States
aged 15 and under are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than
children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. This is a
statistic that no one can live with. It is time to protect children
instead of guns. With freedom comes a price. That price should not be
our children.''
Vote for this motion to instruct. Let us pass the common-sense
compromise that was passed in the Senate.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
her courageous work on this issue.
I rise in strong support of this motion, and I am outraged that, once
again, the stalling tactics of the majority have forced us to the floor
to address gun safety.
My colleagues and I have come together countless times over the past
several months with the same simple message: Congress must pass
meaningful gun safety legislation. Today, we repeat that message with
added urgency.
When the conferees met this week, and when they continue to meet,
they must return with loophole-free substantive measures to combat the
gun violence that is killing our children and turning our schools into
war zones.
The American people are demanding action. Throughout my district,
mothers approach me, children in tow, and ask me why on earth this
Congress has not done more to stop the scourge of gun violence
attacking our communities. They are afraid to go out on to the streets
of their own neighborhoods. They are afraid to send their kids to
school. They are afraid to go to church or synagogue. They are
searching for courageous leadership from this Congress.
Instead of providing that leadership, Congress has stalled and
stonewalled as, week after week, the death toll from gun violence
rises. Who can forget Littleton, Paducah, Jonesboro, Springfield,
Conyers, Los Angeles, and Fort Worth? How many cities and towns across
this country need to be hit with tragedy before something is done?
The Senate passed a gun safety bill which would have prevented felons
from buying guns at gun shows, ban the importation of high capacity
ammunition clips, and kept guns away from children. But the House took
a different route. We had a choice between the public interest and
special interest, and the public lost.
Our bill is hollow legislation which ignores the cries of victims of
gun violence and their families. We have an opportunity starting today
to change our ways. We have a real opportunity to save lives. The
conferees must work hard to include strong gun safety measures.

[[Page 22465]]

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman (Mrs. Lowey) for
whom my admiration is boundless. I know she does not want to be unfair;
I am convinced of that. When she talked about our stalling tactics, I
am somewhat bewildered. I wish the gentlewoman would talk to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and talk to her staff, her
committee staff. There is no stalling going on.
These are complicated, tough issues. It may be clear to a committed
liberal the way to go. I am sure it is clear to committed conservatives
the way to go. But they are in different directions. We are trying to
bring those together. We are trying to work something out. We are doing
it with all diligence, all possible diligence.
May I suggest, if the gentlewoman is interested, and I know she is,
in helping the gun situation throughout our country, spend some time on
urging her administration to enforce existing gun laws. In the last 3
years, there has been one prosecution of a Brady Act violation. We have
had a lot of sound and fury for only one prosecution. So there are
things that we can do.
But meanwhile, we are not stalling. The word is foreign to us. We are
moving ahead. I would have liked to have solved this 2 weeks ago. I can
assure the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) nobody is stalling.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman would yield?
Mr. HYDE. With pleasure I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the gentleman from
Illinois, and I know he is a gentlemen, and I have great respect for
his commitment to moving this bill. But I would just like to remind my
friend and the gentleman that we have been asking for the commonsense
gun safety legislation that passed the Senate to come before this House
before Memorial Day. It has been quite a while. Look at the lives that
have been lost.
I understand that the legislation is complex. I would be delighted to
work with the gentleman to call on the Justice Department to enforce
the laws. But the commonsense gun legislation that passed the Senate
could have been brought to the floor, could have been called from the
desk at any time as a separate package.
For me, as for the gentleman from Illinois, we understand how complex
this is. But we also understand that there is a madness in this
country, and that parents are afraid to send their kids to school.
We have to do what we can to prevent felons from getting through that
loophole at gun shows, for example, and getting their hands on guns.
So I wish the gentleman Godspeed. I wish him good luck. I would hope
that the juvenile justice bill could pass.
But I would just like to say in conclusion to the gentleman from
Illinois, my good friend, that way before Memorial Day, we have been
asking for the common-sense legislation to be brought to the floor and
to pass. We know it is not the whole answer. Unfortunately, that has
not happened, and more lives have been taken. The gentleman's
constituents and mine are just afraid.
This is the United States of America, 1999. We know the guns are not
the whole answer. But let us begin by making it tougher to get one's
hands on a gun.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with much that the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has said. But there is an
expectation that passing another law is going to make a great
difference.
Now, I do not deny that there is merit in additional gun laws. I
think we can do some more things. I think we are on the verge of doing
that. I think the bill that passed the Senate was an excellent one but
for one aspect of it, and that is the gun show aspect.

{time} 1630

I believe, and we believe, there was some unreasonable aspects to
that, and that is a sticking point that we have been working on and
working on and working on.
But I want to remind the gentlewoman, I do not know how many young
people were killed in automobile accidents in the period of time that
she had reference to with guns, but I daresay more people were killed
in automobile accidents. That does not mean we should stop people
driving, but it is just a fact of life.
Sixteen Federal laws were violated at Littleton. Sixteen. Nine State
laws were violated. So what is our response? Let us heap another law on
the fire. But, look, I am for it, notwithstanding the futility,
perhaps, of another law. I am working to get one, but I am just
suggesting to the gentlewoman these are not easy.
And the Senate operates differently than we do. I think it took the
Vice President's vote to get that bill out. Happily, he cannot vote in
this body. But we are doing our best.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would just
like to comment on the gun show loophole, because I know my good
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), has been a
leader on that, and I just do not understand why that issue is so
difficult when we know that 90 percent of the people are cleared.
Mr. HYDE. Ninety-five percent.
Mrs. LOWEY. Ninety-five percent. So what we are saying, and what the
legislation in the Senate is saying, 3 business days, that is just for
the 5 percent of the people who do not get through. So what is wrong
with that, when 95 percent get cleared in the first 24 hours or less?
So let us do that.
Mr. HYDE. I would just say to the gentlewoman that I have no problem
with her formulation; unfortunately, the Lautenberg amendment does much
more than that. Much more than that. And therein lies the problem.
I am happy to yield further if the gentlewoman is going to say
something generous. I yield whatever time she wants.
Mrs. LOWEY. I have no doubt that the chairman's intentions are very
noble and that he is a wise gentleman, as always.
Mr. HYDE. There is a well-known road paved with good intentions, I am
aware of it.
Mrs. LOWEY. However, the gentleman has talked about car registration.
I would like to see gun registration as well.
Mr. HYDE. Not in this Congress, though, I would advise the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. LOWEY. Unfortunately, that may be the case, my dear friend. I
would also like to say that although lives may be lost unfortunately as
a result of gun accidents, the gentleman and I are terribly pained for
every mother, every father, every family that loses a child, and every
day we delay another 13 lives are lost. Every day.
So I would just encourage my good friend, and I am delighted I am on
my good friend's time, I would encourage my good friend to work as
expeditiously as he can because, and I really mean this, whether I am
in the supermarket or I am in the street, people are afraid. This is
the United States of America, and people are afraid to go to school,
afraid to go to church, afraid to go to synagogue, afraid to walk the
streets. We have the power to do something. Let us make sure the
Justice Department enforces the laws, but if we have the power to close
some loopholes and pass common sense gun legislation, let us do it.
Mr. HYDE. I am all for that. We are working on common sense gun
legislation, and I am confident we will pass something that will better
the present situation. It will not be everything the gentlewoman wants.
It probably will not be everything I would like. But it will be useful.
It will contain a clip ban for those large clips; it will contain
safety devices, trigger locks. It will contain a juvenile Brady. It
will contain a prohibition for minors for possessing assault weapons.
It will have mandatory background checks that are reasonable, including
at gun shows. So, if the gentlewoman would let us do our work, we will
do it.
I would say, by the way, that I think the gentlewoman would have made
a great Senator.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield back to the
gentleman his time so that other people on

[[Page 22466]]

his side can continue this discussion, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, let me just associate myself with all
the wonderful things that were said by my colleagues on this side of
the aisle about the chairman.
Having said that, let me say I do not believe that criminals should
get guns and we should do everything we possibly can to prevent
criminals from having access to guns. We should close loopholes where
they exist that allow criminals to get guns.
And with regard to the issue of gun shows, last year in America there
were 54,000 guns that were confiscated in crimes. Criminals purchased
them originally at gun shows. And the reason that that happened is
because there is a gaping loophole in gun shows.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. The current law forbids criminals from acquiring guns. If
we could enforce the current law, we might make some progress. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate
again my great respect for the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde); and let me say I agree with him, we should certainly do
everything we possibly can to enforce existing laws. Let me also say
this Congress has not been generous with regards to providing funds to
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in its effort to fight gun
violence.
But having said that, there are loopholes in the existing law that
allows for criminals to go to gun shows and buy guns, as many as they
want, with no questions asked. That is why 54,000 of those crime guns
were confiscated last year that were originally purchased at gun shows.
The effort in the Senate that passed last May simply applies the
Brady law to gun shows. So if I want to go buy a gun at a retail gun
show, the same background requirements that I would submit to if I went
to a retail store would be applied to me at gun shows. It is very basic
and very simple, and I believe all of us who believe the Brady law has
been successful, over 400,000 proscribed people were denied the right
to buy guns because of that, ought to be for the Lautenberg version
that passed the Senate.
And while there is a sense that delay abounds in this chamber and
that we have not been able to do what the Senate did in a timely
fashion, I think if we are going to heed the lessons of history, we
need to keep the pressure on the well-intentioned Members who want to
try to achieve what the Senate tried to do in the conference committee.
So let me just close by saying that in view of the history in this
chamber and our inability to pass the Senate version here in the House,
I think it is reasonable to suggest that we want to talk about this on
a daily basis to keep the pressure on and let the American people keep
focused on this issue. Because absent that, we probably will not get it
done.
Since this Congress began, we have had shootings in Columbine, we
have had shootings in Indiana and Illinois, we have had shootings most
recently in Fort Worth, Texas. I think it is incumbent upon us to heed
what the American people want us to do, and that is to act. The Senate
did so, we have not done so.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am back. Yesterday, on a motion to
instruct conferees to craft juvenile justice legislation that would be
loophole free so that guns would not reach the hands of those excluded
by law from having guns; today, to instruct the conferees, as I said
yesterday, to get it on.
Yesterday, I spoke of delay and was chastised. But if as a Member of
Congress I am talking about delay, I take part of that responsibility.
Today, I speak of all deliberate speed. I speak to the desire of this
Nation to see this issue through and to encourage the conferees to work
openly.
I do not want to breathe down the necks of the conferees. I want to
be the wind beneath their wings. I want to be the engine that could.
Make no mistake. I do not question the good faith of the conferees. I
do not question anyone's intentions. It is the intentions of those who
choose to defeat gun safety legislation, the spokespersons who continue
to carry the NRA banner, those are the ones I am worried about.
We believe that the conferees should meet in public session, that
they be allowed to offer motions and amendments and meet substantively
and recommend a substitute. We agree that it is the overriding purpose
of this bill to do juvenile justice reform to protect our children.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I simply wish to pick up the
conferees, to push them along, to encourage them, to urge them, to get
them to understand that the time is now. Our children's lives rest in
their hands.
And by the way, Mr. Chairman, automobiles were not made to kill, guns
were.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I want to publicly state, as I have before, my great
admiration for her commitment to gun control legislation. It comes from
personal experience, and I think we all attest to her courage.
I am rising in support of the amendment that she offered to instruct
the conferees to meet publicly every weekday until they reach
agreement. This is really setting priorities.
I know the chairman of this committee, and I was listening to the
discussion. I know he works very diligently. He is a man of great
credibility. I have great respect for the chairman of the committee.
But I do think it is important, and America is looking at us in terms
of are we moving with deliberate speed, do we have open meetings, and
do we have them all the time.
One of the reasons I want this, of course, is I hope to achieve the
goal that we would close that gun show loophole, the Brady bill, and I
would just point out a couple of reasons why I feel strongly.
A joint study by the Departments of Justice and Treasury that was
released earlier this year, in January, found that, ``Gun shows provide
a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously.
Unlicensed sellers have no way of knowing whether they are selling to a
violent felon or someone who intends to illegally traffic guns.''
A gun show dealer, quoted in the Lexington, Kentucky, Herald-Leader
observed: ``A criminal could come here and go booth to booth until he
or she finds an individual to sell him or her a gun. No questions
asked.'' It just makes no sense that any person today can walk into a
gun show and make a purchase without any precautions whatsoever.
Moreover, illegal purchasers know they can go to a gun show without
worrying about being denied a purchase.
An Illinois State police study demonstrated that 25 percent of
illegally trafficked firearms used in crimes originate at gun shows. In
Florida, an inmate escaping from detention, stopped at a gun show to
make a purchase while fleeing law enforcement authorities.
Maybe these are some exceptions, but these exceptions indicate that
we do need to tighten up the law and to close that loophole. No
background check was required, no waiting period. Simply absurd. So
this loophole needs to be

[[Page 22467]]

closed, and I urge the conferees to do just that.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New
York for her dedication to this issue, and I would also like to thank
the chairman, particularly for his dedication to the issue of making
sure that the multiple-round ammunition magazines are banned, which is
an issue that is in my bill in the House and that he worked with me and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and so many other people
to pass. But we do have to pass this. It has not passed.
I have to be honest, I have been very skeptical about the probability
of the juvenile justice conferees reporting a bill with any child gun
safety legislation. So far it looks like this skepticism is not
misplaced, because the conferees have not had a substantive meeting
since we returned from the August recess. And they did not work
substantively over the recess. So I am here to say, let us not have
this foot-dragging; let us pass this legislation.
It is true we have existing laws, and it is true we should enforce
those existing laws. But the truth is there is no gun show law in
effect that we could have enforced to stop the killers at Columbine,
which is four blocks from my district, from buying those guns at a gun
show. There is no existing law to stop the multiple-round ammunition
magazines which allow people to shoot scores of people before they can
be stopped. And there is no existing law to require gun safety locks to
be put on guns.

{time} 1645

We need common-sense child gun safety locks. The majority of
Americans understand this. And my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
is exactly right. People from Jefferson County, Colorado, not a
Democratic district, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, come to
me on the streets of Denver and they beseech me to do something, to
pass common-sense child gun safety legislation. It is not a partisan
issue. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has amply
demonstrated this. But I fear that there are others in the leadership
of this House who are not letting this happen.
Please pass this motion to instruct.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding me the time, and I thank her for her leadership,
and I am delighted to join her on the conference committee.
I want to speak to the chairman. I appreciate his presence and his
acknowledgment that we can work together. But I think these are two
very viable points in this motion to instruct.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should meet this week.
Secondarily, I believe that it is important that we have public
meetings, and I will tell my colleagues why.
First of all, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, along
with so many of us, as the previous speaker from Colorado has
mentioned, that many of us are supporting the high-capacity ammo clips,
the prohibition on those, which were the cause of the sin, if you will,
on several recent shootings, including the tragic shooting in
California with the Jewish Community Center and, of course, the
shootings just this past week in Fort Worth, Texas, my own State, the
shootings in Illinois, all generated because of these automatic clips.
Yet there are some on the conference and some Republicans who are
trying to classify it as a tax bill which would delay and stymie its
being part of our gun safety reform.
I think the other aspect of what I would like to speak to, Mr.
Speaker, is why I am standing here today. For, as I go into my
communities, many of them will acknowledge that for years many inner-
city poor neighborhoods were besieged by gun violence. Many mothers in
inner cities for years had ``Saturday Night'' and ``Friday Night
Specials.'' And what were they? The tragedy of the burial of their
young children, gun violence and gang violence.
So many of my constituents in inner-city Texas districts asked why
all of a sudden are we raising our eyes and our ire about gun violence?
Public hearings will let them know that we distinguish between no one.
The death of a child is still the death of a child. And we acknowledge
the years and years that this Congress stood and watched as there was
inner-city violence with ``Saturday Night Specials'' and probably did
nothing. So the fact that we open these to public hearings is valuable.
Then secondarily, I think it is important to note what we are talking
about with gun shows. It is absolutely hypocritical and outrageous for
the National Rifle Association to say that we are trying to put gun
shows out of business.
Frankly, I do not find them entertaining. We have had one every week
in the State of Texas. But what we are saying is there is a loophole as
big as a truck that they can go to a gun show and go to one licensed
dealer over here and have an official Brady check and go to an
unlicensed dealer over there and get no check, and we are simply saying
that the unlicensed dealer should use the same process of going through
an official process and a 3-day wait period so that we do not have the
tragedies of what we have had with the shooting in the Jewish Community
Center.
I am really trying to, hopefully, have dialogue with the National
Rifle Association, which pitches all of us as wanting to come and take
guns out of people's homes and close down gun shows. Well, we may not
like gun shows, but we have no intent of closing them down.
What we do want to do, as the Lautenberg effort wants to do in
amendment, is to ensure that there is a consistency in every single
person that comes in there to buy a gun so an anonymous criminal cannot
come out and shoot someone.
The additional thing that I hope my colleagues will respond to is
that, unlike movie theaters where a child must be accompanied by an
adult who goes into an X-rated or an R-rated movie, children can go
into gun shows with no supervision, we need to make sure that an adult
accompanies a child to a gun show if they go.
Let us pass this motion to instruct and pass real gun safety reform
for all of our children in America.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I
have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentlewoman from New York
has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
has 14 minutes remaining.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who is really an inspiration to all of
us on this issue, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, say to the chairman, I need to tell him that the most
commonly asked question in the Ninth Congressional District, which
borders on the district of the chairman, is why can the House not do
something about guns?
My constituents asked me that after Columbine and they asked me after
there was the shooting in my district of the worshippers going home
from the synagogue who were shot on the street and the murder of Ricky
Birdsong in Skokie, which is in my district, and they asked me if the
shootings at the Jewish Community Center in California were going to be
enough finally for us to ask. And when the mad gunman was in Atlanta,
they thought, well, this has got to be it, that is going to tip the
scales. And then Fort Worth, where even the church was a dangerous
place.
And when I go home, they look at me and they scratch their head and
they look in my face and they want to know an answer. They want to know
what is it going to take, how many children

[[Page 22468]]

are we going to bury, how many school shootings are there going to be.
And I really do not have an answer.
So why do we not open up the process? Why do we not let the people of
America in on the mystery of how Congress addresses issues like gun
violence?
The chairman spoke about inching closer, inching closer. But inching
closer is not a consolation when I go to the funerals in my district,
and I have been to three in the last recent months, of children who
were killed by gun violence. Inching closer does not satisfy. They want
to know when.
Let us do it now. Let us open the process. Let us restore confidence
in people that this Congress can act, that we can do something, that
there is an orderly process, that there is real debate, that there is
real movement.
If we pass the motion of the gentlewoman, we can at least include the
American people who want action in on this process and, hopefully, we
can resolve this issue before another incident, which I guarantee, my
colleagues, will occur if we do not act and do not act now.
So I rise in support of the motion.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)

Announcement of Intention To Offer Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R.
1501, Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, I hereby
announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R.
1501. The form of the motion is as follows:

Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the
House on the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be
instructed that the committee on the conference recommend a
conference substitute that includes provisions within the
scope of conference which are consistent with the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution (e.g., (1)
requiring unlicensed dealers at gun shows to conduct
background checks; (2) banning the juvenile possession of
assault weapons; (3) requiring that child safety locks be
sold with every handgun; and (4) a Juvenile Brady bill.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this has been interesting. Yesterday's motion was
interesting, and today's motion, and tomorrow's, and then next week's,
every day, I am sure.
We have a nice discussion, a serious discussion about these problems;
and that is all to the good. But something is missing.
Guns are important. Guns are the instruments by which these killings
occur. But at the same time, there is so much more to this problem that
is not being discussed by anybody and that is the violence that our
children are being fed in the entertainment industry, in the movies, in
the music, in the Internet games that are played.
Violence is a staple. It has desensitized, it has calloused people's
sensitivities. And nobody seems to get exercised about that. I got
exercised about it. I thought that, since obscenity is not protected by
the First Amendment, violence, the purveying of violence ought to not
be protected because it is a form of obscenity.
I got overwhelmed because the lobbyists came out and said, gee, you
are going to hurt the retailers that are retailing this stuff. And so,
nobody really cares about that, it is guns that are the problem.
I say we are filling our children with a culture of death and we are
worrying about the guns, the instruments of some of this death. I worry
about it, too, and I do not disregard that. But I would like to see
some sensitivity on the liberal side for the climate that we are
raising our kids in, that is at the day-care centers, where the
socialization of our children develops according to the law of the
jungle, where parents cannot find the time to spend with their
children.
There are profound problems with our culture that are not getting
better. ``Deviancy'' is being defined down in the famous phrase of the
famous Senator from New York. But we are talking about guns. That is
okay. Guns are a serious problem. They are dangerous instrumentalities.
There is a Second Amendment, however, that I respect. Most of the
constitutional scholars that exist that talk about protecting the
Constitution kind of gloss over the Second Amendment. But it is there.
It is in the Constitution, and it serves a very useful purpose. Because
I would not like to see Americans disarmed because the government
sometimes in some cultures and histories becomes the adversary, and I
think a protection of freedom is that people can maintain arms.
But I also believe, as in freedom of speech, that reasonable
regulation is appropriate. Freedom of speech is not unregulated. We
condition yell ``fire'' in the proverbial crowded theater. There are
laws against obscenity, slander, libel, copyrights, all sorts of
restrictions on free speech. That does not diminish the significance of
it, but it just says it is constitutionally possible to have
restrictions.
The same thing is true of the Second Amendment. I think everyone
should have the right if they are otherwise normal and qualified to own
a gun if they want to. There are hunters. There are sportsmen. There is
a right to protect our homes. But, at the same time, I believe
reasonable restrictions are possible.
I do not think criminals should have guns. I do not think young
children should have guns. There are all sorts of reasonable
restrictions. Assault weapons, by definition, do not belong in the
civilian community. I am willing to support those. But I think we have
to be honest, and I think that the intellectual community ought to
understand that entertainment and advertising and music and culture
today is at the bottom of a lot of this problem.
Something fills the heart and souls of our kids other than hope and
love. There is hate. There is fear. There is a culture of death
animating the kids who pull those guns, put them up against the little
girl's head and says, Do you believe in God? And she said yes, and then
he pulled the trigger.
The gun did not go off by itself. That kid pulled that trigger
because there was something inside him that was terribly wrong. I think
we ought to start addressing this broad picture, not just focusing on
the instrumentality of assassination. A knife in the hands of a surgeon
is one thing. A knife in the hands of an assassin is another thing.

{time} 1700

The knife is neutral. It is what animates the user that is really the
root problem here, which nobody wants to address because we bump into
the entertainment industry, and God forbid we get between a buck and
the industry.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as usual the gentleman from
Illinois has made an extremely passionate and eloquent and very
persuasive argument.
I do not pretend to stand and represent the liberal element of this
Congress. I do not know if anyone has designated me as such. But I
might remind the gentleman that when we were doing the
telecommunications bill, there were many of us, Democrats and
Republicans alike, who joined on an obscenity-prevention amendment or
provision with respect to the Internet, and we ultimately, Mr.
Chairman, were ruled unconstitutional or at least ruled out of order,
if my colleague will, by the Supreme Court.
I would say to the gentleman that his point about cultural violence
is a strong point, but I would also raise the fact that, if we look
statistically, the young people will tell us that 95 percent of our
youth are good and the 5 percent may be the ones that are caught up in
some of these heinous acts. At the same time they are caught so we are
concerned about what they get in school and in music. We have adults
that have already gone past our training.
We have got the very deranged individual who went into the Jewish
Community Center and did it out of hate,

[[Page 22469]]

but what happened is he did not use a knife. The hateful gentleman in
Illinois did not use a knife. They used guns, and I have said over and
over to my friends in Texas:
I am in a very difficult position, coming from the State of Texas
because they hold on to their weapons very strongly, and I have been
consistently a person who believes in gun regulation, and I am not
alone with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) asking to pierce the
sanctity of someone's home to take their guns out that they legally own
or to close down gun shows in which I do not like, frankly; but what I
am saying, that the Second Amendment can live consistently and
constitutionally with gun regulation.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are not in
disagreement. I believe there have been many of us who have risen to
the floor of the House to speak against the heinous violent music or
violent words or Internet violence, but we must admit that guns do kill
and they are in the hands of individuals who use them to kill.
Mr. HYDE. Guns are the instrumentality, but the spirit of killing is
the person who pulls the trigger, and we ought to take a look at that.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from
Illinois in that. I hope we can do both together.
Mr. HYDE. I do, too.
Let me just say in closing, this interesting philosophical seminar
the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Blagojevich) commented that we did not
fund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms adequately for their
job. During the last 5 years the Justice Department's funding has
doubled; it is about 14.7 billion now, and gun prosecutions by the
Justice Department have dropped almost in half. So we can look there,
too, as long as we are exercising the searching gaze of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are doing this motion is because, and
I am glad we have this conversation today and the debate going back and
forth because it reminds me of the debate that we had on June 19 when
we were talking about only the amendments that we are trying to get
passed. I think people have to stop, think, and hopefully actually read
what the amendment says. There is nothing in the amendment on trying to
close the gun show loophole that will affect someone's Second Amendment
rights. We have to make that extremely clear.
Right now, if someone wants to buy a gun, when they go to a gun
store, they have a federally licensed dealer. When they go to a gun
show, 45 percent of those selling guns there are federally licensed
dealers. All we are saying is that those that come into gun shows and
are not federally licensed should not be able to sell a gun to someone
because the criminals know where to go get the guns; that is the
problem. The criminals do know where to go get the guns.
So all we are saying is if someone is going to sell a gun at a gun
show, that person should have to go under the same rules and
regulations as those legal dealers at the gun show. That is all we are
saying.
As was mentioned, 95 percent of the people that go to gun shows get
their guns instantly through the check. We are dealing with a very,
very small percentage, very, very small percentage of people that might
have to wait a couple of hours. Then we even go further to a smaller
percentage that actually might have to wait 24 hours.
This is what I am saying: How can I stand here and not fight to do
whatever I can to make sure that guns do not get in the wrong hands?
How can I stand here and make sure that what we do here in the House
will be the right thing? Because if we pass a bill and that bill is not
strong enough to stop the criminal from getting the gun, and then God
forbid someone buys a gun at a gun show, goes to one of our schools,
goes to one of our churches, goes to one of our synagogues and does
their killing, how can we live with each other? How can we even face
the victims of those crimes? That is what we have to do.
I am someone that actually supports the Second Amendment. I happen to
believe in the Second Amendment, and I have to tell my colleagues I
know of an awful lot of gun owners that are coming up to me more and
more and more, even saying, and actually they are very proud when they
come up to me and say, Mrs. McCarthy, I am an NRA member, and I do
believe that I have a right to own a gun. But I also believe that we
have to take a little more responsibility for our guns.
All we are asking for our citizens and for everybody that wants to
buy a gun: Are you willing to take 3 business days, 3 business days, to
make sure that a criminal or a child does not get their hand on a gun?
The majority of Americans are saying yes to that. Unfortunately, that
sound has not gotten in here, inside of Washington.
We have to have good standards. That is why we are all here. We set
the laws of the land, and we are certainly going to have disagreements,
and I understand that. The majority of us know that we always have to
compromise, and we accept that also. But there comes a point when that
compromise could cause a lot of loss of lives, and we have to be very
clear on that, very, very clear on that.
Mr. Speaker, I hope between now and when the bill comes up for a vote
again that the clear information will be out there. As my colleagues
know, there is a part in the amendment where they talk about tracing.
They do not like the idea of tracing. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my
colleagues every successful police department throughout this country
that really works with the ATF on tracing, they are the ones that have
the lowest crime rates because they are able to find those illegal gun
dealers. Traces are an extremely important part of the bill. We cannot
let that go.
Mr. Speaker, we do need more funding for that so that the Boston
project that has worked so wonderfully, has cut down murders in Boston,
especially among the young people; it is a project that works, and we
are seeing it work throughout the country. We are supposed to support
those things. That is tracing.
Here it was brought up earlier that gun shows do not really have guns
go to criminals. Well, we have a report, and I offer this which
includes the letters from police organizations that support the
original bills, as they were, and I want to submit this, the ATF
report, so this can go into the Record so people can look at this when
they want more information.
The materials referred to are as follows:

Police Foundation,

Washington, DC, September 16, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: The Police Foundation is a private,
independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit organization
dedicated to supporting innovation and improvement in
policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted
seminal research in police behavior, policy, and procedure,
and works to transfer to local agencies the best new
information about practices for dealing effectively with a
wide range of important police operational and administrative
concerns. On behalf of the Police Foundation, I am writing
today in strong support of the gun-related provisions adopted
by the Senate as part of S. 254. These measures are crucial
in reducing access to guns by children and criminals.
As you and other conferees meet, the Police Foundation
urges you to focus on an issue of importance to law
enforcement--the need for at least three business days to
conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same
period of time currently required when a firearm is purchased
from a licensed gun dealer.
We believe it is critical to have at least three business
days to do a thorough background check, especially to access
records that may not be available on the Federal National
Instant Check Background System (NICS), such as a person's
history of mental illness, domestic violence, or recent
arrests. For law enforcement officials, it is not how fast a
background check can be done but rather how thorough the
check is conducted. Without a minimum of three business days,
the risk increases that guns will be sold to criminals or
others prohibited from purchasing guns.

[[Page 22470]]

The Police Foundation is concerned that neither the 24-hour
or 72-hour requirements allow for an adequate background
check. The FBI has analyzed NICS background check data for
the last six months and estimates that if the law had
required all background checks to be completed in 72 hours,
9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been able to
obtain a weapon. If there had been a 24-hour background check
time limit, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would have obtained
weapons in the last six months. The FBI also found that a gun
buyer who could not be cleared by NICS in under two hours was
twenty times more likely to be a prohibited purchaser.
We strongly believe that all gun sales--be they in gun
stores or at gun shows--should be subject to a three-
business-day background check requirement; without such
standards, gun shows will continue to be a major source of
weapons for violent felons, straw purchasers, the dangerously
unstable, and others who threaten our communities. Despite
being convicted of multiple felonies, Hank Earl Carr was able
to purchase multiple guns at gun shows--guns he used to
murder his stepson and three police officers in Florida in
1998.
The Police Foundation supports other Senate-passed
provisions, including requiring child safety locks with every
handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns
when they turn eighteen; banning juvenile possession of
assault weapons; enhancing penalties for transferring a
firearm to a juvenile; and banning the importation of high
capacity ammunition magazines.
In order to protect the safety of our families and our
communities, it is important to adopt the Senate-passed, gun-
related provisions. The Police Foundation is committed to
working with you and your colleagues in the Congress in
supporting and enacting sensible measures to protect all
Americans and most especially our children.
Sincerely yours,
Hubert Williams.
____

International Association

of Chiefs of Police,

Alexandria, VA, September 14, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: On behalf of the more than 18,000
members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP), I am writing to express our strong support for
several vitally important firearms provisions that were
included in S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender
Accountability Act of 1999.
As conference work on juvenile justice legislation begins,
I would urge you to consider the views of our nation's chiefs
of police on these important issues. Specifically, the IACP
strongly supports provisions that would require the
performance of background checks prior to the sale or
transfer of weapons at gun shows, as well as extending the
requirements of the Brady Act to cover juvenile acts of
crime.
The IACP has always viewed the Brady Act as a vital
component of any comprehensive crime control effort. Since
its enactment, the Brady Act has prevented more than 400,000
felons, fugitives and others prohibited from owning firearms
from purchasing firearms. However, the efficacy of the Brady
Act is undermined by oversights in the law which allow those
individuals prohibited from owning firearms from obtaining
weapons, at events such as gun shows, without undergoing a
background check. The IACP believes that it is vitally
important that Congress act swiftly to chose these loopholes
and preserve the effectiveness of the Brady Act.
However, simply requiring that a background check be
performed is meaningless unless law enforcement authorities
are provided with a period of time sufficient to complete a
thorough background check, law enforcement executives
understand that thorough and complete background checks take
time. The IACP believes that to suggest, as some proposals
do, that the weapon be transferred to the purchaser if the
background checks are not completed within 24 hours of sale
sacrifices the safety of our communities for the sake of
convenience.
Requiring that individuals wait three business days is
hardly an onerous burden, especially since allowing for more
comprehensive background checks ensures that those
individuals who are forbidden from purchasing firearms are
prevented from doing so.
Finally, the IACP believes that juveniles must be held
accountable for their acts of violence. Therefore, the IACP
also supports modifying the current Brady Act to permanently
prohibit gun ownership by an individual, while a juvenile,
commits a crime that would have triggered a gun disability if
their crime had been committed as an adult.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 703/
836-6767.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Neubauer,
President.
____

International Brotherhood

of Police Officers,

Alexandria, VA, September 15, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: The International Brotherhood of
Police Officers (IBPO) is an affiliate of the Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. The IBPO is the
largest police union in the AFL-CIO.
On behalf of the entire membership of the IBPO I wish to
express our strong support of the gun-related provisions
adopted by the Senate as part of S. 254. The IBPO knows that
passage of these measures will keep guns away from children
and criminals.
The IBPO requests that the conferees continue to focus on
the need for adequate time to conduct background checks at
``gun shows.'' As I am sure that you are aware, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation has estimated that over 17,000
disqualified individuals would have been able to purchase a
gun if a twenty-four hour time limit was required for a
background check. Accordingly, if such time requirement is
legislated 17,000 more felons will be able to purchase guns.
The IBPO is also in support of extending the requirements
of the Brady Act to cover juvenile acts of crime. Our union
has supported legislation which seeks to comprehensively
control crime. The Brady Act is a major part of such efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues that are
significant to all law enforcement officers and the citizens
of the United States of America.
Sincerely,
Kenneth T. Lyons,
National President.
____

Arapahoe County

Sheriff's Office,

Littleton, CO, September 15, 1999.
Chairman Orrin Hatch,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: As you and other conferees meet to
craft juvenile justice legislation, I urge you to adopt the
gun-related provisions adopted by the Senate as part of S.
254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability
and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. We at the National Sheriffs'
Association (NSA) appreciate your efforts to curb violent
juvenile crime.
We feel that S. 254 combines the best provisions of each
legislative attempt to reform and modernize juvenile crime
control. As you know, sheriffs are increasingly burdened with
juvenile offenders, and they present significant challengers
for sheriffs. The so-called core mandates requiring sight and
sound separation, jail removal and status offender mandates
are so restrictive, that even reasonable attempts to comply
with the mandates fall short. We welcome modest changes to
the core mandates to make them flexible without jeopardizing
the safety of the juvenile inmate. We agree that kids do not
belong in adult jail and therefore we appreciate the
commitment to find appropriate alternatives for juvenile
offenders.
Additionally, NSA supports the Juvenile Accountability
Block Grant program. S. 254 sets aside $4 billion to
implement the provisions of the bill and this grant funding
will enable sheriffs to receive assistance to meet the core
mandates. NSA is also hopeful that the prevention programs in
the bill will keep juveniles out of the justice system. Kids
that are engaged in constructive activities are less likely
to commit crimes that those whose only other alternative is a
gang. We applaud the focus on prevention, and we stand ready
to do our part to engage America's youth.
In addition, you may be asked to consider the following
amendments that I support.
Four ways to close loopholes giving kids access to
firearms:
1. The Child Access Loophole: Adults are prohibited from
transferring firearms to juveniles, but are not required to
store guns so that kids cannot get access to them. This Child
Access Prevention (CAP) proposal would require parents to
keep loaded firearms out of the reach of children and would
hold gun owners criminally responsible if a child gains
access to an unsecured firearm and uses it to injure
themselves or someone else.
2. The Gun Show Loophole: So-called ``private collectors''
can sell guns without background checks at gun shows and flea
markets thereby skirting the Brady Law which requires that
federally licensed gun dealers initiate and complete a
background check before they sell a firearm. No gun should be
sold at a gun show without a background check and appropriate
documentation.
3. The Internet Loophole Similar to the Gun Show Loophole:
Many sales on the internet are performed without a background
check, allowing criminals and other prohibited purchasers to
acquire firearms. No one should be able to sell guns over the
internet without complying with the Brady background check
requirements.
4. The Violent Juveniles Purchase Loophole: Under current
law, anyone convicted of a felony in an adult court is barred
from owning a weapon. However, juveniles convicted of violent
crimes in a juvenile court can purchase a gun on their 21st
birthday.

[[Page 22471]]

Juveniles who commit violent felony offenses when they are
young should be prohibited from buying guns as adults.
The National Sheriffs Association and I welcome passage of
this legislation. We look forward to working with you to
ensure swift enactment of S. 254.
Respectfully,
Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.,
Sheriff.
____

National Association of

School Resource Officers,

September 16, 1999.
Chairman Hatch,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: The National Association of School
Resource Officers (NASRO) is a national organization that
represents over 5000 school based police officers from
municipal police agencies, county sheriff departments and
school district police forces. On behalf of our entire
membership nationwide, I am writing today in strong support
of the gun-related provisions adopted by the Senate as part
of S. 254. These measures are crucial in reducing child and
criminal access to guns.
As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile justice
legislation, NASRO urges you to focus on an important issue
to law enforcement--the need for at least three business days
to conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same
period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased
from a licensed gun dealer.
As law enforcement officials we know from experience that
it is critical to have at least three business days to do a
thorough background check. Law enforcement officials need
time to access records that may not be available on the
federal National Instant Check Background System (NICS) such
as a person's history of mental illness, domestic violence or
recent arrests. What is important to law enforcement is not
how fast a background check can be done but how thorough it
is conducted. Without a minimum of three business days this
will increase the risk that criminals will be able to
purchase guns.
NASRO is concerned that 72 or 24 hours is not an adequate
amount of time for law enforcement to do an effective
background check. The FBI analyzed all NICS background check
data in the last six months and estimated that--if the law
had required all background checks to be completed in 72
hours--9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been
able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks had
been set at just 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would
have gotten guns in just the last half year. the FBI also
found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by the NICS
system in under 2 hours was 20 times more likely to be a
prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
It is impossible to tell precisely how many lives will be
saved by applying the same background check system that now
applies to gun store sales to gun shows. We know, however,
that without such equivalent treatment gun shows will
continue to be the purchase points of choice for murderers,
armed robbers and other violent criminals like Hank Earl
Carr, who was a frequent gun show buyer despite being a
multiple convicted felon. Carr's crimes didn't stop until
1998, when he shot his stepson and three police officers
before turning a gun on himself.
On June 23, 1999 a Colorado man shot and killed his three
daughters, ages 7, 8 and 10 just hours after purchasing a gun
from a licensed dealer. The dealer completed a NICS check,
but the check failed to reveal that the man had a domestic
abuse restraining order against him. If law enforcement had
consulted local and state records using both computerized and
non-computerized data bases than the man probably would have
never been able to purchase the gun.
The other Senate passed provisions NASRO supports include
requiring that child safety locks be provided with every
handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns
when they turn 18; banning juvenile possession of assault
rifles; enhancing penalties for transferring a firearm to a
juvenile; and banning the importation of high capacity
ammunition magazines.
It is important to adopt the Senate-passed gun-related
provisions in order to protect the safety of our families and
our communities. The police officer on the street understands
that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the
hands of children and violent criminals.
Sincerely,
Curtis Lavarello,
Executive Director.
____

National Organization of

Black Law Enforcement Executives,

September 15, 1999.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: The National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) representing over 3500 black
law enforcement managers, executives, and practitioners
strongly urge you to support the gun related provisions
adopted by the Senate as a part of S. 254. These measures are
crucial in reducing child and criminal access to guns.
As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile
legislation, NOBLE urges you to focus on an important issue
to law enforcement--the need for at least three business days
to conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same
period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased
from a licensed dealer.
NOBLE is concerned that 24 hours is not an adequate amount
of time for law enforcement to do an effective background
check. The FBI analyzed all National Instant Check Background
System (NICS) data in the last 6 months and estimated that--
if the law had required all background checks to be completed
in 72 hours, 9000 people found to be disqualified would have
been able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks
had been set for 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would
have gotten guns in just the last half year. The FBI also
found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by the NICS
system in under 2 hours was 20 times more likely to be a
prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
It is impossible to tell precisely how many lives will be
saved by applying the same background check system that now
applies to gun store sales to gun shows. We know, however,
that without such equivalent treatment gun shows will
continue to be the purchased points of choice for murders,
armed robbers and other violent criminals like Hank Earl
Carr, who was a frequent gun show buyer despite being a
multiple convicted felon. Carr's crimes did not stop until
1998, when he shot his stepson and three police officers
before turning the gun on himself.
The other Senate passed provisions NOBLE supports include
requiring that child safety locks be provided with every
handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns
when they turn 18; banning juvenile possession of assault
rifles; enhancing penalties for transferring a firearm to a
juvenile; and banning the importation of high capacity
ammunition magazines.
It is important to adopt the Senate passed gun related
provisions in order to protect the safety of our families and
our communities. The police officer on the street understands
that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the
hands of children and violent criminals.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Stewart,
Executive Director.
____

Hispanic American Police

Command Officers Association,

Washington, DC, September 15, 1999.
Chairman Hatch,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: The Hispanic American Police Command
Officers Association (HAPCOA) represents 1,500 command law
enforcement officers and affiliates from municipal police
departments, county sheriffs, and state and federal agencies
including the DEA, U.S. Marshals Service. FBI, U.S. Secret
Service, and the U.S. Park Police. On behalf of our entire
membership nationwide, I am writing today in strong support
of the gun-related provisions adopted by the Senate as part
of S. 254. These measures are crucial in reducing child and
criminal access to guns.
As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile justice
legislation, HAPCOA urges you to focus on an important issue
to law enforcement--the need for at least three business days
to conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same
period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased
from a licensed gun dealer.
As law enforcement officials we know from experience that
it is critical to have at least three business days to do a
thorough background check. Law enforcement officials need
time to access records that may not be available on the
federal National Instant Check Background System (NICS) such
as a person's history of mental illness, domestic violence or
recent arrests. What is important to law enforcement is not
how fast a background check can be done but how thorough it
is conducted. Without a minimum of three business days this
will increase the risk that criminals will be able to
purchase guns.
HAPCOA is concerned that 72 or 24 hours is not an adequate
amount of time for law enforcement to do an effective
background check. The FBI analyzed all NICS background check
data in the last six months and estimated that--if the law
had required all background checks to be completed in 72
hours--9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been
able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks had
been set at just 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would
have gotten guns in just the last half year. The FBI also
found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by the NICS
system in under two hours was 20 times more likely to be a
prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
It is impossible to tell precisely how many lives will be
saved by applying the same background check system that now
applies to gun store sales to gun shows. We know, however,
that without such equivalent treatment gun shows will
continue to be the purchase points of choice for murderers,
armed

[[Page 22472]]

robbers and other violent criminals like Hank Earl Carr, who
was a frequent gun show buyer despite being a multiple
convicted felon. Carr's crimes didn't stop until 1998, when
he shot his stepson and three police officers before turning
a gun on himself.
On June 23, 1999 a Colorado man shot and killed his three
daughters, ages 7, 8 and 10 just hours after purchasing a gun
from a licensed dealer. The dealer completed a NICS check,
but the check failed to reveal that the man had a domestic
abuse restraining order against him. If law enforcement had
consulted local and state records using both computerized and
non-computerized data bases than the man probably would have
never been able to purchase the gun.
The other Senate passed provisions HAPCOA supports include
requiring that child safety locks be provided with every
handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns
when they turn 18; banning juvenile possession of assault
rifles; enhancing penalties for transferring a firearm to a
juvenile; and banning the importation of high capacity
ammunition magazines.
It is important to adopt the Senate-passed gun-related
provisions in order to protect the safety of families and our
communities. The police officer on the street understands
that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the
hands of children and violent criminals.
Sincerely,
Jess Quintero,
National Executive Director.
____

Police Executive Research Forum,

Washington, DC, September 14, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: The Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) is a national organization of police professionals
dedicated to improving policing practices through research,
debate and leadership. On behalf of our members, I am writing
today in strong support of the gun-related provisions adopted
by the Senate as part of S. 254. These measures are crucial
in reducing children's and criminals' access to guns.
As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile justice
legislation, PERF urges you to focus on an important issue to
law enforcement--the need for at least three business days to
conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same
period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased
from a licensed gun dealer.
As law enforcement officials, we know from experience that
it is critical to have at least three business days to do a
thorough background check. While most checks take only a few
hours, those that take longer often signal a potential
problem regarding the purchaser. Without a minimum of three
business days, the risk that criminals will be able to
purchase guns increases. The FBI analyzed all NICS background
check data in the last six months and estimated that, if the
law had required all background checks to be completed in 72
hours, 9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been
able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks had
been set at just 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would
have obtained guns in just the last half year. The FBI also
found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by the NICS
system in under two hours was 20 times more likely to be a
prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
PERF also strongly supports measures that impose new safety
standards on the manufacture and importation of handguns
requiring a child-resistant safety lock. PERF helped write
the handgun safety guidelines--issued to most police agencies
more than a decade ago--on the need to secure handguns kept
in the home. Our commitment has not wavered. I also urge you
to clarify that the storage containers and safety mechanisms
meet minimum standards to ensure that the requirements have
teeth.
PERF also encourages the enactment of proposals that
prohibit the sale of an assault weapon to anyone under age 18
and to increase the criminal penalties for selling a gun to a
juvenile. PERF also supports banning all violent juveniles
from buying any type of gun when they turn 18, and supports
banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition
magazines. PERF knows we must do more to keep guns out of the
hands of our nation's troubled youth.
PERF supports strong, enforceable ``Child Access
Prevention'' laws. Once again, we have witnessed the carnage
that results when children have access to firearms. PERF has
supported child access prevention bills in the past because
we have seen first hand the horror that can occur when angry
and disturbed kids have access to guns.
We must do more to keep America's children safe--not just
because of recent events, but because of the shootings,
accidents and suicide attempts we see with frightening
regularity. It is important to adopt the Senate-passed gun-
related provisions in order to protect our families and our
communities. The police officer on the street understands
that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the
hands of children and violent criminals. Thank you for
considering the views of law enforcement. We applaud your
efforts to help make our communities safer places to live.
Sincerely,
Chuck Wexler,
Executive Director.

Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces--January 1999, Executive
Summary

More than 4,000 shows dedicated primarily to the sale or
exchange of firearms are held annually in the United States.
There are also countless other public markets at which
firearms are freely sold or traded, such as flea markets.
Under current law, large numbers of firearms at these public
markets are sold anonymously; the seller has no idea and is
under no obligation to find out whether he or she is selling
a firearm to a felon or other prohibited person. If any of
these firearms are later recovered at a crime scene, there is
virtually no way to trace them back to the purchaser.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act)
provides crucial information about firearms buyers to Federal
firearms licensees (FFLs), but does not help nonlicensees to
identify prohibited purchasers. Under the Brady Act, FFLs
contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure
that a purchaser is not a felon or otherwise prohibited from
possessing firearms. Until the Brady Act was passed, the only
way an FFL could determine whether a purchaser was a felon or
other person prohibited from possessing firearms was on the
basis of the customer's self-certification. The Brady Act
supplemented this ``honor system'' with one that allows
licensees to transfer a firearm only after a records check
that prevents the acquisition of firearms by persons not
legally entitled to possess them. Since 1994, the Brady Act
has prevented well over 250,000 prohibited persons from
acquiring firearms from FFLs.
The Brady Act, however, does not apply to the sale of
firearms by nonlicensees, who make up one-quarter or more of
the sellers of firearms at gun shows. While FFLs are required
to maintain careful records of their sales and, under the
Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with NICS
before transferring any firearm, nonlicensees have no such
requirements under current law. Thus, felons and other
prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and
records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows.
Indeed, a review of criminal investigations by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reveals a wide variety of
violations occurring at gun shows and substantial numbers of
firearms associated with gun shows being used in drug crimes
and crimes of violence, as well as being passed illegally to
juveniles.
On November 6, 1998, President Clinton determined that all
gun show vendors should have access to the same information
about firearms purchasers.\1\ He directed the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Attorney General to close the gun show
loophole. President Clinton was particularly concerned that
felons and illegal firearms traffickers could use gun shows
to buy large quantities of weapons without ever disclosing
their identities, having their backgrounds checked, or having
any other records maintained on their purchases. He asked the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to provide
him with recommendations to address this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Footnotes follow this text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing recommendations for responding to the
President's directive, the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Justice sought input from United States
Attorneys, FFLs, law enforcement organizations, trade
associations, and a wide range of other groups interested in
firearms issues. The suggestions of these disparate groups
ranged from doing nothing to establishing an outright ban on
all sales of firearms at gun shows or by anyone other than an
FFL. The United States Attorneys expressed particular concern
with the complexity of the statutory definition of ``engaged
in the business'' of dealing in firearms and noted that this
made unlicensed firearms traffickers unusually difficult to
prosecute.
The recommendations in this report build upon existing
systems and expertise to achieve the President's goals of
preventing sales to prohibited persons and better enabling
law enforcement to trade crime guns.
First, ``gun show'' would be defined to include not only
traditional gun shows but also flea markets and others
similar venues where firearms are sold.
Second, ATF would register all persons who promote gun
shows. Promoters would be required to notify ATF of the time
and location of each gun show, provide ATF with a list of
vendors at the show, indicate whether the vendors are FFLs,
ensure that all vendors are provided with information about
their legal obligations, and require that vendors acknowledge
receipt of this information. If a registered promoter fails
to fulfill these obligations, ATF would consider revoking or
suspending the promoter's registration or imposing a civil
monetary penalty. Criminal penalties would also be available
in certain circumstances.
Third, if any part of a firearms transaction, including
display of the weapon, occurs at a gun show, the firearm
could be transferred only by, or with the assistance

[[Page 22473]]

of, an FFL. Therefore, if a nonlicensee sought to transfer a
firearm, an FFL would be responsible for positively
identifying the purchaser, conducting a Brady Act check on
the purchaser, and maintaining a record of the transaction.
This is the same system that has been used successfully for
many years when someone wishes to transfer a firearm to a
nonlicensee in another State.
Fourth, FFLs would be responsible for submitting strictly
limited information concerning all firearms transferred at
gun shows (e.g., manufacturing/importer, model, and serial
number) to ATF's National Tracing, Center (NTC). No
information about either the seller or the purchaser would be
given to the Government (with the exception of instances in
which multiple sales are required.\2\ Instead, the licensees
would maintain this information in their files, as is done
with all firearms sold by FFL today. The NTC would request
this information from an FFL only in the event that the
firearm subsequently became the subject of a law enforcement
trace request.
Fifth, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of
Justice will review the definition of ``engaged in business''
and make recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes to better identify and prosecute, in all appropriate
circumstances, illegal traffickers in firearms and suppliers
of guns to criminals.
Sixth, the Federal Government should commit additional
resources to combat the illegal trade of firearms at gun
shows. Without a commitment to financially support this
initiative, the effectiveness of this proposal would be
limited.
Seventh, in conjunction with the firearms industry, a
campaign should be undertaken to encourage all firearms
owners to take steps when selling or otherwise disposing of
their weapons to ensure that they do not fall into the hands
of criminals, unauthorized juveniles, or other prohibited
persons.
Taken together, these recommendations will address the
President's goals of preventing firearms sales to prohibited
persons at gun shows and better enabling law enforcement to
trace crime guns. Whenever any part of a firearms transaction
takes place at a gun show, the requirements of the Brady Act
will apply, and records will be kept to allow the firearm to
be traced if it is later used in crime. If unlicensed
individuals wish to sell their personal collections of
firearms at gun shows, they will now have the obligation--and
the means--to ensure that they are not selling their guns to
felons or other prohibited persons. The recommended steps
impose reasonable obligations in connection with firearms
transactions at gun shows while significantly enhancing law
enforcement's ability to prevent criminals from getting guns
and to apprehend those who use firearms in the commission of
crimes.

1. DESCRIPTION OF GUN SHOWS

Sponsorship and Operation of Gun Shows

Shows that specialize primarily in the sale and exchange of
all types of firearms are frequent and popular events.\3\
According to the periodical ``Gun Show Calendar'' (Krause
Publications), 4,442 such shows were advertised for calendar
year 1998. The following are the 10 States where shows were
conducted most frequently in 1998:

State Number of shows
Texas...............................................................472
Pennsylvania........................................................250
Florida.............................................................224
Illinois............................................................203
California..........................................................188
Indiana.............................................................180
North Carolina......................................................170
Oregon..............................................................160
Ohio................................................................148
Nevada..............................................................129

Most of the shows were promoted by approximately 175
organizations and individuals. Most promoters are State and
local firearms collector organizations with large
memberships, including one group that has 28,000 members. The
remainder of the gun shows were promoted by individual
collectors and businesspeople. Ordinarily, gun shows are held
in public arenas, civic centers, fairgrounds, and armories,
and the vendor rents a table from the promoter for a fee
ranging from $5 to $50. The number of tables at shows varies
from as few as 50 to as many as 2,000.
Most of the shows are open to the public, and individuals
generally pay an admission price of $5 or more to the
promoter. In rare instances, public access is limited by
invitation only. Most gun shows occur over a 2-day period,
generally on weekends, and draw an average of 2,500-5,000
people per show.\4\
Both FFLs and nonlicensees sell firearms at these shows.
FFLs make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at most gun
shows. The majority of vendors who attend shows sell firearms
and associated accessories and other paraphernalia. Examples
of accessories and paraphernalia include holsters, tactical
gear, knives, ammunitions, clothing, food, military
artifacts, books, and other literature. Some of the vendors
offer accessories and paraphernalia only and do not sell
firearms.
Public markets for the sale of firearms are not limited to
the specialized firearms shows. Large quantities of firearms
are also sold by nonlicensees at flea markets and other
organized events. As some flea markets, FFLs have established
permanent premises from which they conduct their business.
Both the specialized firearms shows and the broader
commercial venues such as flea markets are collectively
referred to as ``gun shows'' in the remainder of this report.

Types of Firearms Sold

The types and variety of firearms offered for sale at gun
shows include new and used handguns, semiautomatic assault
weapons,\5\ shotguns, rifles, and curio or relic firearms.\6\
In addition, vendors offer large capacity magazines \7\ and
machinegun parts \8\ for sale.
The ``high-end'' collector and antique shows and the
sporting recreational shows are generally produced by the
sporting organizations or avid collectors and enthusiasts.
The overall knowledge of the Federal firearms laws and
regulations by these promoters is good, and the weapons
offered for sale are mostly curios or relics or higher
quality modern weapons. At other shows, vendors may be less
knowledgeable about the Federal firearms laws, and many of
the guns sold are of lower quality and less expensive.

Atmosphere

The casual atmosphere in which firearms are sold at gun
shows provides an opportunity for individual buyers and
sellers to exchange firearms without the expense of renting a
table, and it is not uncommon to see people walking around a
show attempting to sell a firearm. They may sell the firearms
to a vendor who has rented a table or simply to someone they
meet at the show. Many nonlicensees entice potential
customers to their tables with comments such as, ``No
background checks required; we need only to know where you
live and how old you are.'' Many of these unlicensed vendors
actively acquire firearms from other vendors to satisfy a
buyer's request for a specific firearm that the vendor does
not currently possess. Some unlicensed vendors replenish and
subsequently dispose of their inventories within a matter of
days, often at the same show. Although the majority of people
who visit gun shows are law-abiding citizens, too often the
shows provide a ready supply of firearms to prohibited
persons, gangs, violent criminals, and illegal firearms
traffickers.
Many Federal firearms licensees have complained to ATF
about the conduct of nonlicensees at gun shows.\9\ These
licensees are understandably concerned that the casual
atmosphere of gun shows, combined with the absence of any
requirement that an unlicensed vendor check the background of
a firearms purchaser, provides an opportunity for felons and
other prohibited persons to acquire firearms. Because Federal
law neither requires the creation of any record of these
unlicensed sales nor places any obligations upon gun show
promoters, information is rarely available about the firearms
sold should they be recovered in a crime.

Gun Shows and Crime

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a review of ATF's
recent investigations indicates that gun shows provide a
forum for illegal firearms sales and trafficking. In
preparing this report, the Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Justice, ATF, and outside researchers \10\
reviewed 314 recent investigations that involved guns shows
in some capacity.\11\ The investigative reports came from
each of ATF's 23 field divisions throughout the country \12\
and involved a wide range of criminal activity by FFLs,
unlicensed vendors, and felons conspiring with FFLs.\13\ The
investigations also involved a wide variety of firearms,
including handguns, semiautomatic assault rifles, and
machineguns.
Together, the ATF investigations paint a disturbing picture
of gun shows as a venue for criminal activity and a source of
firearms used in crimes. Felons, although prohibited from
acquiring firearms, have been able to purchase firearms at
gun shows. In fact, felons buying or selling firearms were
involved in more than 46 percent of the investigations
involving gun shows.\14\ In more than a third of the
investigations, the firearms involved were known to have been
used in subsequent crimes.\15\ These crimes included drug
offenses, felons in possession of a firearm, assault,
robbery, burglary, and homicide.\16\
Firearms involved in the 314 reviewed investigations
numbered more than 54,000.\17\ A large number of these
firearms were sold or purchased at gun shows. More than one-
third of the investigations involved more than 50 firearms,
and nearly one-tenth of the investigations involved more than
250 firearms. The two largest investigations were reported to
have involved up to 7,000 and 10,000 firearms, respectively.
These numbers include both new and used firearms.\18\
The investigations reveal a diversity of Federal firearms
violations associated with gun shows.\19\ Examples of these
violations include straw purchases,\20\ out-of-State sales by
FFLs, transactions by FFLs without Brady Act checks, and the
sale of kits that modify semiautomatic firearms into
automatic firearms. Engaging in the business without a
license was involved in more than half of all the
investigations. Nearly 20 percent involved FFLs who were
selling firearms ``off-the-book.'' \21\ The central violation

[[Page 22474]]

in approximately 15 percent of the investigations was the
transfer of firearms to prohibited persons such as felons or
juveniles not authorized to possess firearms. Nearly 20
percent of the investigations involved violations of the
National Firearms Act (NFA), which regulates the possession
of certain firearms such as machineguns.\22\
An examination of individual cases illustrates how gun
shows are connected to criminal activity.
In 1993, ATF uncovered a Tennessee FFL who purchased more
than 7,000 firearms, altered the serial numbers, and resold
them to two unlicensed dealers who subsequently transported
and sold the firearms at gun shows and flea markets in North
Carolina. The scheme involved primarily new and used
handguns. All three pled guilty to Federal firearms
violations. The FFL was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment;
the unlicensed dealers were sentenced to 21 and 25 months'
imprisonment, respectively.
In 1994, ATF recovered two 9mm firearms and the NTC traced
them to an FFL in Whittier, California. The FFL had sold over
1,700 firearms to unlicensed purchasers over a 4-year period
without maintaining any records. Many of the sales occurred
at swap meets in California. The firearms were then sold to
gang members in Santa Ana and Long Beach, California. Many of
the firearms were recovered in crimes of violence, including
homicide. Of the five defendants charged, two were
convicted--the FFL and one of his unlicensed purchasers. Each
was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment.
In 1995, an ATF inspector in Pontiac, Michigan, discovered
a convicted felon who used a false police identification to
buy handguns at gun shows and resold them for profit. Among
the firearms purchased were sixteen new and inexpensive 9mm
and .380 caliber handguns. Detroit police recovered several
of the firearms while investigating a domestic disturbance.
The defendant pled guilty to numerous Federal firearms
violations and was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment.
In addition to analyzing the ATF investigations, ATF
supplemented the information with data from the NTC.
Approximately 254 individuals identified in the ATF gun show-
related investigations were checked against data in the
Firearms Tracing System and related data bases. Of these, 44
appeared in the multiple purchase records with an average of
59 firearms per person. Of the 44 individuals, 15 were
associated with 50 or more multiple sale firearms; these
individuals had a total of 188 crime guns traced to them, an
average of approximately 13 firearms each. The largest number
of multiple sales firearms associated with one individual was
472; this individual had 53 crime guns traced to him. These
patterns are not in and of themselves proof of trafficking.
Rather, they are indicators investigators use to assist in
trafficking investigations.
It is difficult to determine the precise extent of criminal
activities at gun shows, partly because of the lack of
obligations upon unlicensed vendors to keep any records.
Nevertheless, the information obtained from the ATF
investigations demonstrates that criminals are able to obtain
firearms with no background check and that crime guns are
transferred at gun shows with no records kept of the
transaction.

2. current law and regulation of gun shows

The gun show loophole results both from the existing legal
framework governing firearms transactions and the limits on
the application of existing laws to gun shows. Gun shows
themselves are not subject to Federal regulation. Instead,
only transfers by FFLs at gun shows are regulated. Few
limitations apply to sales by nonlicensees at gun shows or
elsewhere. The Federal legal framework governing gun shows
and firearms vendors, as well as the State legal framework
governing gun shows, is summarized below.

The Federal Framework

Federal Regulations of Firearms Vendors

Licensed firearms dealers
The GCA requires that those seeking to ``engage in the
business'' of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in
firearms must obtain a Federal firearms license from the
Secretary of the Treasury.\23\ The Federal firearms license
entitles the holder to ship, transport, and receive firearms
in interstate or foreign commerce.\24\ The bearer of that
license, the FFL, must comply with the obligations that
accompany the license. In particular, FFLs must maintain
records of all acquisitions and dispositions of firearms and
comply with all State and local laws in transferring any
firearms.\25\ They must positively identify the purchaser by
inspecting a Government-issued photographic identification,
such as a driver's license. FFLs must also complete a
multiple sales report if they sell two or more handguns to
the same purchaser within 5 business days. FFLs may not
transfer firearms to felons, persons who have been committed
to mental institutions, illegal aliens, or other prohibited
persons.\26\ FFLs also may not knowingly transfer firearms to
underage persons or handguns to persons who do not reside in
the State where they are licensed.\27\
FFLs must also comply with the provisions of the Brady Act
prior to transferring any firearm to a nonlicensee. The Brady
Act requires licensees to contact NICS prior to transferring
a firearm to any nonlicensed person in order to determine
whether receipt of a firearm by the prospective purchaser
would be in violation of Federal or State law.\28\ FFLs must
maintain a record but need not contact NICS when they sell
from their personal collection of firearms. Federal law
requires licensees to respond to requests for firearms
tracing information within 24 hours.\29\ Moreover, ATF has a
statutory right to conduct warrantless inspections of the
records and inventory of Federal firearms licensees.\30\ An
FFL who willfully violates any of the licensing requirements
may have his or her license revoked and is subject to
imprisonment for not more than 5 years, a fine of not more
than $250,000, or both.\31\
The obligations imposed upon FFLs serve to implement the
crime-reduction goals of the GCA. For example, the
recordkeeping requirements, interstate controls, and other
requirements imposed on licensees are designed to allow the
tracing of crime guns through the records of FFLs and to give
States the opportunity to enforce their firearms laws.\32\
Licensed firearms collectors
The GCA also requires persons to obtain a license as a
collector of firearms \33\ if they wish to ship, transport,
and receive firearms classified as ``curios or relics'' in
interstate or foreign commerce.\34\ For transactions
involving firearms other than curios or relics, the licensed
collector has the same status as a nonlicensee. ``Curio or
relic'' firearms generally are firearms that are of special
interest to collectors and are at least 50 years old or
derive their value from association with a historical figure,
period, or event.\35\ A licensed collector may buy and sell
curio or relic firearms for the purpose of enhancing his or
her personal collection, but may not lawfully engage in a
firearms business in curio or relic firearms without
obtaining a dealer's license.\36\ Recordkeeping requirements
are imposed on licensed collectors, and ATF has a statutory
right to conduct warrantless inspections of the records and
inventory of such licensees.\37\ Licensed collectors, like
other licensees, are required to respond to requests for
firearms trace information within 24 hours.\38\ However,
licensed collectors are not subject to the requirements of
the Brady Act.\39\
Nonlicensed firearms sellers
In contrast to licensed dealers, nonlicensees can sell
firearms without inquiring into the identity of the person to
whom they are selling, making any record of the transaction,
or conducting NICS checks.\40\ Because nonlicensed gun show
vendors are not subject to the Brady Act and indeed cannot
now conduct a NICS check under Federal law, they often have
no way of knowing whether they are selling a firearm to a
felon or other prohibited person. The GCA does, however,
prohibit nonlicensed persons from acquiring firearms from
out-of-State dealers and prohibits nonlicensees from shipping
or transporting firearms in interstate or foreign
commerce.\41\ Nonlicensees are also prohibited from
transferring a firearm to a nonlicensed person who the
transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not
reside in the State in which the transferor resides.\42\ A
nonlicensee also may not transfer a firearm to any person
knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the
transferee is a felon or other prohibited person.\43\
Finally, nonlicensed persons may not transfer handguns to
persons under the age of 18.\44\ Of course, because
nonlicensees are not required to inspect the buyer's driver's
license or other identification, they may never know that the
buyer is underage.
``Engaged in the Business''
Whether an individual seeking to sell a firearm will be
regulated as an FFL or nonlicensee depends on whether that
individual is ``engaged in the business'' of importing,
manufacturing, or dealing in firearms. When Congress enacted
the GCA in 1968, it did not provide a definition of the term
``engaged in the business.'' Courts interpreting the term
supplied various definitions,\45\ and upheld convictions for
engaging in the business without a license under a variety of
factual circumstances.\46\
In 1986, the law was amended to provide the following
definition:
(21) The term ``engaged in the business'' means--

* * * * *

(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, . . . a person who
devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as
a regular course of trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive
purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not
include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or
purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal
collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his
personal collection of firearms. . . .\47\
The 1986 amendments to the GCA also defined the term ``with
the principal objective of livelihood and profit'' to read as
follows:
(22) The term ``with the principal objective of livelihood
and profit'' means that the intent underlying the sale or
disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining
livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to

[[Page 22475]]

other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal
firearms collection; Provided, That proof of profit shall not
be required as to a person who engages in the regular and
repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal
purposes or terrorism. . . .\48\
Unfortunately, the effect of the 1986 amendments has often
been to frustrate the prosecution of unlicensed dealers
masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really
trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons.

Federal Regulation of Gun Shows

Current Federal law does not regulate gun shows. The GCA
does regulate the conduct of FFLs who offer firearms for sale
at gun shows. Although the GCA generally limits licensees to
conduct business only from their licensed premises,\49\ in
1984, ATF issued a regulation allowing licensees to conduct
business temporarily at certain gun shows located in the same
State as their licensed premises.\50\ The regulatory
provision was codified into the law as part of the 1986
amendments to the GCA. To qualify for the exception, the gun
show or event must be sponsored by a national, State, or
local organization devoted to the collection, competitive
use, or other sporting use of firearms; and the gun show or
event must be held in the State where the licensee's premises
is located.
As a result, an FFL may buy and sell firearms at a gun show
provided he or she otherwise complies with all the GCA
requirements governing licensee transfers. Nonlicensees,
however, may freely transfer firearms at a gun show without
observing the recordkeeping and background check requirements
imposed upon licensees.

State Statutory and Regulatory Framework

More than half of the States impose no prohibition on the
private transfer of firearms among nonlicensed persons and do
not regulate the operation of gun shows. In some States, the
only restrictions imposed on the private sales or transfers
of firearms are similar to certain prohibitions set forth by
the GCA. For example, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana,
and Mississippi prohibit the transfer of certain firearms to
felons; minors (or minors without parental consent); or
persons who are intoxicated, mentally disturbed, or under the
influence of drugs. Some States require permits to obtain a
firearm and impose a waiting period before the permit is
issued (e.g., 14 days in Hawaii). Other States impose
additional requirements (such as completion of a firearms
safety course in California) to obtain a license or permit.
Some impose a waiting period for all firearms (e.g.,
Massachusetts), others only for handguns (e.g., Connecticut).
Maryland directly regulates the sale of firearms by
nonlicensees at gun shows, requiring nonlicensees selling
handguns or assault weapons at a gun show to undergo a
backgound check to obtain a temporary transfer permit, and
limits individuals to five such permits per year.
Exhibit 2 provides an overview of the laws of those States
that regulate the transfer of some or all firearms by persons
not licensed as a dealer, and of those States that directly
regulate gun shows. None of the solutions proposed in this
report will affect any State law or regulation that is more
restrictive than the Federal law.

3. earlier legislative proposals and comments from interested parties

In developing the recommendations of this report, prior
legislative proposals addressing gun shows were considered
along with results of surveys of United States Attorneys,
interest groups, and individuals concerned with firearms
issues. Comments from FFLs and law enforcement officials were
also considered.

Legislative Proposals

In the 105th Congress, Representative Rod Blagojevich
introduced legislation addressing gun shows, H.R. 3833.
Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced a similar bill, S. 2527.
The proposed bills generally required any person wishing to
operate a ``gun show'' to obtain a license from the Secretary
of the Treasury and to provide 30 days' advance notice of the
date and location of each gun show held. The gun show
licensee would be required to comply with the provisions
applicable to dealers under the Brady Act, the general
recordkeeping provisions of the GCA, and the multiple sales
reporting requirements. These requirements would apply only
to transfers of firearms at the gun show by unlicensed
persons. Unlicensed vendors would be required to provide the
gun show licensee with written notice prior to transferring a
firearm at the gun show. The gun show licensee would also be
required to deliver to the Secretary of the Treasury all
records of firearms transfers collected during the show
within 30 days after the show.

Responses to Surveys

United States Attorneys

The Department of Justice requested information from United
States Attorneys regarding their experience prosecuting cases
involving illegal activities at gun shows or in the
``secondary market.'' \51\ Those United States Attorneys who
reported cases were asked to describe any particular problems
of proof that arose in the cases and whether the existing
levels of prosecutional and investigative resources are
adequate to address the violations that are identified.
Finally, they were asked for their proposals on how to
curtail illegal activity at gun shows.
Some United States Attorneys' offices have had significant
experience investigating and prosecuting cases involving
illegal activities at gun shows, while others reported no
experience with these cases at all. Several common themes
emerge from the responses.
There was widespread agreement among United States
Attorneys that it can be difficult to prove that a
nonlicensed person is ``engaging in the business'' of
firearms dealing without a license under current law. The
definitions create substantial investigative and proof
problems.\52\ Significant undercover work and follow-up by
ATF required to prepare a case against someone for ``engaging
in the business.''
The United States Attorneys were virtually unanimous in
their call for additional resources. The number of ATF agents
available to investigate cases in many judicial districts
falls far below the number required to mount effective
enforcement activities at gun shows. United States Attorneys
also noted that it will be difficult to devote scarce
prosecutorial resources to gun show cases, so long as a
number of the offenses remain misdemeanors.
United States Attorneys offered a wide range of proposals
to address the gun show loophole. These include the
following: (1) allowing only FFLs to sell guns at gun shows
so that a background check and a firearms transaction record
accompany every transaction; (2) strengthening the definition
of ``engaged in the business'' by defining the terms with
more precision, narrowing the exception for ``hobbyists,''
and lowering the intent requirement; (3) limiting the number
of private sales permitted by an individual to a specified
number per year; (4) requiring persons who sell guns in the
secondary market to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements that are applicable to FFLs; (5) requiring all
transfers in the secondary market to go through an FFL; (6)
establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of
inventory belonging to FFLs who surrender their license; (7)
requiring registration of nonlicensed persons who sell guns;
(8) increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm
without a background check as required by the Brady Act; (9)
requiring the gun show promoters to be licensed and maintain
an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFLs and
non-FFLs at a gun show; (10) requiring that one or more ATF
agents be present at every gun show; and (11) insulating
unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to
have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form.
A small number of United States Attorneys suggesting that
existing laws are adequate even though the resources
available to enforce these laws are not. While gun shows do
not appear to be a problem in every jurisdiction, the
majority of United States Attorneys agreed that gun shows are
part of a larger, pervasive problem of firearms transfers in
the secondary market.

Law Enforcement Officials

Of the 18 State law enforcement officials who responded to
the survey, only 1 opposed new restrictions on gun shows.
Seventeen officials share the President's concern with the
sale of firearms at gun shows without a background check or
other recordkeeping requirements and support changes to make
these requirements for all gun show transfers. The majority
of respondents urged that any changes apply not only to gun
shows but to flea markets, swap meets, and other venues where
firearms are bought and sold. Several respondents suggested
limits on the number of gun shows or caps on the quantities
of guns sold by nonlicensees. Others urged increased
cooperation with the United States Attorneys to assist in the
prosecution of those individuals who violate Federal firearms
laws. Finally, the National Sheriffs Association suggested
that gun show operators be required to obtain a permit and
notify ATF of any gun show.

FFLs

FFLs submitted 219 responses, of which approximately 30
percent requested additional regulations to prevent unlawful
activities at gun shows. Many of these FFLs supported a ban
on firearms sales by unlicensed persons or, if permitted,
urged that Brady checks be required to prevent prohibited
persons from acquiring firearms. Other FFLs expressed
frustration that unlicensed persons were able to sell to
buyers without any paperwork (and advertise this fact),
leaving the FFL at a competitive disadvantage. Others
suggested that all vendors, licensed or not, should follow
the same requirements whether at gun shows, flea markets, or
other places where guns are sold. Many of the FFLs
recommending additional regulations provided suggestions,
some quite detailed, for closing the gun show loophole. These
suggestions included registering all firearms owners,
licensing promoters, restricting attendance at gun shows,
conducting surprise raids at gun shows, requiring that all
transfers go through an FFL, and requiring a booth for law
enforcement to conduct background checks for all firearms
purchases.

[[Page 22476]]

A number of the FFLs who responded believed that the
problems at gun shows could be solved if current laws were
more strictly enforced. Several of these respondents noted
that ATF is already ``spread too thin'' to enforce additional
laws. Others suggested that courts need to do a better job of
enforcing the existing laws. Many others preferred stiffer
sentences for violators of existing law. More than half,
however, stated that new laws or restrictions are not the
answer. Of this group, many stated that they do not see any
illegal activity at gun shows and concluded that no new laws
are necessary. Others expressed their belief that sales of
private property should not be federally regulated, or they
expressed distrust of the Government in general. Also
included in this group were FFLs who reported that they do
not sell at gun shows for a variety of reasons but oppose new
regulations nonetheless.

Interest Groups, Trade Groups, and Other Responses

Eight responses were received from firearms interest or
trade groups. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposes
any changes to existing laws, contending that only 2 percent
of firearms used by criminals come from gun shows. The NRA
suggested that regulating the private sale of firearms would
create a vast bureaucratic infrastructure and that ATF should
instead continue to prosecute those who illegally trade in
firearms. The NRA also suggested that many of the current
unlicensed dealers would be under ATF scrutiny had they not
been discouraged from holding a firearms license. The NRA
expressed willingness to publicize the licensing requirements
for those who deal in firearms. Similarly, Gun Owners of
America recommended no changes to existing law, but suggested
a ``stop to this insidious ongoing Federal government assault
on American citizenry and to return to the rule of law.''
By contrast, the National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers
(NASGD), a trade association consisting of firearms dealers,
suggested that every firearm sale at a gun show be regulated
and that the purchaser undergo a NICS check. In addition,
NASGD suggested: (1) licensing all gun show promoters,
auctioneers, and exhibitors; (2) limiting the number of times
an FFL may sell at gun shows in a given year; (3) having
nonlicensees comply with the same standards as FFLs; (4)
requiring promoters to provide ATF and other authorities with
the list of vendors at a gun show; and (5) having promoters
maintain firearms transaction records and NICS transaction
records for all firearms sold at a gun show.
Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), suggested that gun show
promoters be licensed and that they be authorized to conduct
a NICS check on every firearms transfer by an unlicensed
dealer. HCI also suggested that a 30-day temporary license be
issued (limited to one per year) to any individual wishing to
sell at a gun show. The proposed license would permit the
sale of no more than 20 handguns, the serial numbers of which
would be included in the license application. HCI suggested
that ``engaged in the business'' be defined to limit the
number of handguns sold from a ``personal collection'' to no
more than 3 in a 30-day period. This restriction would not
apply to sales to licensees or within one's immediate family.
The Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence suggested licensing
promoters, requiring a background check on all gun purchases,
additional recordkeeping, a limit on the number of firearms
purchased by any one person at a gun show, and increased
enforcement resources and penalties.
The Trauma Foundation of San Francisco recommended
requiring a background check for all firearms sales,
licensing promoters, permitting only FFLs to sell at gun
shows, and limiting the number of firearms purchased at a gun
show. The United States Conference of Mayors supported one-
gun-a-month legislation, background checks on all purchases,
and increased funding for law enforcement.
Finally, in reply to open letters posted on the Internet,
ATF received 274 responses. The vast majority of these
responses either opposed any new restrictions on gun shows or
favored enforcement of existing law. Approximately 5 percent
favored new laws, usually suggesting a background check for
firearms purchasers.

4. recommendations

Summary of the Recommendations

These recommendations close the gun show loophole by adding
reasonable restrictions and conditions of firearms transfers
at gun shows.\53\ The recommendations also ensure that there
are adequate resource to enforce the law and that all would-
be sellers of firearms at gun shows understand the law and
the consequences of illegally disposing of guns. Each
recommendation will be discussed in detail, but they may be
summarized as follows:
1. Define ``gun show'' to include specialized gun events,
as well as flea markets and other markets outside of licensed
firearms shops at which 50 or more firearms, in total, are
offered for sale by 2 or more persons.
2. Require gun show promoters to register and to notify ATF
of all gun shows, maintain and report a list of vendors at
the show, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of
information about their legal obligations.
3. Require that all firearms transactions at a gun show be
completed through an FFL. The FFL would be responsible for
conducting a NICS check on the purchaser and maintaining
records of the transactions. The failure to conduct a NICS
check would be a felony for licensees and nonlicensees.
4. Require FFLs to submit information necessary to trace
all firearms transferred at gun shows to ATF's National
Tracing Center. This information would include the
manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of the
firearms. No information about either an unlicensed seller or
the purchaser would be given to the Government. Instead, as
today with all firearms sold by licensees, the FFLs would
maintain this information in their files.
5. Review the definition of ``engaged in the business'' and
make recommendations within 90 days for legislative or
regulatory changes to better identify and prosecute, in all
appropriate circumstances, illegal traffickers in firearms
and suppliers of guns to criminals.
6. Provide additional resources to combat the illegal trade
of firearms at gun shows.
7. In conjunction with the firearms industry, educate gun
owners that, should they sell or otherwise dispose of their
firearms, they need to do so responsibly to ensure that they
do not fall into the hands of felons, unauthorized juveniles,
or other prohibited persons.

Explanation of the Recommendations

Definition of Gun Show

There would be a new statutory definition of ``gun show.''
\54\ The definition would read as follows: ``Gun Show. Any
event (1) at which 50 or more firearms, 1 or more of which
has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce, are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer or
exchange; and (2) at which 2 or more persons are offering or
exhibiting firearms for sale, transfer, or exchange.''
This definition encompasses not only events at which the
primary commodities displayed and sold are firearms but
qualifying flea markets, swap meets, and other secondary
markets where guns are sold as well. Requiring there to be
two or more persons offering firearms exempts from the
definition FFLs selling guns at their business location, as
well as the individual selling a personal gun collection at a
garage or yard sale. In addition, the legislation requires a
minimum of 50 firearms to be offered for sale in order for an
event to become a gun show that is subject to the other new
requirements. This minimum quantity ensures that private
sales of a small number of firearms can continue to take
place without being subject to the new requirements.

Gun Show Promoters

Any person who organizes, plans, promotes or operates a gun
show, as newly defined, would be required to register with
ATF. Gun show promoters would complete a simple form which
entitles the promoter to operate a gun show. The registration
requirement would go into effect 6 months after the enactment
of the legislation to allow time for gun show promoters to
comply.
Thirty days before any gun show, a promoter would be
required to inform ATF of the dates, duration, and estimated
number of vendors who are expected to participate. This
information serves four purposes: First, it advises ATF that
a gun show will be taking place. If ATF is in the process of
investigating individuals who are violating the law at gun
shows in a particular field division, the advance notice will
assist ATF in determining whether the target of the
investigation might appear at the gun show. Second, the
information gives ATF a good idea about the scope and scale
of the gun show to enable the agency to make the
determination whether ATF should allocate resources to the
show for the purpose of investigating possible crimes there.
Third, it allows ATF to notify State and local law
enforcement about the show, as suggested by the National
Sheriffs Association. Finally, the notice involves the
promoter at an early stage in identifying who is
participating at the gun show.
Next, by no later than 72 hours before the gun show, the
promoter would provide a second notice to ATF identifying all
the vendors who plan to participate at the show. The
promoter's notice would include the names and licensing
status, if any, of all those who have signed up to exhibit
firearms. The primary benefits of this notification are
twofold. First, the notice gives ATF specific information
about vendors who plan to participate at the gun show, along
with their status as an FFL or nonlicensee. For any open
investigations, this information would prove extremely useful
in ATF's enforcement activities. Second, promoters will learn
the identities of the vendors so that they can plan for the
show. For example, the promoter can determine which of the
FFLs will conduct background checks for nonlicensees and, if
a significant number of nonlicensees plan to participate in
the show, the promoter can plan to have enough ``transfer''
FFLs \55\ present to meet the demand for NICS checks.
Although vendors who do not sign up for the gun show by the
time that the promoter submits the 72-hour notice may still
sign up to participate at the show, they will be required to
sign the promoter's ledger acknowledging their legal
obligations before

[[Page 22477]]

they may transact business. The promoter will be required to
submit the ledger to ATF within 5 business days of the end of
the show. All vendors will also be required to present to the
promoter a valid driver's license or other Government-issued
photographic identification.
A gun show promoter who fails to register or comply with
any of these requirements would be subject to having his or
her registration denied, suspended, or revoked, as well as
being subject to other civil or administrative penalties.
Certain violations would be subject to criminal penalties.
Vendors who sell at gun shows without signing the promoter's
ledger would be similarly subject to civil and criminal
penalties. In addition, if the vendor provides false
information to the promoter in the ledger, the vendor would
be liable for making a false statement.
Imposing these requirements on gun show promoters will make
them more accountable for controlling their shows and
ensuring that only vendors who comply with the law
participate at gun shows. Although promoters will not be
directly responsible for the performance of NICS background
checks at gun shows, it will be in the promoter's interest to
make sure that background checks are being performed in
connection with each and every firearms transfer that takes
place in whole or in part at the gun show. Gun show promoters
profit greatly from the gun sales that take place at gun
shows. However, until now, the Federal Government has not
imposed any obligations on the promoter to encourage
compliance with the law by all of the participants at the gun
show. Placing an affirmative obligation on gun show promoters
to notify vendors of their legal obligations will go a long
way toward ensuring that only lawful transactions take place
at gun shows.
Requiring vendors to sign the ledger and acknowledge that
they have received information about and understand their
legal obligations will prevent vendors from claiming that
they did not know that they were required to complete all
firearms transactions at a gun show through an FFL.

NICS Checks

No gun would be sold, transferred, or exchanged at a gun
show before a NICS background check is performed on the
transferee. the Brady Act permit exception would apply to
firearms sales at gun shows. FFLs who participate in the gun
show would be required to request NICS checks for all buyers,
whether the FFL sells firearms out of the FFL's inventory or
the FFL's personal collection. Nonlicensed sellers at the gun
show must arrange for all purchasers to go to a transfer FFL
to request a NICS check. Any FFL attending a gun show may act
as a transfer FFL to facilitate nonlicensee sales of
firearms. However, FFLs will not be required to perform this
service; they will do so only voluntarily. FFLs may choose to
charge a fee for providing this service. By having the FFL
request the background check, the proposal takes full
advantage of the existing licensing scheme for FFLs, the
FFLs' knowledge of firearms, and the FFLs' access to NICS.
The unlicensed seller may not transfer the firearm to the
purchaser until the seller receives verification that the
transfer FFL has performed a NICS background check on the
purchaser and learned that there is no disqualifying
information. The FFL's role is limited to facilitating the
transfer by performing the NICS check and keeping the
required records. Any FFL or non-FFL who transfers a firearm
in whole or in part at a gun show without completing a NICS
check on the purchaser to determine that the transferee is
not prohibited could be charged with a felony.\56\
Prohibiting any firearms from being sold, transferred, or
exchanged in whole or in part at a gun show until the
transferee has been cleared by a background check establishes
parameters that encompass all vendors, regardless of whether
they are licensed. No FFL may claim that a background check
is not required because the firearm is being sold out of the
FFL's personal collection, nor will the distinction between
FFLs and non-licensed dealers make any difference for NICS
checks. When any part of the transaction takes place at a gun
show,\57\ each and every vendor at a gun show will require a
transferee to undergo a background check before the firearm
can be transferred.\58\

Records for Tracing Crime Guns

Before clearing a transfer of any firearm by a nonlicensee,
the transfer FFL would complete a form similar to the
firearms transaction record currently used by FFLs. This
firearms transaction record would be maintained in the FFL's
records, along with the other records of firearms transferred
directly by the FFL.
In addition, FFLs would be responsible for submitting to
the NTC strictly limited information concerning firearms
transferred at gun shows, whether the FFL is the seller or
merely the transfer FFL. The information would consist of the
manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of the
firearm. No personal information about either the seller or
the purchaser would be given to the Government. Instead, as
today with all firearms sold by FFLs, the licensees would
maintain this information in their files. The NTC would
request this information from an FFL only in the event that
the firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law
enforcement trace request. In addition, FFLs would complete a
multiple sale form if they record the sale by a nonlicensee
of two or more handguns to the same purchaser within 5
business days, as is currently required for transactions by
FFLs.
This requirement provides a simple and easy-to-administer
means of reestablishing the chain of ownership for guns that
are transferred at gun shows. If the firearm appears at a
crime scene and there is a legitimate law enforcement need to
trace the firearm, ATF will be able to match the serial
number of the crime gun to the record and identify the FFL
who is maintaining the firearms transaction form. ATF can
then go to the FFL who submitted the information on the
firearm and review the record that is on file with the FFL.
This form will contain information about the transferor and
transferee, and ATF can trace the firearm using that
information. It is important to emphasize that ATF traces
guns according to specific protocols and requirements,
ensuring that the firearms information will not be used to
identify purchasers of a particular firearm except as
required for a legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Definition of ``Engaged in the Business''

Not surprisingly, significant illegal dealing in firearms
by unlicensed persons occurs at gun shows. More than 50
percent of recent ATF investigations of illegal activity at
gun shows focused on persons allegedly engaged in the
business of dealing without a license. Unfortunately, the
current definition of ``engaged in the business'' often
frustrates the prosecution of people who supply guns to
felons and other prohibited persons. Although illegal
activities by unlicensed traffickers often become evident to
investigators quickly, months of undercover work and
surveillance are frequently necessary to prove each of the
elements in the current definition and to disprove the
applicability of any of the several statutory exceptions.
To draw a more distinct line between those who are engaged
in the business of firearms dealing and those who are not,
and to facilitate the prosecution of those who are illegally
trafficking in guns to felons and other prohibited persons--
at gun shows and elsewhere--the GCA should be amended.
Accordingly, the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Justice will review the definition of ``engaged
in the business'' and make recommendations within 90 days for
legislative or regulatory changes to better identify and
prosecute, in all appropriate circumstances, illegal
traffickers in firearms and suppliers of guns to criminals.

Need for Additional Resources

To adequately enforce existing law as well as the foregoing
proposals, more resources are needed. There are more than
4,000 specialized gun shows per year, and enforcement and
regulatory activity must also occur at the other public
venues where firearms are sold.
All of the previous recommendations will help close the
existing gun show loophole, but they will not completely
eradicate criminal activity at gun shows and in the rest of
the secondary market. As the review of ATF investigations and
United States Attorney prosecutions revealed, a substantial
number of the crimes associated with gun shows are committed
by FFLs who deal off the book and ignore their legal
obligations. While a requirement that all gun show
transactions be recorded and NICS checks completed will make
it somewhat easier to identify off-the-book dealers, a
markedly increased enforcement effort will be required to
shut down these illegal markets. Further, ATF will need to
focus on preventive educational initiatives, as described
below. To accomplish all of these goals, significant
resources will be required for more criminal and regulatory
enforcement personnel, as well as prosecutors.
Without a commitment to financially support his initiative,
its effectiveness will be limited. The Departments of Justice
and the Treasury will submit budget proposals to fund this
initiative at an appropriate level.

Educational Campaign

Finally, a campaign should be undertaken in conjunction
with the firearms industry to educate firearms owners that,
should they sell or otherwise dispose of their firearms, they
need to do so responsibly to ensure that the weapons do not
fall into the hands of felons, unauthorized juveniles or
other prohibited persons. The vast majority of firearms
owners are law-abiding and certainly do not want their
firearms to be used for crime but, under the current system,
they can unwittingly sell firearms to prohibited persons.
The educational campaign could involve setting up booths at
gun shows to explain the law, encouraging unlicensed sellers
to ``know their buyer'' by asking for identification and
keeping a record of those to whom they sell their firearms;
developing videos and news articles for promoters, dealers,
trade groups, and groups of firearms owners describing legal
obligations and liability and the need to exercise personal
responsibility; and distributing posters and handouts with
tips for identifying and reporting suspicious activity.

[[Page 22478]]

5. conclusion

Although Brady Act background checks have been successful
in preventing felons and other prohibited persons from buying
firearms from FFLs, gun shows leave a major loophole in the
regulation of firearms sales. Gun shows provide a large
market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously.
Unlicensed sellers have no way of knowing whether they are
selling to a violent felon or someone who intends to
illegally traffic guns on the streets to juveniles or gangs.
Further, unscrupulous gun dealers can use these free-flowing
markets to hide their off-the-book sales. While most gun show
sellers are honest and law-abiding, it only takes a few to
transfer large numbers of firearms into dangerous hands.
The proposals in this report strike a balance between the
interests of law-abiding citizens and the needs of law
enforcement. Specifically, the proposals will allow gun shows
to continue to provide a legal forum for the sale and
exchange of firearms and will not prevent the sale or
acquisition of firearms by sportsmen and firearms
enthusiasts. At the same time, this initiative will ensure
background checks of all firearms purchasers at gun shows and
assist law enforcement in preventing firearms sales to felons
and other prohibited persons, as well as inhibiting illegal
firearms trafficking. The proposals also ensure that gun show
promoters run their shows responsibly, that all firearms
purchases at gun shows are subject to NICS checks, and that
all firearms sold at the shows can be traced if they are used
in crime. Further, these recommendations will guarantee that
everyone selling at gun shows understands the legal
obligations and the risks of disposing of firearms
irresponsibly and that law enforcement has the resources
necessary to investigate and prosecute those who violate the
law. In short, as requested by President Clinton, the
proposals will close the gun show loophole.

footnotes

\1\ See exhibit 1.
\2\ As required by the Gun Control Act, FFLs must complete
multiple sales records whenever two or more handguns are sold
to the same purchaser within 5 business days.
\3\ ATF interviewed promoters, made field observations, and
reviewed data obtained over a 5-year period to provide
information for this report.
\4\ This information was provided by officials from the
National Association of Arms Shows, which represents many of
the gun show promoters.
\5\ Semiautomatic assault weapons may be legally transferred
in unrestricted commercial sales if they were manufactured on
or before September 13, 1994. Weapons manufactured after that
date may be transferred to or possessed by law enforcement
agencies, law enforcement officers employed by such agencies
for official use, security guards employed by nuclear power
plants, and retired law enforcement officers who are
presented the weapons by their agencies upon retirement. (See
18 U.S.C. 922(v).)
\6\ Curios or relics are firearms of special interest to
collectors by reason of some quality other than those
associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as
offensive or defensive weapons. Curios or relics include
firearms that are at least 50 years old, are certified by the
curator of a Government museum to be of museum interest, or
are other firearms that derive a substantial part of their
value from the fact that they are novel, rare, or bizarre or
because of their association with some historical figure,
period, or event. (See 27 CFR 178.11.)
\7\ Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds may be
transferred or possessed without restriction if they were
manufactured on or before September 13, 1994. Large capacity
magazines manufactured after that date may be transferred to
or possessed by law enforcement agencies, law enforcement
officers employed by such agencies for official use, security
guards employed by nuclear power plants, and retired law
enforcement officers who are presented the magazines by their
agencies upon retirement. (See 18 U.S.C. 922(w).)
\8\ The National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53,
regulates machineguns, which are defined as any weapon which
shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to
shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term also
includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination
of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from
which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the
possession or under the control of a person. (See 26 U.S.C.
5845.) Machineguns must be registered with the Secretary of
the Treasury, and those manufactured on or after May 19,
1986, are generally unlawful to possess. (See 18 U.S.C.
922(o).) Parts for machineguns that do not fall within the
statutory definition of machinegun (e.g., they are not
conversion kits or frames or receivers) may be legally sold
without restriction.
\9\ When appropriate, ATF investigated these complaints and
took action ranging from warning letters explaining the need
for a license to engage in the business of dealing in
firearms, to referring a case to the United States Attorney
for prosecution.
\10\ David M. Kennedy and Anthony Braga, both of the John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
\11\ See Appendix, table 1. The large majority of the
investigations reviewed for this report were from 1997 and
1998. The remainder of the investigations was from the years
1994 through 1996, with one investigation each from 1991 and
1992. Forty-one investigations involved what may be described
as flea markets, and three investigations involved firearms
sales at auctions. The methodology of the review and a more
detailed analysis of the results are set forth in the
appendix.
\12\ See Appendix, table 2.
\13\ See Appendix, table 3. Current and former FFLs were the
subject of a significant number of investigations.
\14\ See Appendix, table 3.
\15\ See Appendix, table 4.
\16\ See Appendix, table 4.
\17\ See Appendix, table 5.
\18\ See Appendix, table 6. Because tracing a firearm
generally requires an unbroken chain of dispositions from
manufacturer to first retail purchaser, used guns--including
those sold at gun shows--have rarely been traceable.
\19\ See Appendix, table 7.
\20\ A ``straw purchase'' occurs when the actual buyer of a
firearm uses another person, the ``straw purchaser,'' to
execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from an
FFL. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser
to execute the firearms transaction record, purporting to
show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the
firearm. Often, a straw purchaser is used because the actual
purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm because of
a felony conviction or another disability.
\21\ ``Off-the-book'' sales are those made by FFLs without
conducting Brady Act background checks and without recording
the sale as required by the law and regulations.
\22\ Under the NFA, certain firearms and other weapons must
be registered. (See 26 U.S.C. chapter 53.) Table 8 shows the
types of weapons involved in the investigations involving NFA
violations. For example, more than half of the NFA
investigations involved machineguns, while 11 percent
involved grenade launchers.
\23\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(a)(1) and 923(a).
\24\ See id.
\25\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5),
(b)(2), and 923(g).
\26\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(d). The 1986 amendments to the
GCA also made it unlawful for any person to transfer any
firearm to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person is a prohibited person.
\27\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(b)(1), 922(b)(3), and
922(x).
\28\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t). A NICS check is not required
if the buyer represents to the FFL, a valid permit to possess
or acquire a firearm that was issued not more than 5 years
earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place,
and the law of the State provides that the permit is to be
issued only after a Government official verifies that the
information available to the official, including a NICS
check, does not indicate that the possession of the firearm
by the person would violate the law.
\29\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(g)(7).
\30\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(g)(1)(B). Warrantless inspections
are limited to those conducted (1) in the course of a
criminal investigation of a person other than the licensee,
(2) during an annual compliance inspection, and (3) for
purposes of firearms tracing. Id. Inspections may also be
conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a Federal
magistrate upon demonstration that there is reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of the GCA has occurred and that
evidence of such violation may be found on the licensee's
premises. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(g)(1)(A).
\31\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(e) and 924(a)(1)(D). Under
current law, an FFL's failure to perform a NICS check is a
misdemeanor.
\32\ S. Rep No. 1501, 22, 25 (1968).
\33\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(b).
\34\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(a)(2), (a)(3).
\35\ See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 178.11.
\36\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(a)(1), and 923(a).
\37\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 923(g)(2), (g)(1)(C).
\38\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(g)(7).
\39\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t)(1).
\40\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(t), and 923(g)(1)(A).
\41\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(3). An exception to this rule
is provided for sales of rifles or shotguns by licensed
dealers to nonlicensed persons if the purchaser appears in
person at the dealer's licensed premises and the sale,
delivery, and receipt comply with the legal conditions of
sale in both the seller's State and the buyer's State. See 18
U.S.C. Sec. 922(b)(3).
\42\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(5). Exceptions to this
prohibition are provided for transfers of firearms made to
carry out a bequest or intestate succession of a firearm and
for the loan or rental of a firearm for temporary use for
lawful sporting purposes. Id.
\43\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(d).
\44\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(x). A number of exceptions apply
to this prohibition, including temporary transfers in the
course of employment, for ranching or farming, for target
practice, for hunting, or for firearms safety instruction.
These exceptions all require that the juvenile to whom the
handgun is transferred obtain prior written consent from a
parent or guardian and that the written consent be in the
juvenile's possession at the time the juvenile possesses the
handgun. Id.
\45\ Compare United States v. Gross, 451 F.2d 1355, 1357 (7th
Cir. 1971) (one engages in a firearms business where one
devotes time, attention and labor for the purpose of
livelihood or profit) with United States v. Shirling, 572
F.2d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 1978) (profit motive not
determinative where one has firearms on hand or ready to
procure them for purpose of sale).
\46\ See United States v. Hernandez, 662 F.2d (5th Cir. 1981)
(30 firearms bought and sold over a 4-month period); United
States v. Perkins, 633 F.2d 856 (8th Cir. 1981) (three
transactions involving eight firearms over 3 months); United
States v. Huffman, 518 F.2d 80 (4th Cir. 1975) (more than 12
firearms transactions over ``a few months''); United States
v. Ruisi, 460 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1972) (codefendants sold 11
firearms at a single gun show); United States v. Gross, 451
F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971) (11 firearms sold over 6 weeks);
United States v. Zeidman, 444 F.2d 1051 (7th Cir. 1971) (six
firearms sold over 2 weeks).
\47\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(21)(C).
\48\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(22).
\49\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a).
\50\ T.D. ATF-191, 49 Fed. Reg. 46,889 (November 29, 1984).
\51\ The ``secondary market'' refers to the sale and purchase
of firearms after FFLs sell them at retail.
\52\ A recent case of an unlicensed individual who bought and
sold numerous firearms illustrates the difficulty involved
with prosecuting defendants charges with engaging in the
business of dealing in firearms without a license. ATF agents
discovered that an unlicensed person had purchased 124
handguns and 27 long guns from an FFL, as well as additional
firearms from flea markets and garage sales. When questioned,
the defendant admitted that he intended to resell them. At
trial, the defendant contended that buying and selling guns
was his hobby. The court, relying on the statutory
definition, instructed the jury that a person engages in the
business of dealing in firearms when it occupies time,
attention, and labor for the purpose of livelihood and
profit, as opposed to as a pastime, hobby, or being a
collector. When the jury asked for a definition of
``livelihood,'' the court explained that the term was not
defined in the law and that the jury needed to rely on its
common understanding of the term. The jury acquitted the
defendant for engaging in the firearms dealing business.
However, the jury convicted the defendant for falsely stating
on the

[[Page 22479]]

firearms transaction record executed at the time of purchase
that he was the actual buyer, when in fact, he had intended
to resell them.
\53\ All of the recommendations except number 7 and part of
number 5 would require legislation.
\54\ Although the GCA does not define ``gun show,'' the GCA
does refer to ``gun shows'' in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(j), the
exception that permits FFLs to sell firearms away from their
business premises under certain circumstances, including
``gun shows.''
\55\ The transfer FFL does not act as the seller, but rather
acts voluntarily in connection with a transfer by a
nonlicensee or licensed collector.
\56\ The legislative proposal would elevate the gravity of
the offense of not conducting a NICS check for FFLs from a
misdemeanor--which is presently contained in the Brady Act--
to a felony regardless of the venue of the transaction.
\57\ Requiring a NICS check when ``any part of the
transaction takes place at a gun show''ensures that buyers
and sellers do not attempt to avoid the requirement by
completing only a part of the sale, exchange, or transfer at
the gun show. For example, if a nonlicensed vendor displays a
gun at a gun show but the actual transfer occurs outside the
gun show in the parking lot, the vendor is prohibited from
transferring the gun without a NICS check on the purchaser.
\58\ The recommendations made in this report would be in
addition to any requirements imposed under State or local
law.

[Exhibit 1]

The White House,

Office of the Press Secretary,

Highfill, AR, November 6, 1998.
Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury
The Attorney General
Subject: Preventing Firearms Sales to Prohibited Purchasers.
Since 1993, my Administration has worked hand-in-hand with
State and local law enforcement agencies and the communities
they serve to rid our neighborhoods of gangs, guns, and
drugs--and by doing so to reduce crime and the fear of crime
throughout the country. Our strategy is working. Through the
historic Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994, we have given communities the tools and resources they
need to help drive down the crime rate to its lowest point in
a generation. Keeping guns out of the hand of criminals
through the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's
background checks has also been a key part of this strategy.
Over the past 5 years, Brady background checks have helped
prevent a quarter of a million handgun sales to felons,
fugitives, domestic violence abusers, and other prohibited
purchasers--saving countless lives and preventing needless
injuries.
On November 30, 1998, the permanent provisions of the Brady
Law will take effect, and the Department of Justice will
implement the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS). The NICS will allow law enforcement officials
access to a more inclusive set of records than is now
available and will--for the first time--extend the Brady
Law's background Law's background check requirement to long
guns and firearm transfers at pawnshops. Under the NICS, the
overall number of background checks conducted before the
purchase of a firearm will increase from an estimated 4
million annually to as many as 12 million.
We can, however, take additional steps to strengthen the
Brady Law and help keep our streets safe from gun-carrying
criminals. Under current law, firearms can be--and an untold
number are--bought and sold entirely without background
checks, at the estimated 5,000 private gun shows that take
place across the country. This loophole makes gun shows prime
targets for criminals and gun traffickers, and we have good
reason to believe that firearms sold in this way have been
used in serious crimes. In addition, the failure to maintain
records at gun shows often thwarts needed law enforcement
efforts to trace firearms. Just days ago, Florida voters
overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative designed to
facilitate background checks at gun shows. It is now time for
the Federal Government to take appropriate action, on a
national level, to close this loophole in the law.
Therefore, I request that, within 60 days, you recommend to
me what actions our Administration can take--including
proposed legislation--to ensure that firearms sales at gun
shows are not exempt from Brady background checks or other
provisions of our Federal gun laws.
William J. Clinton.

EXHIBIT 2.--DIGEST OF SELECTED STATES WITH LAWS REGULATING TRANSFERS OF FIREARMS BETWEEN UNLICENSED PERSONS OR
GUN SHOWS (12/21/98)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Regulation of gun shows? Regulation of all firearms transfers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania: 18 Pa. Stat. Ann. NO......................... YES. Nonlicense wishing to transfer firearm to
Sec. 6111; Sec. 6113.. nonlicense must do so through licensee or at
county sheriff's office. The licensee must
conduct background check as if he or she were
the seller. Exclusions apply for certain
firearms, family member transfers, law
enforcement, or where local authority
certifies that transferee's life is
threatened.
California: Cal. Penal Code Sec. YES. Must receive state YES. All transfers for firearms must be
12071.1; Sec. 12082.. certificate of eligibility through a licensed dealer who must conduct a
to operate gun show.. background check.
Illinois: 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. NO......................... YES. No one may lawfully possess any firearm
Sec. Sec. 65/2(a)(1), 65/3.. without possessing a Firearms Owner's
Identification Card (FOIC) issued by the
State police. Each transferee of any firearm
must possess a valid FOIC. Transferor must
keep record of transaction for 10 years.
Virginia: Va. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. YES. Promoter of firearm NO.
52-8.4:1, 54.1-4200, 54.1-4201.1.. show must provide 30 days'
notice, and provide pre-
and post-show list of each
vendor's name and business
address..
District of Columbia: D.C. Code NO......................... YES. It is unlawful to possess any firearm
Ann. Sec. 6-2311.. that is not registered.
Virgin Islands: V.I. Code tit. 23, NO......................... YES. No transfer of a firearm is lawful
Sec. 461.. without prior approval by Commissioner of
Licensing and Consumer Affairs.
Florida:........................... NO......................... Under Art. VIII, Sec. 5 of Florida
Constitution, counties are now free to impose
waiting periods and background checks for all
firearm sales in places where public has the
right of access; ``sale'' requires
consideration.
Puerto Rico: P.R. Laws Ann., tit. NO......................... YES. All firearms must be registered and
25, Sec. Sec. 429, 438, 439.. transfers must be through a licensed dealer.
North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. NO......................... NO. However, no transfer of a pistol is lawful
Sec. 14-402.. without the transferee first obtaining a
license from the county sheriff.
Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec. Sec. NO......................... YES. No person may acquire ownership of a
134-2, 134-3, 134-4.. firearm until the person first obtains a
permit from the local police chief. A
separate permit is required for each handgun
or pistol; a shotgun or rifle allows multiple
acquisitions up to one year.
Iowa: Iowa Code Ann. Sec. 724.16.. NO......................... NO. However, it is unlawful to transfer a
pistol or revolver without an annual permit
to acquire pistols and revolvers.
Minnesota: Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. NO......................... NO. However, it is unlawful to transfer a
Sec. 624.7131, 624.7132.. pistol or semiautomatic assault weapon
without executing a transfer report, signed
by transferor and transferee and presented to
the local police chief of the transferee, who
shall conduct a background check.
Maryland: 27 Md. Code Ann. Sec. YES. Nonlicensed persons NO.
Sec. 442, 443A(a).. selling a handgun or
assault weapon at a gun
show must obtain a
transfer permit; a
background check is
conducted on the
applicant. An individual
is limited to five permits
per year..
Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. NO......................... YES. It is unlawful to buy, sell, exchange,
571.080.. loan, or borrow a firearm without first
receiving a valid permit authorizing the
acquisition of the firearm.
South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws NO......................... NO. However, it is unlawful to transfer a
Sec. Sec. 23-7-9, 7-10.. pistol to a person who has purchased a pistol
until after 48 hours of the sale. Exceptions
apply for holders of concealed pistol permit.
New York: NY Penal Law Sec. NO......................... YES. As a general matter, no person may
400.00(16) and Sec. Sec. 265.11- possess, receive, or sell a firearm without
13.. first obtaining a permit or license from the
State. Thus, all lawful firearms transfers in
New York, including those at gun shows, would
be between licensees or permittees.
New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. NO......................... YES. It is unlawful to sell a firearm unless
2C: 39-3; 58-3.. licensed or registered to do so. No
unlicensed person may acquire a firearm
without a purchase permit or firearms
purchaser identification card.
New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. NO......................... NO. However, it is unlawful for a nonlicensee
Sec. 159.. not engaged in the business to transfer a
pistol to a person who is not personally
known to the transferor.
Connecticut: Connecticut General NO......................... YES. Anyone who sells 10 or more handguns in a
Statute Sec. Sec. 29-28 through calendar year must have a FFL or a State
29-37.. permit. Nonlicensees wishing to transfer a
firearm must receive from the prospective
purchaser an application which is then
submitted to local and State authorities.
Exceptions are for licensed hunters
purchasing long guns and members of the Armed
Forces.
Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. NO......................... NO. However, State law provides that any
Ch. 140 Sec. 129C; Sec. 128A; person may transfer up to four firearms to
Sec. 128B.. any nonlicensed person per calendar year
without obtaining a State license, provided
seller forwards name of seller, purchaser,
and information about the firearm to State
authorities.
Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. NO......................... YES. No person may sell a firearm without
Sec. 11-47-35, 36, 40.. purchaser completing application which is
submitted to State police for background
check. Seller obligated to maintain register
recording information about the transaction,
such as date, name, age and residence of
purchaser.
Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. NO......................... NO. However, no transfer of a pistol is lawful
Sec. 750.223; 750.422.. without the transferee first obtaining a
handgun purchase permit from the local CLEO.
Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. NO......................... NO. However, a private person wishing to
202.254.. transfer a firearm may request a State
background check on the prospective
transferee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22480]]

APPENDIX

Methodology

The following analyses are based on a survey of ATF special
agents reporting information about recent investigations
associated with gun shows. The investigations reflect what
ATF has encountered and investigated; they do not necessarily
reflect typical criminal diversions of firearms at gun shows
or the typical acquisition of firearms by criminals through
gun shows. Furthermore, they do not provide information about
the significance of diversion associated with gun shows with
respect to other sources of diversion. Nevertheless, they
suggest that the criminal diversion of firearms at and
through gun shows is an important crime and public safety
problem.
The analyses use data from investigations referred for
prosecution and adjudicated, and investigations that have not
yet been referred for prosecution. Thus, not all violations
described will necessarily be charged as crimes or result in
convictions. As a consequence, the exact number of offenders
in the investigation, the numbers and types of firearms
involved, and the types of crimes associated with recovered
firearms may not have been fully known to the case agents at
the time of the request, and some information may be
underreported. For example, it is likely that the number of
firearms involved in the investigations could increase, as
could the number and types of violations, as more information
is uncovered by the agents working the investigations.
Information generated as part of a criminal investigation
also does not necessarily capture data on the dimensions
ideally suited to a more basic inquiry about trafficking and
trafficking patterns. For example, investigative information
necessary to build a strong case worth of prosecution may
provide very detailed descriptions of firearms used as
evidence in the case but may not even estimate, much less
describe in detail, all the firearms involved in the
trafficking enterprise.
Information was not provided with enough consistency and
specificity to determine the number of handguns, rifles, and
shotguns trafficked in a particular investigation. Likewise,
special agents may not have information on trafficked
firearms subsequently used in crime. Such information is not
always available. Comprehensive tracing of crime guns does
not exist nationwide and, until the very recent Youth Crime
Gun Interdiction Initiative, most major cities did not trace
all recovered crime guns. The figures on new, used, and
stolen firearms reflect the number of investigations in which
the traffickers were known to deal in these kinds of weapons.
The figures on stolen firearms are subject to the usual
problems associated with determining whether a firearm has
been stolen. Many stolen firearms are not reported to the
police. Such limitations apply to much of the data collected
in this research.
Finally, except where noted, the unit of analysis in the
review of investigations is the investigation itself. The
data show, for example, the proportion of investigations that
were known by agents to involve new, used, and stolen
firearms, but these figures do not represent a proportion or
count of the number of new, used, or stolen firearms being
trafficked at gun shows. The data show what proportion of
investigations were known to involve a firearm subsequently
used in a homicide, but not how many homicides were committed
by firearms trafficked through gun shows. It was not possible
to gather more specific information within the short
timeframe of the study.
It was, for the most part, not possible to review and
verify all of the information provided in the survey
responses. However, ATF Headquarters personnel took a random
sample of 15 cases each from the 31 investigations reported
to have involved 101-250 firearms and from the 30
investigations reported to have involved 251 or more
firearms, and reviewed with ATF field personnel the
information leading to those reports. A breakdown of the
results of this review showing the basis for reporting the
firearms volume is provided below. Based on this review, ATF
concludes that the numbers of firearms reported in connection
with the investigations have a reasonable basis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
N = 32\1\
Procedure -------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firearms seized/purchased/recovered and 10 31.2
reconstruction of dealer records...................
Reconstruction of dealer records.................... 9 28.1
Firearms seized/purchased/recovered................. 6 18.8
Reconstruction of dealer records and confidential 3 9.4
information........................................
Firearms seized and admission by defendant(s)....... 2 6.2
ATF NTC compilation and confidential information.... 1 3.1
Unknown............................................. 1 3.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This breakdown includes, in addition to the basis for the numbers of
firearms reported in the randomly selected cases, the basis for the
numbers of firearms reported in the two investigations involving the
largest volumes of firearms, 10,000 and 7,000 firearms respectively.
The case involving 7,000 firearms used a combination of an audit of
firearms seized and the reconstruction of dealer records, while the
case involving 10,000 firearms used a combination of NTC records and
information from confidential informants.

TABLE 1.--INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N=314
Reason -------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidential informant........................ 74 23.6
Referred from another Federal, State, or local 60 19.1
investigation................................
ATF investigation at gun show (e.g., gun show 44 14.0
task force)..................................
Trace analysis after firearms recovery........ 37 11.8
Review of multiple sales forms................ 34 10.8
Licensed dealers at gun shows reported 26 8.3
suspicious activity..........................
Tip or anonymous information.................. 18 5.7
Field interrogation after firearm recovery.... 4 1.3
Gun show promoter reported suspicious activity 2 0.6
Analysis of out-of-business records........... 1 0.3
Unknown....................................... 14 4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 2.--INVESTIGATIONS SUBMITTED BY FIELD DIVISIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N=314
----------------------------
Field division Number of
investigations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas..................................... 43 13.7
Houston.................................... 42 13.1
Detroit.................................... 41 13.1
Philadelphia............................... 34 10.8
Miami/Tampa................................ 20 6.3
Kansas City................................ 19 6.1
Nashville.................................. 16 5.1
Columbus................................... 1.5 4.8
Seattle.................................... 11 3.5
St. Paul................................... 10 3.2
Louisville................................. 9 2.9
New Orleans................................ 9 2.9
Phoenix.................................... 8 2.5
Washington, DC............................. 8 2.5
Charlotte.................................. 8 2.5
Los Angeles................................ 6 1.9
Atlanta.................................... 6 1.9
Chicago.................................... 5 1.6
San Francisco.............................. 1 0.3
Baltimore.................................. 1 0.3
Boston..................................... 1 0.3
New York................................... 1 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 3.--MAIN SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N=314
----------------------------
Subject Number of
investigations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlicensed dealer.......................... 170 54.1
Unlicensed dealer (never FFL)............ 118 37.6
Former FFL............................... 37 11.8
Current FFL and former FFL............... 8 2.5
Unlicensed dealer and former FFL......... 2 0.6
Current FFL and Unlicensed dealer........ 4 1.3
Current FFL/Former FFL /unlicensed....... 1 0.3
Current FFL................................ 73 23.2
Felon purchasing firearms at gun show...... 33 10.5
Straw purchasers at gun show............... 20 6.4
Unknown gun show source.................... 18 5.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Overall, 46.2 percent of the investigations involved a felon
associated with selling or purchasing firearms. This percentage was
derived from aggregate investigations in which trafficked firearms
were recovered from felons; unlicensed dealers' criminal histories
included felony convictions; felons had purchased firearms at guns
shows, and a licensed dealer had a convicted felon as an associate.
When only a licensed dealer was the main subject of the investigation,
a convicted felon was involved in 6.8 percent (5 of 73) of the
investigations as an associate in the trafficking of firearms. When
the investigation involved an unlicensed dealer or a former FFL, 25.3
percent (43 of 170) of the investigations revealed that he/she had at
least one prior felony conviction.

TABLE 4.--FIREARMS ASSOCIATED WITH GUN SHOW INVESTIGATIONS KNOWN TO HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED IN SUBSEQUENT CRIMES
[34.4 percent of the investigations (108 of 314) had at least one
firearm recovered in crime]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N=108
Crime -------------------------
Number \1\ Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug offense.................................. 48 44.4
Felon in possession........................... 33 30.6
Crime of violence............................. 47 43.5
Homicide.................................... 26 24.1
Assault..................................... 30 27.8
Robbery..................................... 20 18.5
Property crime (burglary, B&E)................ 16 14.8
Criminal possession (not felon in poss.)...... 15 13.9
Juvenile possession........................... 13 12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of investigations with at least one category.

Note.--Since firearms recovered in an investigation may be used in many
different types of crime, an investigation can be included in more
than one category.

TABLE 5.--NUMBER OF FIREARMS RECORDED IN GUN SHOW INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N=314
----------------------------
Number of firearms Number of
investigations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5................................ 70 22.3
5 to 10.................................... 37 11.8
11 to 20................................... 22 7.0
21 to 50................................... 47 15.0
51 to 100.................................. 47 15.0
101 to 250................................. 31 9.9
251 or greater............................. 30 9.6
Unknown.................................... 30 9.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--For further details about this information, see the Methodology
section of this report.

TABLE 6.--NEW, USED AND STOLEN GUNS KNOWN TO BE INVOLVED IN GUN SHOW
INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Type of firearm investigations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used firearms.............................. 167 53.2
New firearms............................... 156 49.7
Stolen firearms............................ 35 11.1
unknown.................................... 75 23.9

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CATEGORIES

New firearms and used firearms............. 80 25.5
Used firearms only......................... 62 19.7
New firearms only.......................... 61 19.4
Used firearms and stolen firearms.......... 13 4.1
New firearms, used firearms, and stolen 12 3.8
firearms..................................
Stolen firearms only....................... 7 2.2
New firearms and stolen firearms........... 3 0.9
unknown.................................... 75 23.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Since more than one type of firearm can be recovered in an
investigation, an investigation can be included in more than one
category.

[[Page 22481]]

TABLE 7.--VIOLATIONS IN THE MAIN INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Violation investigations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engaging in the business of dealing without 169 53.8
license...................................
Possession and receipt of firearm by 76 24.2
convicted felon...........................
Illegal sales and/or possession of NFA 62 19.7
weapons...................................
Licensee failure to keep required records.. 60 19.1
Providing false information to receive 54 17.2
firearms..................................
Transfer of firearm to prohibited person... 46 14.6
Straw purchasing........................... 36 11.5
False entries/fraudulent statements in 27 8.6
licensee records..........................
Illegal transfer of firearms to resident of 27 8.6
another State by nonlicensee..............
Illegal transfer of firearms to resident of 21 6.7
another State by licensee.................
Receipt and sale of stolen firearms........ 15 5.8
Obliterating firearms serial numbers....... 14 4.5
Drug trafficking........................... 11 3.5
Trafficking of firearms by licensee 9 2.9
(unspecified violation)...................
Transfer of firearm in violation of 5-day 7 2.2
waiting period............................
Illegal out of state sales by nonlicensee.. 7 2.2
Licensee doing business away from business 5 1.6
premises..................................
Illegal manufacture and transfer of assault 3 1.0
weapon....................................
Sales by a prohibited person............... 2 0.6
Forgery or check fraud to obtain firearms.. 2 0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Since an investigation may involve multiple violations, an
investigation can be included in more than one category.

TABLE 8.--WEAPONS ASSOCIATED WITH NFA VIOLATIONS IN GUN SHOW
INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N=62
NFA violation -------------------------
Number \1\ Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macine guns................................... 33 53.2
Converted guns................................ 19 30.6
Silencers..................................... 9 14.5
Explosives (e.g., grenades)................... 8 12.9
Grenade launchers............................. 7 11.3
Conversion kits/parts......................... 7 11.3
Other (short barrel).......................... 5 8.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of NFA investigations with at least one category.

Note.--Since investigations may involve different types of NFA
violations, an investigation can be included in more than one
category. However, ``converted guns'' have not been included in the
``machinegun'' count.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The time of the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

TAXPAYER REFUND AND RELIEF ACT OF 1999--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto
message from the President of the United States; which was read:

To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2488, the ``Taxpayer
Refund and Relief Act of 1999,'' because it ignores the principles that
have led us to the sound economy we enjoy today and emphasizes tax
reduction for those who need it the least.
We have a strong economy because my Administration and the Congress
have followed the proper economic course over the past 6 years. We have
focused on reducing deficits, paying down debt held by the public,
bringing down interest rates, investing in our people, and opening
markets. There is $1.7 trillion less debt held by the public today than
was forecast in 1993. This has contributed to lower interest rates,
record business investment, greater productivity growth, low inflation,
low unemployment, and broad-based growth in real wages--and the first
back-to-back budget surpluses in almost half a century.
This legislation would reverse the fiscal discipline that has helped
make the American economy the strongest it has been in generations. By
using projected surpluses to provide a risky tax cut, H.R. 2488 could
lead to higher interest rates, thereby undercutting any benefits for
most Americans by increasing home mortgage payments, car loan payments,
and credit card rates. We must put first things first, pay down
publicly held debt, and address the long-term solvency of Medicare and
Social Security. My Mid-Session Review of the Budget presented a
framework in which we could accomplish all of these things and also
provide an affordable tax cut.
The magnitude of the tax cuts in H.R. 2488 and the associated debt
service costs would be virtually as great as all of the on-budget
surpluses the Congressional Budget Office projects for the next 10
years. This would leave virtually none of the projected on-budget
surplus available for addressing the long-term solvency of Medicare,
which is currently projected by its Trustees to be insolvent by 2015,
or of Social Security, which then will be in a negative cash-flow
position, or for critical funding for priorities like national
security, education, health care, law enforcement, science and
technology, the environment, and veterans' programs.
The bill would cause the Nation to forgo the unique opportunity to
eliminate completely the burden of the debt held by the public by 2015
as proposed by my Administration's Mid-Session Review. The elimination
of this debt would have a beneficial effect on interest rates,
investment, and the growth of the economy. Moreover, paying down debt
is tantamount to cutting taxes. Each one-percentage point decline in
interest rates would mean a cut of $200 billion to $250 billion in
mortgage costs borne by American consumers over the next 10 years.
Also, if we do not erase the debt held by the public, our children and
grandchildren will have to pay higher taxes to offset the higher
Federal interest costs on this debt.
Budget projections are inherently uncertain. For example, the
Congressional Budget Office found that, over the last 11 years,
estimates of annual deficits or surpluses 5 years into the future erred
by an average of 13 percent of annual outlays--a rate that in 2004
would translate into an error of about $250 billion. Projections of
budget surpluses 10 years into the future are surely even more
uncertain. The prudent course in the face of these uncertainties is to
avoid making financial commitments--such as massive tax cuts--that will
be very difficult to reverse.
The bill relies on an implausible legislative assumption that many of
its major provisions expire after 9 years and all of the provisions are
repealed after 10 years. This scenario would create uncertainty and
confusion for taxpayers, and it is highly unlikely that it would ever
be implemented. Moreover, this artifice causes estimated 10-year costs
to be understated by about $100 billion, at the same time that it
sweeps under the rug the exploding costs beyond the budget window. If
the tax cut were continued, its budgetary impact would grow even more
severe, reaching about $2.7 trillion between 2010 and 2019, just at the
time when the baby boomers begin to retire, Medicare becomes insolvent,
and Social Security comes under strain. If the bill were to become law,
it would leave America permanently in debt. The bill as a whole would
disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans by, for example,
lowering capital gains rates, repealing the estate and gift tax,
increasing maximum IRA and retirement plan contribution limits, and
weakening pension anti-discrimination protections for moderate- and
lower-income workers.
The bill would not meet the Budget Act's existing pay-as-you-go
requirements which have helped provide the discipline necessary to
bring us from an era of large and growing budget deficits to the
potential for substantial surpluses. It would also automatically
trigger across-the-board cuts (or sequesters) in a number of Federal
programs. These cuts would result in a reduction of more than $40
billion in the Medicare program over the next 5 years. Starting in
2002, they would also lead to the elimination of numerous programs with
broad support, including: crop insurance, without which most farmers
and ranchers could not secure the financing from banks needed to
operate their farms and ranches; veterans readjustment benefits,
denying education and training to more than 450,000 veterans,
reservists, and dependents; Federal support for programs such as child
care for low-income families and Meals on Wheels for senior citizens;
and many others.

[[Page 22482]]

As I have repeatedly stressed, I want to find common ground with the
Congress on a fiscal plan that will best serve the American people. I
have profound differences, however, with the extreme approach that the
Republican majority has adopted. It would provide a tax cut for the
wealthiest Americans and would hurt average Americans by denying them
the benefits of debt reduction and depriving them of the certainty that
my proposals for Medicare and Social Security solvency would provide as
they plan for their retirement.
I hope to work with Members of Congress to find a common path to
honor our commitment to senior citizens, help working families with
targeted tax relief for moderate- and lower-income workers, provide a
better life for our children, and improve the standard of living of all
Americans.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, September 23, 1999.

{time} 1715

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The objections of the President
will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will
be printed as a House document.

Motion Offered by Mr. Archer

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the
accompanying bill, be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking minority member,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the veto message that has been read
to the House; and I am stunned by the hyperbolic rhetoric and failure
to relate to the facts of the situation. And I use the word stunned
advisedly.
Simply translated, the President's message means I know better how to
spend the money than you do. He said that in Buffalo, New York, the day
after his State of the Union address this year when he commented to an
assemblage of roughly 20,000 people: Now we have this interesting new
situation of a surplus. What should we do with it? Well, one
alternative would be to give the money back to you. But who would know
if you would spend it right? That is quote/unquote from the President
of the United States.
All of the verbiage that we heard in the veto message is simply cover
to keep the money in Washington because he believes that Washington
knows best how to spend the people's money.
He vetoed this tax relief plan today, a plan which would downsize the
power of Washington and upsize the power of people. He vetoed a plan
that protects Social Security and Medicare; pays down the debt by $2
trillion; improves education and gives taxpayers only a small portion
of their money back.
Make no mistake, it is their money; not ours. We did not earn it here
in Washington. In doing so, the President said no to new school
construction. He said no to helping parents save for their children's
education. He said no to marriage penalty relief for 42 million married
Americans. He hurt baby-boomers who are saving for their retirement by
blocking IRA expansions. By his veto, he has prolonged the
confiscatory, unfair death tax.
He has made it especially tough on those caring for elderly relatives
in their own homes who would get tax relief, by blocking health and
long-term care tax relief for all American citizens. Since the
President has vetoed this tax relief plan and said no to the American
people, I challenge him to say no also to the special interests in
Washington who cannot wait to get their hands on the people's money.
I have always said that if we do not get this tax overcharge out of
Washington, Washington will most surely spend it; and now we are going
to find out if I am right.
In fact, today I ask the American people to watch very closely what
happens to their money over the next 60 days. What will happen to the
projected $14.5 billion surplus in the general treasury next year? And
that is the non-Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, my guess is
that Washington will spend the people's tax dollars like some Hollywood
movie star on a Rodeo Drive spending spree, but unlike the movie stars
who use their own money Washington will be using your credit card, your
checkbook and your wallet, and, worse still, your Social Security
money.
After this spending spree, Americans should ask themselves if they
are happy with the way it was spent. Do they think the money was spent
wisely or would they rather have had that extra $1,000 a year in their
own family budget? Because in the end, that is what this debate is all
about. Do the people trust Washington to know better how to spend their
money as the President says, or do they feel that they know best how to
spend the money in their own budgets?
Do they want their excess money going for $200 hammers or do they
want it to go to their children's education and their own IRAs? We all
know the answer to those questions, so I again ask the President to
join with us and find a way to return this tax overcharge to the
workers of the country.
President Clinton has once again put the needs of Washington above
the needs of the American people, and I think that is sad. I think this
is a sad moment for this country.
Republicans believe strongly that refunding excess tax dollars to
American families and workers is a matter of principle. Taxes are too
high. Government does not need all of the money that is coming in to
pay government's bills, and the taxpayers should get a refund. Since
President Clinton killed this reasonable tax relief plan, he has given
himself a license to spend; and spend he will. Americans should know
that the big blank check in Washington is drawn on their own checkbook,
is coming out of their family's budget, is coming out of their
opportunity to see investment to create better jobs; and they will get
stuck with the bill.
I will fight the brewing explosion of government spending and instead
use every chance available to cut taxes and create more opportunity for
all Americans, because I continue to put my faith and trust in the hard
work and values of the American people, and I believe that they know
best how to spend their own hard-earned dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has the right and
obligation to veto any bill that an abusive Congress sends to his desk
if he or she believes that the bill, the legislation, is not in the
interest of the American people.
The President of the United States has reviewed this piece of
Republican legislation and has vetoed the bill.
Now, the Congress on the other hand, has the opportunity to override
the veto. All they have to do is to indicate that they think the
President is wrong and then ask for a vote and override the veto.
Now, the Republican majority obviously do not want a vote to override
the veto. They would like to make a comment or two but they want to
avoid having a debate on the floor and exercising their constitutional
right to say that the President is wrong.
Now, why would they use this political or legislative tactic? One, it
could be that they believe the President is right and they do not want
a vote on this because they have changed their mind. They recognize the
legislation was abusive. They went home. They tried to sell it to the
American people, and the American people said they do not want it.
Or maybe it is two. Maybe they just counted the votes, and they found
out that all of the Republicans really do not believe in this political
rhetoric, so they do not have the votes to override the President.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why they are not exercising their
constitutional right.
Mr. Speaker, I really think that the reason that they do not want the
override is because they never intended to have a legislative package.
Why would they have worked so hard in the vineyards for a whole day
among just Republicans in putting together this

[[Page 22483]]

enormous $792 billion tax cut and not send it to the President? Why did
they carry this bill throughout the hills and valleys of their
congressional districts to try to sell this political document?
What they were saying is, we cannot vote for anything in the
Congress. We do not have the ability to get a bill out for Social
Security. We cannot get a bill out for Medicare, not for prescription
drugs, not for patients' rights, not for school construction, not for
gun safety. Listen, we just do not know how to shoot straight. But
there is one thing we can say that we want to do and that is reduce
your taxes. So, Mr. President, please veto the bill so that we can go
home and say that you were the one that knocked down the Christmas tree
that we put together in the House Republican leadership and the Senate
Republican leadership.

{time} 1730

All I am saying is this: Either you believe in the President by not
wanting to override the veto, either you do not have the votes to
override the veto, or either you do not believe in this document that
you put together anyway.
Meanwhile, we will await to see what you want to do. We are here, and
we are not in the majority; and we laud your efforts to attempt to
convince the American people that you are right. But believe me, the
American people want legislation, they want it on the floor, and they
want votes. If you do not like what the President did, for God's sake,
show it, and let us get a vote and let us try to override. If you do
like what he has done, but you do not have the guts to say that he has
it right, sit there, let the hour pass, and then we will move on to
something else. I hope it is Social Security. I hope it is Medicare. I
hope it is prescription drugs, but then again, I hope for too much from
the majority party.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, and
I thank the ranking member for offering a very interesting
illustration: When one cannot talk facts and policy, let us return to
process, and I welcome that attempt at rhetorical subterfuge.
I would say to the gentleman from New York, and to my colleagues on
the left, we stand ready. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would remind this
House that we have reserved H.R. 1 for a plan from the President of the
United States to help save and strengthen Social Security, but a funny
thing, and really a tragic thing, has happened down Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remind this House
that aside from certain budgetary measures required under the Budget
Act, this administration has failed to send up any of its proposals in
legislative language since the attempt to socialize medicine. Perhaps
that is the reason why they have never sent anything back to us in
detail.
So let me say to my colleague, in the best spirit of bipartisanship,
we welcome you putting your plans on the table. We encourage you, as
did our Democratic colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) to then Under Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, to have
the President bring forth his plan to save Social Security; not
rhetoric from the rostrum in a State of the Union message, but a true
legislative plan.
So let me first respond to that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me explain why I must object in the strongest
terms possible to the veto of our tax relief and tax fairness
legislation by the President of the United States. First, Mr. Speaker,
every Member of this House and every American should know that in
wielding his veto pen, President Clinton today extinguished the hopes
and dreams of small business owners for quality health insurance for
themselves and their employees in terms of 100 percent tax
deductibility. Had this President signed the legislation into law, that
would have taken effect. The President said no. And in essence, I say
to my colleagues, what transpired, not content with the largest tax
increase in American history foisted upon the American people in the
103d Congress when those who would claim to be such intrepid
policymakers on this floor, gave us the largest tax increase in
American history. Not content with that, today the President of the
United States has, in essence, raised our taxes in excess of $790
billion over the next 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, he said ``yes'' to a tax increase, ``no'' to health care
deductibility for small business. He said ``yes'' to a tax increase,
``no'' to reducing the marriage penalty. He said ``yes'' to a tax
increase and more spending, and ``no'' to an end to the death tax. He
said ``yes'' to a tax increase and ``no'' to families who sought tax
relief to care for an elderly member of the family in their home. He
said ``yes'' to higher taxes, and he said ``no'' to the American
people.
No, you should be punished for succeeding, for investing. How dare we
reduce the rate of capital gains taxation, even though a noted
Democratic President earlier in this century said that a rising tide
lifts all boats in terms of tax relief. This President said no to the
American people. He said no to the people of rural America and the
inner city.
Mr. Speaker, he said ``no'' to the people of the inner city, with our
American renewal package, incidentally, a bipartisan piece of
legislation in stand-alone form that curiously was opposed once it
became part of this overall plan.
The bottom line is, the President of the United States has again said
``no'' to the American people, ``no'' to their hopes and dreams and
aspirations, and a resounding ``yes'' to what is, sadly, flawed logic.
There are many honest disagreements we have in this chamber, and I
delight and revel in the fact that as free people, we have a chance to
continue to thoughtfully debate the different philosophical
dispensations we may have.
But one thing that cannot seem to be accepted as fact by the liberal
minority on the Hill or by the President of the United States is the
notion that the money belongs to the people who earn it, not to the
Government itself, not to the Washington bureaucrats. The money belongs
to the people. That is the message we reaffirm today, and as we went
through a litany where the President of the United States had a choice
to empower the people who work and earn and pay taxes, and to use the
terminology, Mr. Speaker, of the President of the United States, who
often says he wants to help people who work hard and play by the rules,
there was no better opportunity to do so than in signing this
legislation into law. But now, the President says he wants to veto the
legislation.
So, again it sets up this choice, and as he has enacted this veto he,
in essence, has again raised our taxes. It is worth noting that we have
two divergent paths here; and indeed, we can harken back to the State
of the Union address by the President when we welcomed him into this
chamber, again to hear his legislative priorities, although as we noted
earlier, Mr. Speaker, curiously, words that come forth in a speech are
never followed through with legislative language, for whatever reason.
We again await some sort of tangible product from the administration.
Every school child learns in civics class: the President proposes, the
Congress disposes. And we still look for some meaningful relationship,
some meaningful leadership from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
So it is in that spirit today, on behalf of the American people who
work hard, who play by the rules, who understand inherently that the
money they earn belongs to them and not to the Washington bureaucrats,
that we say in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United
States was wrong to veto this legislation. We object to that veto in
the strongest possible terms, and even as we object to this veto, we
eagerly await tangible legislation offered in a truly bipartisan sense
from the President of the United States to this body with the active
help of those members of his party; and together, we

[[Page 22484]]

will move to work out a credible, tangible, productive legislative
program that will benefit the American people.
But we fail to benefit the American people, Mr. Speaker, when we hear
the rhetoric that we heard from this President one day after he spoke
here in his State of the Union message. He went the Buffalo, New York,
and there was a statement there that was actually quite candid.
The President of the United States quoted in the press, saying, and I
quote now, ``We could give it,'' referring to the surplus that exists,
``We could give it back to you and hope that you spend it right. But,''
close quote.
Well, the ``but,'' Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there is an inherent
distrust, sadly, that this President has for the American people and
their ability to spend their own money. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I have
heard my friend, the ranking member on many national broadcasts in
recent days even attempt to defend a recent action by this President, I
find it curious that in the fullness of time, it has been exposed that
this President not only, not only cannot trust the American people with
their own money, but yet, he would trust the promises of convicted
terrorists from Puerto Rico to whom he granted clemency.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as we hear on the other side derisive
laughter. How sad and how shameful that our Commander in Chief would
trust the word of convicted terrorists over the ability of the American
people to save, spend, and invest their money themselves. This may be
honest disagreement, and we come to this chamber expressing that honest
disagreement, and again, it is in that spirit when I state in the
strongest possible terms that I must object to the veto of this tax
fairness legislation by the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman used 5\1/2\ minutes of the
time allocated to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has
25 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has 14
minutes remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the President for vetoing this reckless tax
bill. It was not easy for us to get the deficit down and to get our
economy growing at a very strong rate. The issue is not whether we are
going to be spending more money here in Washington. The issue is what
is our priority, whether our priority is to cut taxes, or whether our
priority is to reduce the deficit in order to preserve Social Security
and Medicare so we can meet our obligations in the future.
When we passed this tax bill over a month ago, many of us said that
we would be spending the projected surplus before we even produced the
surplus, and that is still true. We said that the bill would explode in
costs in the outyears, that we did not pay for it, adding to the
potential deficits of our Nation. That is still true. We said we had a
choice, but when those deficits explode, we would not have the money to
pay for the baby boomer generation, and we would not be able to
preserve Social Security and Medicare. That is still true. The choice
is whether we want the tax cut, whether we want to pay down the deficit
and protect Social Security and Medicare.
The President made the right choice for the American people. I agree
with the President.
Now, the projected surplus was based upon us adhering to the spending
caps in our appropriation bills, and we were told when we passed this
tax bill that we were going to adhere to those caps. Well, now, the
majority has conceded that we are not going to adhere to those spending
caps. We do not even have the projected surplus that was projected when
this bill was passed. This irresponsible tax bill was based upon
adhering to those spending caps.
So what is going to happen? It is a formula for large deficits. The
public understands that. That is why there has been no support for this
tax bill that the Republicans hoped to generate during the August
recess. Instead, they are looking for gimmicks to meet the spending
bills of this session. They are calling ``emergency spending'' things
like the census. They are advancing funding over and over again,
knowing full well you are just taking from next year to pay for this
year and having a bigger problem next year.
And now, the suggestion on using the welfare money. We are going to
take the money away from the governors this year, but we will give it
back to you next year when the caps are even more difficult, while what
we should be doing is reaching a bipartisan agreement with the
President to put deficit reduction first, preserving Social Security
and Medicare, and then we can deal with the tax issues and have an
adequate amount of money to meet the spending needs of this Nation.

{time} 1745

We can do it all if we want to be reasonable about it. But we first
must be honest with the American people. This irresponsible tax bill
was not honest with the American people. I applaud the President in
vetoing it. I ask my colleagues to sustain the veto so that we can get
to a bipartisan agreement.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the committee.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority here delayed sending this bill
for over a month so they could go back and sell it. They went home.
They did not sell this package. The American people spoke by their
reaction, and they said to the Republicans, keep to the path of fiscal
responsibility that Democrats started this institution on many years
before. Do not spend, the Americans said, a surplus not likely to occur
in a way not helpful to most Americans.
But the Republicans, as evidenced by what they have said here, they
do not hear. They are not listening. So, where are we? The Republicans
cannot even put together a budget and appropriation bills for 1 year,
the year 2000. How can the American people trust the majority here to
put together a fiscally responsible bill over 10 years?
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means earlier today said
this: ``Since President Clinton killed this responsible,'' that is his
word, ``tax relief plan, he has given himself a license to spend, and
spend he will.''
But we all know the President cannot spend a dime without the
approval of this Congress. Who is in control of this Congress? I think
it is the Republican majority. Their message has been, help save me
from myself. I will go recklessly.
Well, they are in the majority. They should now react by putting
together, with the President and with the Democratic minority, a new
package. But they are not doing that. What are they going to do?
Instead, tomorrow, as we understand it, we get this somewhat by rumor,
in the Committee on Ways and Means the Republican majority is going to
put up a bill. It is going to cost, we are told, over $50 billion over
5 years. It will be paid for at best for 1 year. That is another
example of fiscal irresponsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have voted for previous fiscally
responsible bills, deficit responsible bills; to have stood with all
the Democrats in 1993 for fiscal responsibility.
This Democratic Party once again says to the Republican majority,
begin to listen to the American people. They want us to sustain the
path of fiscal responsibility that has brought low inflation and low
interest rates. The President vetoed the bill because it would have
moved us away from fiscal responsibility to irresponsibility.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

[[Page 22485]]

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of August, the strategy of the
Republican Conference was to return home to their respective districts
and make an attempt to convince the American people of the merits of
this tax cut proposal. When they returned from the August break, they
collectively, I think, would agree that the American people said, we
prefer fixing social security and Medicare first, then paying down the
national debt.
What this journey proves, I think, to the Republican party at this
time is that they simply cannot sell a bad idea. The American people
responded overwhelmingly to the message, in this instance, of President
Clinton and the Democratic Caucus suggesting that, as we flip the last
pages on this century, we have the rarest of opportunities, the
opportunity to repair and fix social security, and listen to this
number, for the next 75 years, and to repair and to fix Medicare for
the next 35 years.
We would be hard-pressed to find or discover a responsible economist
across this country who has suggested once that the Nation desired or
needed or the current economic growth that we have had would benefit
from a $1 trillion tax cut.
The wealthiest businesspeople that I know back in Massachusetts have
not been clamoring for a tax cut. They argue, instead, and I think
accurately so, that they prefer and that we prefer low interest rates,
so that those who are getting into the homebuyer market for the first
time can purchase a 30-year fixed mortgage at 7\1/2\ to 8 percent, or a
15-year fixed mortgage at 7 percent. They want stability and
predictability as they forecast economic growth.
Let me state another, I think, compelling statistic here. When we
used that suggestion of a $3 trillion surplus over the next 15 to 20
years, let us emphasize on this occasion that it is a projected
surplus, heavy emphasis on the word ``projected.'' Then let me deflate
the argument that we have $3 trillion to toy with by suggesting that of
the $3 trillion, $2 trillion comes from social security.
How can we argue honestly to the American people that we really
desire this rarest of opportunity, to fix social security for
generations to come, and in the next breath say that we are going to
gamble with a projection of a surplus which might not even materialize
15 years out?
The President did the right thing on this. I hope that we will
sustain the President's veto.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts who is
just now leaving the floor that H.R. 7 was reserved by the Speaker for
the President to submit a social security bill to this House. H.R. 1,
H.R. 1 is still vacant.
I would also remind the gentleman, and I think that he is well-versed
in the Archer-Shaw plan, it does save social security for 75 years and
beyond. I would hope to tell the gentleman that we will be sure they
are marking this bill up, and it is certainly within the limitations.
If we do nothing on social security over the next 75 years, we are
looking at a $20 trillion deficit. We desperately need the lead from
the White House that we have not received. We need to get the
bipartisan support from the minority side, which we have not received.
We need to get a bill started. I can assure the gentleman that that is
exactly what is going to happen.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would inform the
Members that the motion to instruct conferees will be voted on
tomorrow. There will be no further votes.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis)
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, how dare this president go out to the
common working Joe and common working Jane in this country and veto
this tax bill, and then go out and spend $42 million, $42 million for
his little trip to Africa?
Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats are back to the same old tax and
spend policies. For 40 years they had control of this House. For 40
years they ran up the national debt. Now all of a sudden here come the
Democrats, the liberal Democrats. They like to act as if they are the
guardian angels of debt reduction.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We had a marriage, a marriage penalty out
there. It is their Tax Code. They put it in when they had control of
this House. We, the Republicans, say it is unfair to penalize people
because they are married. We think we should encourage marriage in this
country.
So what does the President do? What does the President and the
liberal Democrats do? They veto, so now the people who are married can
expect another marriage penalty for 1 more year of marriage.
What about the death tax? It is important to the liberal Democrats
that the day we visit the undertaker, we also visit the tax collector.
If Members do not think it happens, take a look. Do they call these tax
and spend policies something they can stand up here and be proud about?
My gosh, look what they are doing to the American working person. Sure,
they put out a lot of spin. Oh, we do not need a tax cut. But President
Clinton should travel to Africa for $42 million, or to China for $40
million. But they do not need a tax cut, folks. The working slobs
should just get back out and work and just keep sending money to
Washington, D.C., because the liberal tax and spend Democrats want and
think they ought to be working for them. It is finders, keepers.
Take a look at what Members are doing out here. If we could put
spending and make it a person, I guarantee that spending would be
affiliated with the Democratic Party. It would be a Democrat. We on
this side of the aisle, and frankly some conservative Democrats, happen
to think that the working man is entitled to more than what they have
given him today by vetoing the marriage penalty, by vetoing the death
tax, and by justifying the trips of the President to spend $42 million
to go to Africa, $40-some million to go to China.
I do not know what he is going to spend in the next few months while
he has his last year. He is going to spend that money every time and
not even think of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take a look at marriage in this
country, to encourage it, and to quit penalizing it. I am urging the
Members, and I have heard some very politely say, let us work in a very
bipartisan fashion. What more bipartisanship do they want than let us
get together and get rid of the marriage penalty?
What about the death tax? Let us say to our president, Mr. President,
in a time that we are trying to give married people a break, we do not
need to make $42 million trips to Africa. Mr. President, pitch in with
something other than a veto.
Then why do Members not stand up and admit who is really the party of
principles as far as that debt reduction? It does not belong on that
side of the aisle, it belongs on this side of the aisle.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand how so many Members want to deal with
the President's right to grant clemency or his trips to Africa, but I
wish they would put their outrage and emotion to override the veto.
Other than that, then I think what they are saying is either they have
not got the votes, or they agree with the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this kind of tired old sloganeering that we
have just heard is a lot of what is wrong with Washington, the
unwillingness to come together in a truly bipartisan fashion and try to
address the issue of appropriate tax relief, but to do it in a way that
does not harm our economy.
Tax and spend Democrats? That old tax and spend Democrat Alan
Greenspan, appointed by Ronald Reagan as

[[Page 22486]]

chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told these Republicans time and
time again that he thought their tax cut was a mistake, that it would
threaten our economic prosperity, and the longest running span of
economic prosperity we have had in this country in a long time.
They turned a tin ear to him. Fortunately, the American people did
not turn a tin ear, they listened to that. They recognized that when
the Sun is shining, as we have it in this great economic prosperity
today, that is the time to repair the roof, not to borrow more on the
credit card.
So it is today that the President has taken his pen out and vetoed,
yes, this irresponsible tax bill, but it was really the American people
that vetoed this bill when they had it presented to them because they
recognized how truly irresponsible it was, that we cannot have it all.
We cannot have a big tax break benefiting special interests, benefiting
those at the top of the economy, and save Social Security and Medicare
and meet the basic needs of the country.
So we Democrats have proposed that we pay down the national debt,
that we reduce the debt that has been incurred, and act in a fiscally
responsible way to provide some targeted tax relief that is paid for,
but that we meet our social security and Medicare needs.
Mr. Speaker, I think as Americans look at this Congress, they
probably recognize that Hurricane Floyd was not the only natural
disaster to afflict the East Coast in recent days. This House
Republican leadership has truly been spinning out of control talking
about this irresponsible tax break.

{time} 1800

Meanwhile, the fiscal year, the Federal fiscal year, we have got 6
working days yet to conclude it. We have one of the 13 appropriation
bills necessary to the operations of the government. After next
weekend, one of those 13 has been signed into law.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans really thought that the
President's veto was outrageous and they really thought that their $792
billion tax cut made a lot of sense, why would they not demonstrate
this by moving to override the President's veto?
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, that would be the only appropriate action
if they had the courage behind the rhetoric. But I think, as a
practical matter, they recognize they would do nothing but embarrass
many of their own Members, many who have only voted for this measure
because they were told it would never become law. They recognized and
said in their own comments that it was irresponsible, but they would
hold their nose as Republicans and follow their leadership because they
knew it would never become law. The American people and this President
would properly reject it.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Chair how much time is remaining
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Shaw) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New York would like
to yield time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to
address their remarks to the Chair and not to the President.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the President was right to veto the Republican tax bill
today. The President was right to put Social Security, Medicare, and
pay down the national debt ahead of a tax break for the rich. The
President was right. The Republican tax bill was wrong, dead wrong. It
was a step in the wrong direction.
We must use this historic opportunity to save Social Security and
Medicare and to pay down our national debt. We should not be wasting it
on huge tax breaks for America's wealthiest people.
The Republican tax bill did nothing to save Social Security, nothing
to strengthen Medicare, nothing to reduce our national debt. It was a
huge windfall for the rich, pocket change for working Americans. It was
a mistake. It was irresponsible. It was not the right thing to do. I
thank the President for vetoing the Republican tax bill.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. President Clinton has
imposed more total taxes on the American taxpayer than any President in
history.
In 1993, with the help of the Democratic majority in the House, he
gave the American taxpayer the largest tax increase, in total dollars,
in this country's history.
Today, he has been able to impose yet another huge tax hike, $792
billion, over the next 10 years.
But my colleagues ask how can this be. Well, as of this morning, the
Congress had cut taxes on working people. But by the afternoon, with
the stroke of a pen, President Clinton raised them again.
I regret that the President has today raised taxes on American
workers by increasing marginal income tax rates, taxing those who
choose to purchase health care insurance for themselves and families,
and by taxing those who choose to buy long-term care insurance. He has
also reinstated the confusing alternative minimum tax on individuals.
I further regret that the President has decided to increase taxes on
American families by reimposing the marriage penalty on married
couples, taxing educational savings accounts, which we wanted to set up
for children and grandchildren, and by punishing, through taxes, those
families who wanted to provide in-home care for senior relatives.
I also regret that the President has decided to endanger jobs through
hiking taxes on American employers, by increasing the capital gains
tax, by complicating retirement programs rules, and, finally, by
reinstating the death tax which forces the sale of many family farms
and businesses.
But, Mr. Speaker, the President believes he knows best what to do
with the people's money. So he has decided to raise those taxes again.
He may talk about Social Security, but what he means is bureaucrats'
job security. We Republicans have done the hard work in protecting
Social Security and Medicare. Our tax bill not only set aside all
Social Security and Medicare tax income, but our budget put aside $870
billion in additional revenues for Medicare.
The truth is the President wants to spend the positive cash flow. His
own budget would have busted the caps by $30 billion and turned this
year's positive cash flow into more debt. That is why we wanted to
return the money to the safety of the taxpayers' pocket. As it stands,
it is a $792 billion temptation to spenders, spenders on both sides of
the aisle.
I regret that we shall see in the next few weeks and months to come
spending schemes come out one by one at orchestrated ``program of the
day'' press conferences. That is no way to treat the hard-earned money
of America's families.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui) to deal specifically with the question of
Social Security.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and
Means, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think what we are seeing now is an example of the
Republicans trying to get themselves out of a hole that they created
back in February and March and April in this year when they came up
with their budget. The budget was inconsistent. That is why, with the
fiscal year ending on

[[Page 22487]]

Wednesday or Thursday of next week, we only have one appropriations
bill signed by the President.
They are struggling. They want us to work this weekend, but then they
change their mind because some of their folks had fund raisers. So as a
result of that, now we are going to find ourselves in a crunch in the
middle of next week. That is exactly what is going on.
So they are really relieved that the President vetoed this bill,
because now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) want to bring up a Social Security bill
sometime before we recess this year. That bill, as we all know, or we
will find out very soon when they start to move that bill, is about
$1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. It would wipe out the entire tax
cut.
What is also interesting, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said
earlier that their Social Security bill will balance out in 75 years. I
hope all of us are alive in 75 years.
But in the next 35 years, by the year 2035, and I hope that the
Republican Members know this when they vote for this bill, they will
have a general fund transfer of money to the Social Security fund of
$11.7 trillion which, in 35 years, will be in constant dollars only
about $3 trillion, about twice the Federal budget today.
So what we can really do is, my colleagues can lament about the fact
that the President vetoed this, but they are privately very happy
because then, in the next month or so, they are going to bring up
Social Security. They will bring that to the floor.
That will go down in flames because they do not have 218 votes. After
all, they are in charge of this institution. They should be able to
pass legislation. But it will fail. Then they will say, well, we tried
to do all of these things.
But the only accomplishment, unfortunately, will be to pass these
appropriations bills. I do not even know if they are going to be able
to do that. But I hope they are going to be able to do that because we
cannot afford to have social security checks in the next 2 months be
delayed because of the incompetence of the leadership.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui),
does he have a plan to save Social Security, and does it save Social
Security for 75 years? Is he prepared to vote for a plan that would
save Social Security?
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. For a short answer, I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has a
plan in which will reduce the debt, will actually not cut benefits.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, that is not my question.
Mr. MATSUI. Will the gentleman from Florida let me finish? He asked
the question.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
California knows the rules of the House.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman not allow me to answer
the question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time is yielded. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) has requested his time back.
Mr. MATSUI. Was the gentleman from Florida asking a rhetorical
question or asking me an honest question?
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman's trespassing
on my time would not count against the time that I have.
I would say to the gentleman, who is the ranking member on the
committee that I chair, that he does not have a plan that would save
Social Security for all time. The President's plan does not save Social
Security for all time. We have reached out across the aisle in order to
try to formulate such a plan; but so far, we have not received that
cooperation.
The Archer-Shaw plan does save Social Security for all time, and it
has been scored by the Social Security Administration for doing that.
It does it by preserving existing benefits without cutting one single
benefit and preserving all of the COLA's. It does not raise the payroll
taxes. As a matter of fact, it saves the $20 trillion deficit that we
would be leaving our kids over the next 75 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) for yielding me some time. But I want to express my
disappointment that the President who gave our country the biggest tax
increase in history has now vetoed meaningful tax relief for all
Americans. Why? Because Bill Clinton and Al Gore want to go on a
spending spree. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican balanced budget sets aside 100 percent of
the Social Security Trust Fund, payroll taxes, and interest on the
Trust Fund for Social Security and Medicare. The President only wants
to set aside 62 percent because he wants to spend 38 percent of Social
Security on other things. It is about spending.
The Republican balanced budget sets aside $2.2 trillion over the next
several years to pay down the national debt, $200 billion more than the
President calls for. Why? Because the President wants to spend more.
Mr. Speaker, our balanced budget takes one-quarter out of every
dollar for tax relief. In fact, over the next 5 years, we pay down $861
billion of the national debt while providing $156 billion in tax
relief.
One of the biggest concerns I often hear in the district that I
represent in Chicago in the south suburbs is the issue of fairness,
particularly tax fairness. People are frustrated that taxes are so
high, but they are also frustrated how complicated they are and how
unfair they are.
I have often asked this question, is it right, is it fair that, under
our Tax Code, married working couples pay more in taxes just because
they are married? Is it right, is it fair that 21 million married
working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes?
I happen to have with me today a photo of a couple from Joliet,
Illinois, two public school teachers, Michelle and Shad Hallihan who,
by the way, just had a baby boy named Benjamin just the other day. They
are celebrating the birth of that child. They are a typical couple that
pays the marriage tax penalty.
My friends on the other side, they call Michelle and Shad a special
interest because we are trying to help them. But these are folks who
suffer the average marriage tax penalty. And $1,400 is a lot of money
in Joliet, Illinois. It is 1 year's tuition at a local community
college, several months worth of day care. It is real money for people
like Michelle and Shad Hallihan.
Now, President Clinton says he would much rather spend their money
here in Washington because he could do it better than they can. That is
really what this issue is all about. Do we spend Michelle and Shad's
money, or do we eliminate that marriage tax penalty?
Of course the President vetoed that effort to eliminate their
marriage tax penalty today. If my colleagues think about it, their
little boy Benjamin just born just in the last few weeks, if they were
able to take advantage of the education savings account tax relief that
was included in this, which would allow them to set up to $2,000 a year
in a special account for Benjamin's education, Michelle and Shad, if we
were to eliminate their marriage tax penalty, could put that marriage
tax penalty into that account and, in 18 years, be able to pay for much
of Benjamin's college education.
That is a choice we are making here today. Do we follow President
Clinton's lead and spend it here in Washington, or do we let Michelle
and Shad Callahan keep it by eliminating the marriage tax penalty? That
is what we should be doing.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, how many times have I stood in this well
and have been reminded by others, as I remind tonight, Presidents do
not spend money. Congress spends money. All of the rhetoric that I have
heard

[[Page 22488]]

about spending will only occur if a majority of this House votes to
spend the money.
I have reached out in the hand of friendship to the gentleman on the
other side, as he knows, regarding Social Security. I can honestly say
we do have a plan.

{time} 1815

My disappointment, and why I very strongly support the President's
veto of this bill today, is that Congress has chosen not to lead on
Social Security. It was our responsibility. It was the responsibility
of the Committee on Ways and Means, in my opinion, obviously not shared
by the majority, to come up and fix Social Security and Medicare and
Medicaid first and then deal with the question of marriage tax relief,
of capital gains tax relief.
And I have said it many, many times. I am for tax cuts. I am for tax
cuts. There are many good proposals in the bill which is vetoed which I
support philosophically. But I do not support tax cuts when they are
the equivalent of taking candy from a baby, and that is what we are
talking about today.
It is true that these dollars that we hear talked about are the
American taxpayers' dollars, American people, all of us, but it is also
true that the $5.6 trillion debt is our debt. And I believe very
strongly the President is correct in saying we should pay down that
debt first before we spend additional dollars for any purpose. That
debt will need to be paid back to the Social Security program. We
should not be carelessly spending Social Security dollars.
And as we have discussed many times on the floor of this House, and
why I have said in my opinion this bill that is vetoed today is the
most fiscally irresponsible bill, because what it proposed to do in the
second 10 years, precisely at the time Social Security was going to
need some additional help, this bill proposed to take money from our
children and grandchildren. If responsible tax cuts are brought for a
vote, tax cuts which are paid for by today's dollars, I will gladly
consider their merits. But I will not steal from children and senior
citizens.
The President is right to veto this irresponsible bill, and I support
his action today. And I am glad to hear that finally, after September
22, we will have serious discussion of Social Security and Medicare and
Medicaid, and I will certainly reach out and accept the hand from the
other side. But in the meantime, let us stop this debate and this
ceaseless rhetoric regarding this tax cut and openly acknowledge that
if we are truly concerned about the future of Social Security and
Medicare and Medicaid, do it first and then do these other things, that
amount to what most of us would call the dessert.
That is why I support this veto, and I think now let us get on with
doing what we should have been doing at the first of this year, and
that is fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
My colleagues, President Clinton vetoed the Republican tax plan for
one simple reason. It uses the surplus on special interest tax cuts
instead of investing it in the future of America. I call on the
Republicans to go back to the drawing board and to produce a bipartisan
tax and budget plan, one that addresses the needs of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate how to divide up this budget surplus that
is being projected, our primary goal should be to maintain the strong
and growing economy that has benefited millions of Americans. Reducing
the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy for our U.S.
economy, and, in fact, not only Mr. Greenspan but many economists from
all political spectrums have said let us reduce the national debt.
There is a plan to do that. It is called the Blue Dog Budget. Imagine
this: We are projected to spend about 15 cents of every dollar next
year on interest for the national debt. Fifteen cents. That is 15
percent. If a family had a credit card and they were paying 15 percent
or 18 percent or 19 percent interest rates, and all of a sudden they
had more money than they thought they had at the end of the month, what
should they do with it? If they are smart, they would pay down that
credit card debt. Why? Because when they do not, the debt gets more and
more and more.
This is the time to pay the debt down. The Blue Dog Budget saves the
entire Social Security surplus for Social Security, and it locks up
half of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction. This approach will
help ensure that our economy remains strong today and for our future.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before we hear from our next Speaker on this subject, I would like to
reiterate that if the Republicans are so outraged about this veto, I
hope when the arguments are closed that they will explain to the
American people, and some of the young students of the Constitution,
why they are forfeiting their right to override the veto. When we do
not like what a President has done in terms of legislation, either we
accept it or we override it.
I am afraid what we are going to find, however, with this Social
Security plan, is that perhaps the money that is going to be used in
their plan for Social Security would be the very same money that they
would have used for the tax cut. But who knows.
I think they are going to spend the rest of the time wondering when
the President is going to come forward with a plan. And I think the
gentleman from Texas pointed out, it is the Congress that legislates
and it is the President that executes. If there is going to be any
legislative plan, do not be running around howling at the moon asking
for the President's bill.
They are part of the majority. They should assume the majority and
legislate. Not that they have had a great history for it so far this
session. But maybe they should try it. They might like it. It may work.
Something may happen. But I cannot think of anything that has been done
to give any evidence that they have appeared to lead. They did not lead
in the tax bill, they did not lead in Social Security, they do not lead
in Medicare, they do not lead in a patient's bill of rights, they do
not lead in gun safety, and they do not lead in education.
So I do not know how much time they have to close, but I will be glad
to yield some time to them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I have been over in my office listening to some of this rhetoric,
and I was not going to come over here, but let me just say this.
I could agree with almost everything that the Republicans have said
were it not for the fact that there is not a $3 trillion projected
surplus. There is only a $1 trillion projected surplus. Because all of
us have agreed that $2 trillion of that $3 trillion is Social Security
money and ought to stay in the Social Security System or retire the
national debt.
I could agree with almost everything that has been said were it not
for the fact that we have a $5.6 trillion debt, a $3.8 trillion hard
debt. Now, to ask us to take 80 percent of the on-budget projected
surplus over the next 10 years and obligate it now is something that I
do not think any prudent business person in this country would do.
And, furthermore, I was thinking about this. This bill, if we want to
call it that, is asking basically for me to say to my children, I am
going to go buy a new car, but, Mr. Banker, when I borrow the money
from you for that car, I am only going to pay the interest on it. And
when my children become 21, send them the bill for the car. Or I am
going to buy a house, but, Mr. Banker, I am only going to pay the
interest on it. Send the price of the house, the money that I borrowed
to buy the house, send the bill for it to my children when they get to
be 21.
We are not against tax cuts. We had in our budget a $250 billion
piece. That is a pretty sizable sum. But let me tell my colleagues how
irresponsible I

[[Page 22489]]

think this is and how far the American people are ahead of us on this.
When they have got an $800 billion tax package that has got something
for almost every citizen in this country in it, and they cannot sell it
and they cannot override it, they know it is irresponsible. The
American people know that it is irresponsible, and that is why I am
glad the President did what he did.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Time of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) has expired.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is really humorous tonight to
listen to this debate. For 40 years the liberal spending Democrats had
majority in this House. When I got here, in 1994, we had a $5 trillion
debt. Now, they had control of spending for 40 years. How did we get a
$5 trillion debt?
For 40 years they did not mind spending out of the Social Security
Trust Fund for every kind of program they could think of. They did not
worry about balancing the budget then. They did not worry about paying
down the debt. Now, all of a sudden, they are worried about it. That is
very, very funny. Very strange.
Well, our plan, the Republican plan, sets aside $1.9 trillion, 100
percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus money, to protect
Social Security. One hundred percent. What are they setting aside?
Twenty-seven trillion dollars is going to come into the Federal
Government over the next 10 years. What is wrong with allowing the
American people to have $792 billion back of their money?
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, all time has expired on the
minority side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I
say to my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), who has asked several
times why we do not move to override the veto, that he knows as well as
I do the very simple fact is that we do not have enough Democrats to go
in with the Republicans to raise the two-thirds majority necessary to
give the American people the relief from the marriage tax penalty,
relief from the death tax, and relief from so many of the other taxes
that we have.
I think, too, that the Members on the other side are well aware of
the fact that we have got locked away, as the gentleman from Kentucky
just said, locked away sufficient dollars from the Social Security
surplus in order to more than repair Social Security, more than take
care of the problems that we are facing in Medicare. Indeed, it would
be irresponsible to be spending that money, and that is why we passed
the lockbox legislation, and that is why we have this in our budget,
that was passed by the House, in order to prevent this type of
spending.
But putting all this aside, and Members can say anything on this
floor and it goes out like it is the truth, but the facts and the
figures are there and they are there for all of us to see. But what I
want to see is what is going to happen now next week as the spending
bills, the appropriation bills, come to the floor. Are my friends on
the other side of the aisle going to vote against them because we do
not spend enough? I suggest that they will. Will the President veto
them because we do not spend enough? I suggest that he will. And I
wonder, when he does that, and as they vote and explain their votes on
the other side of the aisle, how they will explain how they are saving
this money for Social Security and saving Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE PHIL ENGLISH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Phil English, Member of Congress:

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 21, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that my office has
received a subpoena for documents issued by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Phil English,
Member of Congress.

____________________

PERIODIC REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN--MESSAGE
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 106-131)

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:

To the Congress of the United States:
As required by 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), I transmit herewith a 6-month periodic report on
the national emergency with respect to the Iran that was declared in
Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, September 23, 1999.

{time} 1830
NATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING STRATEGY FOR 1999--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo) 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 the Judiciary and the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services:

____________________

PRESIDENT CLINTON VETOES TAX RELIEF PACKAGE

(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, today President Clinton vetoed the much-
needed tax relief package passed by this Congress. President Clinton
has permanently cemented his legacy as a tax raiser and sworn enemy of
tax cuts.
By vetoing this legislation, the President is denying the average
middle-class family relief from the marriage tax penalty. The President
is robbing millions of workers the opportunity to obtain health
insurance benefits who cannot afford to do so now. He is making it more
difficult for parents to save for their children's education. He is
making it more difficult for people to pass on the family farm or the
family business after a lifetime of toil, sacrifice, and devotion to
building a great enterprise. The President is making it more difficult
for people to save for their future and provide for their own
retirement.
This vetoed tax relief legislation would have been a step toward more
fairness in the Tax Code and it would have reduced the burden on people
who are carrying the load, paying the taxes, and trying to live the
American dream.

[[Page 22490]]

This veto is irresponsible and dangerous. Once again, Government wins
and the taxpayer loses.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII
WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME-DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-330) on the resolution (H. Res. 300) waiving a
requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration
of certain resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). 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.

____________________

AFFORDABLE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last week the Office of Personnel
Management announced that premiums for the Federal Employees Health
Plan would increase by 9 percent next year, the third straight year of
large increases.
On January 1, Medicare managed care plans in this country planned to
drop 395,000 senior citizens from their plans. Last year 400,000 were
dropped. Most of the remaining plans are curtailing or terminating
prescription drug benefits.
Those are the numbers. Here are the stories.
Last month I received a letter from a 71-year-old widow in Sheffield
Lake, Ohio, who had taken a part-time job to help pay for her
prescription drugs.
Until United Health Care pulled out of her county and left her
without a health plan, she had some drug coverage. But just one of her
medications, lipitor, absorbed most of her entire benefit.
I recently spoke with a woman in Elyria, Ohio, who spends $350 out of
her $808 a month Social Security check on prescription drugs.
What is the common thread here? The high cost of prescription drugs.
Prescription drug spending in the U.S. increased 84 percent in the
last 5 years. We have spent $51 billion in 1993. Last year we spent $93
billion.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, two factors caused
the steep FEHB premium increases. One of those factors is technology.
The other is the mushrooming cost of prescription drugs.
According to GAO, HCFA, and market analysts, one of the key reasons
Medicare HMOs fail to turn a profit and drop so many seniors is they
underestimated how much it would cost to cover the cost of prescription
drugs.
I receive letters every day from seniors who cannot stretch their
Social Security check far enough to cover prescribed medications. Some
of the increased spending derives from expanding use of prescription
medicines. But according to most analyses, two-thirds of the increases
are attributable to price inflation.
The American public is right to wonder why is Congress not doing
something about that. The simple reason is our threats from the drug
companies. The drug companies say, if you do not leave drug prices
alone, we will not produce any new drugs anymore.
I believe it is time that we use market forces, by that I mean good
old-fashioned American competition, to challenge that threat. We can
introduce more competition in the prescription drug market and still
foster medical innovation. We need information from the drug companies
to go explore industries' claim that U.S. prices are where they need to
be.
The bill I introduced today, the Affordable Prescription Drug Act,
lays out the groundwork we need to do both. Drawing from intellectual
property laws already in place in the United States for other products
in which access is an issue, pollution control devices under the Clean
Air Act are one example, this legislation would establish product
licensing for essential prescription drugs.
If a drug price is so outrageously high that it bears no resemblance
to pricing norms for other industries, the Federal Government could
require drug companies to license their patent to generic drug
companies. The generic companies could then sell competing products
before the brand name patent expires, paying the patent holder
significant royalties for that right. The patent holder would still be
amply rewarded for being the first in the market, but Americans would
benefit from competitively driven prices when there would be two or
three or four sellers in the marketplace.
Alternatively, a prescription drug company could in fact lower their
prices, which would preclude the Federal Government from finding cause
for product licensing. Either way, high drug prices come down.
The bill requires drug companies to provide audited detailed
information on drug company expenses.
This is not some brand new, untried proposal. Product licensing is
done in France. It has been done in Canada. It is done in Germany. It
is done in Israel. It is done in England.
Let me leave my colleagues with this: Through the National Institutes
of Health, American taxpayers finance 42 percent of the research and
development that generates new drugs, 42 percent. The private
foundation and State and local governments and other non-industry
sources kick in another 11 percent. That means prescription drug
companies account for half the money in research and development of new
drugs.
The Congress has given drug companies generous tax breaks on the R&D
dollars that they do shell out. And yet, we pay the highest prices in
the world in this country, sometimes two or three or four times the
price for prescription drugs that people pay in any other country in
the world.
Drug companies, and luck for them, drug companies score a triple-
double. Congress gives the drug companies huge tax breaks. Taxpayers
pay most of the cost for research and development. And yet, the drug
companies charge Americans the highest price in drug world. Go figure.
Drug company profits outpace those of every other industry by at least
five percentage points.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Congress to pass the Prescription Drug
Affordability Act.

____________________

BALTIMORE REGIONAL CITIZENS AGAINST LAWSUIT ABUSE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge a group of citizens
in my district who are working hard to address an issue affecting every
citizen in our State, lawsuit abuse.
Throughout my district and all over the greater Baltimore area, local
citizens are volunteering their time and energy to inform the public
about the cost associated with the excessive numbers and types of
lawsuits filed in today's litigious society.
The men and women of the Baltimore Regional Citizens Against Lawsuit
Abuse have a simple goal, to create a greater public awareness about
abuses of our civil justice system.
This type of citizen activism has had a positive impact on
perceptions and attitudes towards abuses of our legal system, a problem
most folks do not consider as they go about their daily routine.
While the overall mission of Baltimore Regional Citizens Against
Lawsuit Abuse is to curb lawsuit abuse and abuse of our legal system,
the organization's main focus is on education. Every time these
dedicated Marylanders speak out about lawsuit abuse, ordinary citizens
are educated on the

[[Page 22491]]

statewide and indeed nationwide impact our civil legal system has on
our daily lives.
The cost of lawsuit abuse includes higher costs for consumer
products, higher medical expenses, higher taxes, higher insurance
rates, and lost business expansion and product development, a serious
problem in the United States of America.
I worked hard to reform our legal system at the State level during my
days as a member of the Maryland General Assembly. During my tenure in
Congress, I have supported efforts with respect to product liability
reform, securities litigation reform, and reform of our Federal
Superfund program.
More specifically, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on
Banking and Financial Services during the 105th Congress, I sponsored
bipartisan legislation that has helped reduce frivolous class-action
lawsuits brought against small-business people employed as mortgage
brokers.
Mr. Speaker, legal reform is a complex issue, as we have seen
actually today on the floor of this House and in the past 5 years from
the 104th Congress and the 105th Congress, as well. The legal system
must function to provide justice to every American.
When our open access to the courts is abused or used to the detriment
of innocent parties who happen to have money or happen to have
insurance coverage, this system must be reviewed and reformed,
sometimes in State legislatures, sometimes on this floor.
Let me acknowledge the board of the Baltimore Regional Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse for giving of their valuable time and energy: The
Honorable Phillip D. Bissett, Vicki L. Almond, Joseph Brown, Dr.
William Howard, Sheryl Davis-Kohl, Gary O. Prince, and the Honorable
Joseph Sachs.
Mr. Speaker, the Baltimore Regional Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
has declared September 19-25 as Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week in
Maryland.
I want to commend these citizens and all involved in this worthwhile
effort, for their dedication and commitment, and to acknowledge this
week as a time of public awareness regarding the serious issues
associated with abuse of our civic legal system.

____________________

EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD WITHDRAW UNFAIR, DISCRIMINATORY REGULATION
RESTRICTING HUSH-KITTED AND REENGINED AIRCRAFT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join my colleagues, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) the gentleman from
Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the ranking member, in supporting a resolution expressing
the sense of Congress that the administration should act swift and
decisively if the European Union does not withdraw its unfair,
discriminatory regulation restricting hush-kitted and reengined
aircraft.
In particular, the resolution strongly urges the administration to
file an Article 84 complaint with the International Civil Aviation
Authority, ICAO, so that it can be objectively determined whether the
EU regulation violates international standards.

{time} 1845

On April 29, 1999, the European Council of Ministers adopted a
resolution that will in effect ban the operation of former State 2
aircraft that has been modified either with hushkits or new engines to
meet the Stage 3 international noise standards. The Europeans claim
that the hushkit regulation is needed to provide noise relief to
residents living around airports in crowded European cities. However,
the European Union has not provided any technical evidence that would
demonstrate and improve noise or emissions climate around airports as a
result of this rule.
This is not an environmental regulation, as the Europeans suggest.
Rather, this re-regulation is an unfair unilateral action that
discriminates against U.S. products and severely undermines
international noise standards set by ICAO. By unilaterally establishing
a new regional standard for noise, the EU is taking local control over
an international issue. In addition, the EU has done this in such a way
that the regulation most adversely impacts U.S. carriers, U.S. products
and U.S. manufacturers.
The House of Representatives has already expressed its strong
opposition to this misguided regulation by passing H.R. 661, the bill
introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), which would ban the operation of the Concorde
in the U.S.A. Passage of H.R. 661, I believe, showed the Europeans that
the United States is serious about protecting U.S. aviation interests
against unfair unilateral trade actions. As a result, the effective
date of the EU regulation was postponed until May 2000 in an attempt to
accommodate the concerns of the United States.
Yet although the implementation date was delayed for a year, the
regulation was adopted and is now law. As a result, the regulation is
already having a negative economic impact on U.S. aviation. The
regulation has raised serious doubts about the future market for
hushkitted and re-engined aircraft, which in turn has already lessened
the value of these aircraft and has put a halt to new hushkit orders.
This is why the EU regulation must be completely withdrawn.
My understanding is that the European Parliament will not consider
withdrawing the regulation until significant progress is made on Stage
4, the next generation noise standard. The U.S. is already working with
the EU through ICAO on defining and implementing a Stage 4 noise
standard. Let me state for the Record that the United States is fully
committed to the development of a Stage 4 noise standard, however it is
difficult to move forward towards a new noise standard while the EU
hushkit regulation is still on the books. With its hushkit regulation
the EU ignores its priority agreements with ICAO and has developed its
own regional restrictions. Given this, it will be nearly impossible to
convince the 185 countries of ICAO to agree to a new noise requirement
on aircraft. Why would any carrier in any country want to invest in
Stage 4 aircraft if any country in the world can also impose its own
restrictions on aircraft? It simply does not make sense.
Nevertheless the U.S. is working patiently with the Europeans on
developing a Stage 4 noise standard. However, the ongoing discussions
and negotiations could continue for weeks, if not months. Yet each day
that the EU hushkit regulation remain on the books costs the U.S.
aviation industry more money.
For this reason the U.S. must challenge the EU regulation in an
international forum. The United States must send a clear signal that it
will not allow Europe to set international standards on its own. In
particular, the U.S. Government should use the Article 84 process
provided by the Chicago convention to resolve disputes between two or
more States. The U.S. should file an Article 84 complaint at ICAO
asking the international organization to determine whether the EU
hushkit regulation violates its standards. This would demonstrate how
serious the U.S. considers the issue. It would also show the EU that
the United States has the support of the rest of the world on this very
important aviation issue.

____________________

IN SUPPORT OF A MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for
an increase in America's minimum wage. The current minimum wage pays
$10,712 a year for full-time work. That is not even enough to lift a
family of three above the poverty line.
America needs families earning a decent living, wages good enough to
afford a home and a car and a quality education for our children. That
is how we grow the American economy.

[[Page 22492]]

This year my colleagues are proposing to increase the minimum wage by
$1 over a period of 2 years. In my home State of Nevada more than
60,000 workers would benefit from this increase.
Opponents say that a minimum wage increase would be bad for the
economy. I do not believe that. The last time we raised the minimum
wage, the job market boomed, and unemployment fell to a historically
low 4.2 percent. That is what we enjoy now, and our economy has never
been stronger.
Keeping minimum wage workers below the poverty lines means that
taxpayers everywhere are in effect picking up the tab for the costs of
that poverty, Mr. Speaker, whether it be through food stamps, hospital
emergency room visits or the social consequences of children neglected
by their parents who work excessively long hours just to get by.
An increase in minimum wage benefits businesses, families, women,
children, minorities, every aspect of our communities. It benefits all
of us.
Congress just gave itself a $4600 pay increase, more than two times
the pay raise that the minimum wage bill proposes. Yet here we are
still debating the merits of a pay raise for the people who serve our
food, care for our children, clean our office buildings and perform
countless other jobs that our economy depends on and are vital to the
daily functions of our society.
Americans deserve a decent day's pay for a hard day's work. Let us do
the right thing in this Congress. Let us pass the minimum wage
increase. America's working families need it, they deserve it, and they
should have it.

____________________

TECHNOLOGY IN OUR SOCIETY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the
issue of technology in our society and how it effects us. We have all
heard a lot about it. There are a lot of stories about technology
companies booming and how it is changing our lives in everything from
the information we get to the entertainment that we choose. But one has
to wonder sometimes, as my colleagues know, just exactly how much does
high tech effect all of us. We certainly read about the people who are
making millions on it in Silicon Valley or elsewhere throughout our
country, but how does it effect the rest of us? And that is a question
I want to answer tonight because the other part of it is there is a lot
of policies that we are advancing here in Congress aimed at helping the
high tech industry, and in advancing those policies a lot of people
wonder, as my colleagues know, why should we push something that is
simply targeted out of narrow industry. Should we not look at the
broader good of the country?
The argument I want to make tonight is that we are looking at the
broader good of the country when we talk about advancing policies to
help the high tech industry, and in fact technology and its growth and
the economic opportunity that it creates is one of the most important
things for all of us in this country as we face the future.
As a Democrat and, more specifically, as a member of the new
democratic coalition, creating opportunity for me is supposed to be
what this place, Congress and government, is all about. I grew up in a
blue collar family on the south end of Seattle down by the airport and
was very pleased to grow up in a society that gave me the opportunity
to do a little hard work to achieve whatever I wanted in life. No one
in my family had ever gone to college before. I went to college, went
on to law school and basically created the life for myself that I
wanted. I did not do it alone; I did it because of the society that we
have created here, to make sure that that sort of opportunity is
available to as many people as possible.
As we look towards the 21st century, one of the key issues in making
sure that that opportunity continues to be available to everybody is
technology. As my colleagues know, there is no such thing anymore as a
low tech area of this country. Technology effects all of us regardless
of what our business or what our interests are, and it can have a
positive effect. The unemployment rate, the economic growth that we
enjoy right now at 30-year low for the unemployment rate, 30-year high
for the economic growth is driven in large part by technology, and
again that benefits all of us.
It also benefits us as consumers. We are finally creeping towards a
situation where consumers will have that level of information that is
really required for a free market to work. No longer, for instance, do
you have to go down to the local car dealership and hope that you are
better at arguing than the car dealer who you are going to deal with to
get the best price on a car. You can look it up on the Internet, get
the price, get an offer, go down and get your car. You can find the
lowest price without having to go through that negotiating session, Mr.
Speaker, and the same is true for products across the board. That
empowers consumers and enables every single family out there to stretch
their budget farther.
More importantly, I think, is the information that is available, the
education that is available to all of us through the use of technology
over the Internet. As my colleagues know, you do not necessarily have
to go off and get a four-year degree somewhere anymore to learn a skill
that is going to enable you to be employable or maybe improve your
current job situation. That information, Mr. Speaker, is out there for
all of us.
So the big point I want to try to make tonight is that when we talk
about technology policy, when we talk about, as my colleagues know,
making the telecommunications infrastructure available to everybody,
increasing exportation of computers and encryption softwear, investing
in research and development, we are not just talking about, gosh, as my
colleagues know, there happens to be a company in my district that
would benefit from this so let us go ahead and help them out so we can
employ a few people maybe in central Texas or in northern
Massachusetts. What we are talking about is policies that are going to
benefit our economy across the board.
That is why we in this body should be supportive of this agenda, this
agenda that is moving towards trying to make sure that America
continues to be the leader in these high tech areas that are going to
be so critical to our economic future, Mr. Speaker. Are those policies
that we have been advancing include certainly education at the top end
of that, investments in making sure that we educate our work force and
educate our children and implement the lifelong learning plans that we
know are going to be necessary, are critical to reaping the benefits?
It is also critical that we build the telecommunications
infrastructure necessary to make sure that this high tech economy can
flow. In the 19th century building railroads was critical to economic
development. In the 20th century building highways was. In the 21st
century building a telecommunications infrastructure is going to be
critical to our economic health. We need to advance the policies that
make that happen.
Now there is a lot of debate back here about winners and losers,
various telecommunications companies maneuvering for advantages or to
disadvantage opponents, but for all of us in this body the Number 1
goal ought to be to build the infrastructure, set up the policies that
make it happen, and I guess the biggest thing about high tech for me is
that, as I mentioned, being a Democrat, a new Democrat, is about
creating opportunity. But that opportunity does not always come through
a government program. In fact, the best place that opportunity is
created is in a strong economy where the government does not have to
get involved, and that is what technology does for us. By enabling
businesses to grow in the fast-growing sector of technology we create
jobs, we create economic growth that benefits all of us across the
board.

[[Page 22493]]

And I would like to, I guess, conclude by making it specific to my
district. As my colleagues know, a lot of people know that I am from
the Seattle area, and there is assumption that the only reason I care
about technology is because, well, Microsoft just happens to be from
that area. They happen to actually be from an area quite different from
my district. I represent the district south of Seattle, a blue-collar
suburb, mostly Boeing workers, some at Weyerhauser, a blue-collar area
that is about as far away from Microsoft, at least psychologically, as
Boston is from it geographically. It is a different area. It is folks
who do not necessarily work directly in that tax sector. But I know
that those people, the people that I grew up with and now represent,
are the ones who are going to most benefit from policies that help
America maintain its leadership role in technology. Because the folks
at Microsoft, the folks in silicon valley, they have got it, okay? They
have got it, and then some. We do not really need to worry about taking
care of them. We need to make sure that our economy continues to expand
in a way to include people like the people I represent, and these
policies that will help technology grow will do just that. They will
create more and better jobs and a stronger economy so that opportunity
gets spread, and it is not locked into just a few folks.
I really hope that in this country we can understand that this talk
about the digital divide really misses the point. There has always been
divisions between people who have knowledge and people who do not. What
technology gives us the opportunity for is to shrink that divide, not
increase it. All you have to have these days to get access to the same
information that everybody else in the world has is a relatively cheap
PC, which is down to like almost $500, and a telephone, dial-up service
access to the Internet. Technology can be the great equalizer if we
build that telecommunications infrastructure that I was talking about.
It can create opportunity, not just for the richest of the rich, but
most importantly for the poorest of the poor.
That is why we need to be smart about these policies and advance
them. We also need to be smart and realize that in advancing any
industry, but certainly in the technology industry, we need access to
overseas markets.

{time} 1900

Ninety-six percent of the people in the world live some place other
than the U.S. That means if we are going to sell stuff we are going to
need access to those other markets. We currently consume 20 percent of
what the world produces and that is great, but that means the rest of
the world is where our markets are available. We need to get access to
those things.
I really believe that we have the opportunity to succeed and provide
opportunity for the people we represent in this country as we never
have before. We are already doing that. I think we can do even better,
but we have got to be smart about embracing the policies and recognize
that technology is not just about what is going on between Microsoft
and AOL or NetScape or anybody. What it is about is creating
opportunity for everybody in this country and showing that we can use
technology to be that great equalizer, to help lift folks up out of
poverty or wherever they want to go to realize these opportunities.
So when people hear us down here talking about these policies about
research and development, telecommunications, patent reform,
encryption, exports, whatever, understand that it is not just about
talking about some specific company. It is talking about the new
economy and the direction that our economy is headed; in fact, in many
ways is already at. We need to be there, keep up and make sure that we
advance the policies that will make sure that that opportunity spreads
to all of us, not just to a select few.
I am committed to doing that. The new Democratic coalition that I am
proud to be a part of is doing that, and we understand the importance
that technology companies and technology policy will play in that. I
urge every American to recognize that as well and work hard to advance
these policies so we can continue to create the type of opportunity
that we have been creating in recent years.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Holden (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and the balance
of the week on account of medical 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. Brown of Ohio) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Lipinski, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Berkley, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Ehrlich) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Ehrlich, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Foley, for 5 minutes, September 24.
Mr. Bereuter, for 5 minutes, September 24.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 2 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, September 24, 1999,
at 9 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

4389. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Sweet Cherries Grown in
Designated Counties in Washington; Change in Pack
Requirements [Docket No. FV99-923-1 FIR] received September
17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
4390. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Modoc
and Siskiyou Counties, California, and in All Counties in
Oregon, Except Malheur County; Temporary Suspension of
Handling Regulations and Establishment of Reporting
Requirements [Docket No. FV99-947-1 FIR] received September
17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
4391. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--2,6-
Diisopropylnapthalene; Temporary Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance [OPP-300918; FRL-6381-7] (RIN:
2070-AB78) received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4392. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Spinosad; Pesticide
Tolerance [OPP-300920; FRL-6381-9] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received
September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
4393. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sulfentrazone;
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-300903;
FRL-6097-8] (RIN: 2070- AB78) received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
4394. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Tebuconazole; Extension
of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-300919; FRL-6381-
6] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received September 17, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4395. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Tebufenozide; Benzoic
Acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1- (1,1-

[[Page 22494]]

dimethylethyl)-2-(4-ethylbenzolyl) hydrazide; Pesticide
Tolerance [OPP-300914; FRL-6380-1] (RIN: 2070-AB) received
September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
4396. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting
a response to Section 1072 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, titled: ``Study of
Investigative Practices of Military Criminal Investigative
Organizations Relating to Sex Crimes,'' pursuant to Pub. L.
85 section 1072(c)(2) (111 Stat. 1899); to the Committee on
Armed Services.
4397. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting
an update on Department of Defense efforts to comply with
Section 1237 of the National Defense Appropriations and
Authorization Act of 1999; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
4398. 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
Petition [FRL-6437-2] received September 10, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
4399. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Delaware; Control of Emissions
from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills [DE037-1015a;
FRL-6439-2] received September 10, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
4400. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
New Source Review in Nonattainment Areas [VA 022-5040; FRL-
6436-8] received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
4401. 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; Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County [AZ 086-0017a;
FRL-6438-1] received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
4402. 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; Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District; Kern County Air Pollution Control
District; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
[CA201-169a; FRL-6436-2] received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
4403. 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; Oregon [Docket No.
OR55-7270; FRL-6438-5] received September 17, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
4404. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Interim Final
Determination that State has Corrected the Deficiency State
of Arizona; Maricopa County [AZ 086-0017c; FRL-6438-3]
received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
4405. A letter from the Acting Chief, Network Services
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary
Network Information and Other Customer Information;
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Provision of Directory
Listing Information under the Telecommunications Act of 1934,
As Amended [FCC No. 99-227; CC Docket No. 96-115, CC Docket
No. 96-98, CC Docket No. 99-273] received September 14, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
4406. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Multispecies and Atlantic Sea Scallop
Fisheries; Northeast Multispecies and Atlantic Sea Scallop
Fishery Management Plans [Docket No. 990830239-9239-01; I.D.
082499A] (RIN: 0648-AM99) received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
4407. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; LET Aeronautical Workers Model L-13 ``Blanik''
Sailplanes [Docket No. 99-CE-16-AD; Amendment 39-11320; AD
99-19-33] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 20, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4408. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-12 and PC-12/45
Airplanes [Docket No. 98-CE-119-AD; Amendment 39-11319; AD
99-19-32] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 20, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4409. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Model S76A, B, and C
Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-44-AD; Amendment 39-11317; AD
99-19-30] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 20, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4410. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Airbus Model A340 Series Airplanes [Docket No.
99-NM-175-AD; Amendment 39-11318; AD 99-19-31] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received September 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4411. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Amendment to Class
E Airspace; Lawrence, KS [Airspace Docket No. 99-ACE-35]
received September 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4412. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Amendment to Class
E Airspace; North Platte, NE [Airspace Docket No. 99-ACE-33]
received September 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4413. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Modification of
Class E Airspace; Sheridan, IN Correction [Airspace Docket
No. 99-AGL-31] received September 20, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4414. A letter from the Acting Chief, Office of Regulations
and Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations for Marine Events; Neuse River Bridge Dedication
Fireworks Display; Neuse River, New Bern, North Carolina [CGD
05-99-079] (RIN: 2115-AE46) received September 20, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4415. A letter from the Acting Chief, Office of Regulations
and Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Hackensack River, NJ [CGD01-99-162]
(RIN: 2115-AE47) received September 20, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4416. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-251-AD; Amendment 39-
11314; AD 99-19-27] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 17,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4417. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. 98-NM-249-AD; Amendment 39-11313; AD 99-19-26]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4418. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Airbus Model A340 Series Airplanes [Docket No.
99-NM-159-AD; Amendment 39-11312; AD 99-19-25] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4419. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 98-
NM-278-AD; Amendment 39- 11316; AD 99-19-29] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4420. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting a the

[[Page 22495]]

Department's final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Dassault
Model Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, and Falcon 2000
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-11-AD; Amendment 39-11311;
AD 99-19-24] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4421. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER)
Model EMB-120RT and -120ER Series Airplanes [Docket No. 98-
NM-261-AD; Amendment 39-11315; AD 99-19-28] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4422. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B Series
Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-220-AD; Amendment 39-11310; AD
99-19-21] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4423. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airport Name Change
and Revision of Legal Description of Class D, Class E2 and
Class E4 Airspace Areas; Barbers point NAS, HI [Airspace
Docket No. 99-AWP-11] received September 17, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
4424. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Removal of Class E
Airspace; Arlington, TN [Airspace Docket No. 99-ASO-16]
received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4425. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Hazardous Materials: Limited Extension of Requirements for
Labeling Materials Poisonous by Inhalation (PIH) [Docket No.
HM-206D] (RIN: 2137-AD37) received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4426. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations; Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida [CGD07-99-063]
(RIN: 2115-AE46) received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4427. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations for Marine Events; Chincoteague Power Boat
Regatta, Assateague Channel, Chincoteague, Virginia [CGD 05-
99-076] received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4428. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Drawbridge
Operating Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Iowa &
Illinois [CGD08-99-056] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received September
17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4429. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Safety Zone: Movie
Production, Gloucester, MA [CGD01-99-161] (RIN: 2115-AA97)
received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4430. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airspace
Designations; Incorporation by Reference [Docket No. 29334;
Amendment No. 71-31] received September 17, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4431. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.
29734; Amendment No. 1949] received September 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4432. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Modification of
Class E Airspace; Bryan, OH [Airspace Docket No. 99-AGL-38]
received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4433. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Modification of
Class E Airspace; Escanaba, MI. Correction [Airspace Docket
No. 99-AGL-34] received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4434. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of the
Chief Counsel, FAA, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Amendment to Class
E Airspace; Winfield/Arkansas City, KS [Airspace Docket No.
99-ACE-44] received September 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4435. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, Department
of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule--NOAA
Climate and Global Change, Program Announcement [Docket No.
990513129-9129-01] (RIN: 0648-ZA65) received September 9,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Science.
4436. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Interest on Underpayment, Nonpayment or Extensions of Time
for Payment of Tax [Rev. Ru. 99-40] received September 17,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.

____________________

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. TALENT: Committee on Small Business. H.R. 2392. A bill
to amend the Small Business Act to extend the authorization
for the Small Business Innovation Research Program, and for
other purposes (Rept. 106-329 Pt. 1). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 300.
Resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported
from the Committee on Rules (Rept. 106-330). Referred to the
House Calendar.

discharge of committee

Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X, the Committee on Science discharged
from further consideration. H.R. 2392; referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.

____________________

TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the
Speaker:

H.R. 2392. Referral to the Committee on Science extended
for a period ending not later than September 23, 1999.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. GEKAS (for himself and Mr. Smith of Michigan):
H.R. 2922. A bill to extend for 6 additional months the
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States
Code is reenacted; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ARCHER:
H.R. 2923. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend expiring provisions, to fully allow the
nonrefundable personal credits against regular tax liability,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BAKER (for himself, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Leach,
Mr. LaFalce, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Castle, Mr. Riley, Mr.
Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr.
Capuano):
H.R. 2924. A bill to require unregulated hedge funds to
submit regular reports to the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, to make such reports available to the
public to the extent required by regulations prescribed by
the Board, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committees on Commerce, and Agriculture, 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. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, and Mr. Fletcher):
H.R. 2925. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
finance the provision of outpatient prescription drug
coverage for low-income Medicare beneficiaries and to provide
stop-loss protection for outpatient prescription drug
expenses under qualified

[[Page 22496]]

Medicare prescription drug coverage; to the Committee on
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
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. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. Bliley, Mr.
Goodling, Mrs. Northup, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Green of
Wisconsin, Mr. Talent, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Portman, Mr.
Hobson, Mr. Ballenger, and Mr. Salmon):
H.R. 2926. A bill to provide new patient protections under
group health plans and through health insurance issuers in
the group market; to the Committee on Commerce, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce,
Ways and Means, and the Judiciary, 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. BROWN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Stark, Mr. Allen, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin,
and Mr. Wynn):
H.R. 2927. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to
provide for compulsory licensing of certain patented
inventions relating to health; to the Committee on the
Judiciary, 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. DeMINT (for himself and Mr. Stenholm):
H.R. 2928. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to provide an exemption to States which adopt certain
minimum wage laws; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. FARR of California (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Lipinski, Mr. Stark, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Lewis of California, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr.
Traficant, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Gallegly,
Mr. Hall of Ohio, and Mr. Tancredo):
H.R. 2929. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit certain conduct relating to elephants; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. DUNN:
H.R. 2930. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to increase Medicare payment for pap smear
laboratory tests; to the Committee on Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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. GREEN of Wisconsin:
H.R. 2931. A bill to direct the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to carry out a 3 year pilot program to
assist law enforcement officers purchasing homes in locally-
designated high-crime areas; to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
By Mr. HANSEN:
H.R. 2932. A bill to authorize the Golden Spike/Crossroads
of the West National Heritage Area; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. LARSON (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Bonior, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Shows, Mr. Frost, Mrs.
Thurman, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Woolsey, Ms.
DeLauro, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Wu, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, Mr. Costello, Mr. Owens, Ms. Berkley, and
Mr. Holt):
H.R. 2933. A bill directing the Secretary of Education to
propose a comprehensive approach to providing technologically
competent teachers to our Nation's schools, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. LARSON (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Bonior, Mr. Frost, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr.
Etheridge, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Wu, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Holt):
H.R. 2934. A bill to amend the Domestic Volunteer Service
Act of 1973 to provide for the establishment of a National
Youth Technology Corps program, using VISTA volunteers who
are highly proficient in computer technologies to recruit and
organize youth to implement and maintain computer systems for
public schools, community centers, public senior centers, and
libraries and to teach students, teachers, senior citizens,
and other persons how to use these technologies and systems;
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. McHUGH:
H.R. 2935. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
permit the Secretary of Transportation to waive noise
restrictions on certain aircraft operations; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr.
Houghton, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Coyne, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, and Mr. Matsui):
H.R. 2936. A bill to extend the temporary waiver of the
minimum tax rules that deny many families the full benefit of
nonrefundable personal credits, pending enactment of
permanent legislation to address this inequity; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. RIVERS:
H.R. 2937. A bill to repeal the War Powers Resolution; to
the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to
the Committee on Rules, 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. ROEMER (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Hill of Indiana, Ms. Carson, Mr.
Souder, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Pease, Mr. Hostettler, and
Mr. Buyer):
H.R. 2938. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 424 South Michigan Street in
South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John Brademas Post Office''; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. SAXTON (for himself and Mr. Kucinich):
H.R. 2939. A bill to provide the highly indebted poor
countries with relief from debts owed to the International
Monetary Fund, to end United States participation in and
support for the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility of
the International Monetary Fund, and to require certain
conditions to be met before the International Monetary Fund
may sell gold, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 2940. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to provide
liability relief for small parties, innocent landowners, and
prospective purchasers; 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 Mr. BONIOR:
H. Res. 301. A resolution provide for the consideration of
H.R. 325; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. Condit, Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Campbell,
Mr. Fossella, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Gary Miller of
California, and Mr. Shays):
H. Res. 302. A resolution expressing the desire of the
House of Representatives to not spend any of the budget
surplus created by Social Security receipts and to continue
to retire the debt held by the public; to the Committee on
the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and
Means, 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. PITTS:
H. Res. 303. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives urging that 95 percent of Federal
education dollars be spent in the classroom; to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 72: Mr. McCollum.
H.R. 354: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 534: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Kleczka, Mr.
Hinojosa, and Mr. Stenholm.
H.R. 601: Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Goodling.
H.R. 670: Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 684: Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 750: Mr. Metcalf and Mr. Dixon.
H.R. 776: Mr. Dixon.
H.R. 832: Mrs. Kelly.
H.R. 860: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 870: Mr. Brady of Texas.
H.R. 960: Mr. Martinez.
H.R. 963: Mrs. Fowler and Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 976: Mr. Rush, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Fletcher, Mr.
Capuano, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 980: Mr. Ganske.
H.R. 1006: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 1046: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1068: Mr. Isakson.
H.R. 1115: Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Thornberry, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Stump, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Riley, Mr.
Bachus, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Metcalf.
H.R. 1145: Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 1193: Mr. Talent.
H.R. 1221: Mr. McCollum.
H.R. 1228: Mr. Gary Miller of California and Ms. Carson.
H.R. 1248: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 1275: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Castle, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Greenwood,
Mr. Luther, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Rivers, Mr.

[[Page 22497]]

Coburn, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Leach.
H.R. 1303: Mr. Salmon.
H.R. 1304: Mr. Watkins and Mr. Visclosky.
H.R. 1333: Mr. Ney.
H.R. 1344: Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hinojosa, and Ms. Stabenow.
H.R. 1446: Mr. Isakson.
H.R. 1522: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 1523: Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 1535: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Radanovich, and Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 1592: Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Sherwood, Mr.
Watkins, and Mr. Boehner.
H.R. 1598: Mr. Matsui, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, and Mr. DeMint.
H.R. 1606: Mr. Maloney of Connecticut.
H.R. 1621: Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Ney, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, and Mr. Goodling.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Condit and Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 1624: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1629: Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 1650: Mr. Regula.
H.R. 1689: Mr. Cardin.
H.R. 1732: Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Hill of Indiana, Mr.
Hilliard, and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 1857: Mr. Hutchinson and Mrs. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 1887: Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Dixon,
and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1890: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1917: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 1926: Mr. Metcalf and Mr. Isakson.
H.R. 1932: Mr. Callahan, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mrs. Emerson,
Mr. Manzullo, Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Bass, Mr. Franks of New
Jersey, and Mr. Radanovich.
H.R. 2000: Mr. Cunningham, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Goodling.
H.R. 2066: Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Berry, and Mr.
Martinez.
H.R. 2087: Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 2200: Mr. McHugh and Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 2205: Mr. Salmon and Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 2244: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Radanovich.
H.R. 2247: Mr. Nethercutt.
H.R. 2252: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 2260: Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 2267: Mr. Shaw, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Kleczka, and Mr.
Gilchrest.
H.R. 2289: Mr. Nethercutt and Mr. Pombo.
H.R. 2314: Mr. Tanner.
H.R. 2365: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Mr.
Bishop.
H.R. 2376: Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 2392: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2418: Mr. Ganske, Mr. Spence, Mr. Clyburn, Mr.
Fletcher, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Watkins.
H.R. 2420: Mr. Martinez, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Lampson, and
Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 2423: Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 2463: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 2464: Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 2491: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 2498: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 2505: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 2534: Mr. Reyes and Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 2539: Mr. Martinez.
H.R. 2592: Mr. Barton of Texas and Mr. Coburn.
H.R. 2602: Mr. Sawyer.
H.R. 2608: Mr. Gillmor.
H.R. 2631: Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Pickett, Ms. Pelosi,
Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Becerra.
H.R. 2638: Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr. Sununu.
H.R. 2640: Mr. Smith of Michigan.
H.R. 2655: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Doolittle.
H.R. 2659: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri and Mr. Owens.
H.R. 2680: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Meeks of New York, and Mr.
McDermott.
H.R. 2687: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 2698: Mr. Largent.
H.R. 2709: Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Ms. Danner, Mr. Ehrlich,
Mr. Bliley, Mr. Wynn, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Bilbray, and Mr. Lewis
of California.
H.R. 2719: Mr. Owens.
H.R. 2734: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
H.R. 2735: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 2750: Mr. Coburn and Mr. Hill of Montana.
H.R. 2764: Mr. Pastor and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 2783: Mr. Largent and Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 2784: Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 2790: Mrs. Kelly.
H.R. 2809: Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Lee, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Talent, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Wu, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 2810: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 2825: Mr. Largent.
H.R. 2890: Ms. Velazquez, Mr. George Miller of California,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 2895: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Abercrombie, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Walsh,
and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 2896: Mr. Forbes and Mr. Moore.
H.J. Res. 65: Mr. Spence, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Bereuter, and Mr. Wolf.
H. Con. Res. 30: Mr. LaHood.
H. Con. Res. 134: Mr. Foley.
H. Con. Res. 186: Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr.
Goodling, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr.
Crane.
H. Res. 41: Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, and Mr. Porter.
H. Res. 109: Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Moran of Kansas, and Mr.
LoBiondo.
H. Res. 269: Mr. Largent, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Knollenberg, and
Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H. Res. 287: Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Ms. Pelosi.
H. Res. 292: Mr. Gillmor.
H. Res. 297: Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Bliley, Mr. Goode, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Bateman, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Castle, Mr. Wynn, and Mr.
Salmon.
H. Res. 298: Mr. Becerra, Mr. Goodling, Mrs. Myrick, Ms.
Lofgren, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, and Mr. Stark.

____________________

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:

H.R. 2506

Offered By: Mr. Andrews

Amendment No. 12: Page 16, after line 15, insert the
following subsection:
(c) Certain Linkages Regarding Health Information.--
Initiatives under subsection (a) shall include the
establishment, through a site maintained by the Director on
the telecommunications medium known as the World Wide Web, of
linkages that enable users of the site to obtain information
from consumer satisfaction agencies or other entities that
perform evaluations regarding the quality of health care,
including more than one link to entities that evaluate health
maintenance organizations, and including a link to the
National Committee for Quality Assurance.

H.R. 2506

Offered By: Mr. McGovern

Amendment No. 13: Page 12, after line 14, insert the
following subparagraph:
(C) The conduct of research to develop recommendations for
a national strategy to alleviate the shortage of licensed
pharmacists.
Page 12, line 15, strike ```(C)'' and insert `` `(D)''.

H.R. 2506

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 14: Page 21, after line 8, insert the
following subsection:
(d) Certain Technologies and Practices Regarding Survival
Rates for Cardiac Arrest.--The innovations in health care
technologies and clinical practice that are promoted under
subsection (a) shall include promoting the placement in
public buildings of automatic external defibrillators as a
means of improving the survival rates of individuals who
experience cardiac arrest in such buildings. Activities under
the preceding sentence shall include the development of
recommendations regarding the placement of such devices in
Federal buildings, including recommendations on training,
maintenance, and medical oversight, and on coordinating with
the system for emergency medical services.

H.R. 2506

Offered By: Mr. Traficant

Amendment No. 15: Page 46, after line 2, insert the
following section:

SEC. 4. BUY AMERICAN PROVISIONS.

(a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds authorized
pursuant to this Act may be expended by an entity unless the
entity agrees that in expending the assistance the entity
will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3,
1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the ``Buy
American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving
such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase
only American-made equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall provide to each recipient of the
assistance a notice describing the statement made in
paragraph (1) by the Congress.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

September 23, 1999

[[Page 22498]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

DEBT RELIEF AND IMF REFORM ACT OF 1999

______

HON. JIM SAXTON

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I have been joined by my friend Dennis
Kucinich in offering legislation to advance debt relief and reform of
the International Monetary Fund (IMF). While this may appear to be an
ambitious undertaking, it is my view that true and lasting debt relief
will be most quickly and effectively obtained through IMF reform. The
bill contains four main sections: conditions on gold sales; termination
of ESAF and use of its reserves for debt relief; a freeze on IMF
funding until debt relief is provided; and Congressional pre-approval
of future proposed quota increases.
As the research of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has found, the
IMF in recent decades has drifted away from its original mission and
towards becoming another development bank much like the World Bank. The
development and economic restructuring loans made under this policy
have become increasingly problematic, as the recent cases of Russia and
Indonesia indicate. The leading edge of this drift in IMF policy has
been the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, or ESAF.
It was a fundamental policy mistake for the IMF to have established
ESAF and embarked on the course of development lending that has led to
so many serious problems around the world. This legislation seeks to
correct this mistake by closing ESAF and using its reserves for debt
relief. The legislation is based on the view that the policy underlying
the establishment of ESAF is bankrupt, and therefore ESAF should be
ended, and its legacy of heavy debt burdens on the poorest nations
should be written off. As I have said many times, my own view is that
this type of lending through the IMF's general resources should also be
ended, and the IMF refocused on its original function.
The bill also would pre-condition U.S. approval of gold sales upon
the following: cancellation of IMF debt owed by countries eligible for
debt relief under HIPC, increased IMF financial transparency, a
Congressional finding of IMF compliance with Congressional reforms, an
accurate accounting of IMF costs, and use of the gold restitution
provisions. The IMF's attempt to tap taxpayer funds through the new
gold sales proposal about to be unveiled would be blocked. The bill
would also block future IMF appropriations until debt relief is
provided and require Congressional pre-approval of any future proposed
quota increases.
The IMF has been generously funded by the taxpayers of its major
donor nations for many years. However, these resources have often been
used to implement counterproductive IMF policies around the world. The
IMF and Administration approach essentially papers over IMF mistakes
with additional taxpayer money tapped in ways that are not always
transparent. It is our view that the cost of IMF policy mistakes should
be paid out of IMF resources, and not through further contributions by
the taxpayers.
For more information on the IMF and international economics, please
visit our website at www.house.gov/jec.

____________________

LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST/VENTURA WILDERNESS FIRE

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, Mother Nature beckons our notice
as she shakes the earth in Taiwan, destroying cities and killing
thousands. She bombards the east coast with wind and water, leaving
hundreds without a livelihood, home, or lifetime collection of
possessions. There is hardly a community in the Nation that hasn't on
some level taken notice of the eerie weather patterns striking the
planet. And in my own home district, a brilliant and awe inspiring
lightning storm witnessed throughout the area on September 8, leaves
its mark in the form of numerous wildfires setting the northern portion
of the scenic Los Padres National Forest ablaze.
The Northern Los Padres National Forest, which encompasses the
Ventura Wilderness, is comprised of about 326,000 acres of rolling,
forest covered mountains and open valleys, and is refuge to myriad
wildlife and forage. Seventy-five percent of the park is protected as
wilderness, and it is home to several of the nearly extinct species of
the California Condor and houses a variety of native Indian sacred
pictographs. Overlooking the Pacific Ocean along the Big Sur Coast and
contained in the east side by the San Antonio Mountain range, the area,
visited by 5.4 million per year, is both a national preserve and a
local institution.
The rough terrain and a particularly dry season, coupled with
excessive growth due to last years El Nino, has commanded the
occupation of a small army of firefighters. What began with four
separate blazes consuming 3,000 acres and requiring 900 firefighters,
with hopes of full containment within the week, has now burned over
30,000 acres and has in excess of 3,500 fire fighters on the ground.
There are now two main fires racing across the landscape, jumping fire
lines and stream beds, and forcing crews to retreat into a primarily
defensive position. Although the fires are considered 20 percent
contained, expected total containment is unknown.
The fire now threatens residences, businesses, and retreats, and has
forced the evacuation of several hundreds of people. The fire men and
women hold the areas, strategically fireproofing positions, hoping to
win any direct confrontations with the blaze. Included in their arsenal
are 26 helicopters, 17 air tankers, and 121 fire engines. Ground
fighters who were originally restricted to drawing fire lines only with
shovels, chain saws and other hand tools, due to Federal wilderness
regulation, now utilize 34 bulldozers, with which they can protrude up
to 20 miles into the national wilderness. The project, which averages a
cost of half a million per day, has now totaled $20.5 million.
Firefighters work 24 hour shifts, flanking the fire in crews of 2 and
4, each containing 8 to 24 members. The National Forest Service, Air
Force ``hot shots,'' the State Department of Forestry and other
professional and volunteer firefighters attempt to contain the inferno.
Smoke jumpers repel off helicopters into remote areas, cut heli-spots
which allow the helicopters to bring troops in and out, and begin
cutting fire lines. Thus far 17 fire fighters have sustained injury,
though none serious.
Fort Hunter Liggett personnel work to provide a base camp for
approximately 1,500 people and 10 helicopters, while another camp just
west of the small town of Greenfield provides a mini ``tent city,''
housing over 2,000 personnel and equipment. A Zen Buddhist retreat, the
Tassajara Zen Center, plays host to 80 fire fighters, housing and
feeding them their common vegetarian fare, even granting them the use
of their famous sulfur hot springs.
It's a common story. Mother Nature, whose nourishment provides for us
daily in a quiet and steady manner, seems to have a change of heart.
Suddenly we are forced to take notice, and the heroes emerge. Men and
women risk life and limb, the potential cost a paycheck will never
cover, working to ensure our safety and protection. The whole incident
is only a far away story of interest to us, and yet any one of us could
find ourselves that homeowner; watching the ash cover our life's work,
the smoke looming in the sky and the intense yellow glow over the
horizon. As we pack only what we can carry and say goodbye, we hope our
home will still be there when we return. Or perhaps we could find
ourselves under 1,200 pounds of rubble, praying we are discovered, or
boating through a canal that the day before was our home street, hoping
for a hero to rescue us, because we will not survive alone. Regardless
of the incident, we find ourselves dependent on the courage and
strength of others.
And so we must ask ourselves, where is the lesson in all of this? How
can we ever truly thank the heroes of our district, our Nation and our
world? We must support their efforts. We must honor their efforts, and
we must remember their efforts. We must find the courage and the
strength within ourselves to follow their lead. Because Mother Nature
is talking to us. She is demanding we take notice. The fire

[[Page 22499]]

now racing across our world in the form of war and oppression, hunger
and disease and injustice and suffering demands immediate attention and
decisive action. It demands selfless preservation and protection,
perfectly analogous to that of these men and women tackling the
towering blazes of the Los Padres. It requires heroes.
And so, I would ask that in strength and comradery, in thought and in
action, we honor those who have honored us. Today I thank the
firefighters for their efforts in the Los Padres. We salute you.

____________________

CONGRATULATING FATHER MICHAEL SCANLAN

______

HON. ROBERT W. NEY

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following proclamation to my
colleagues:

Whereas, Father Scanlan graduated from Harvard Law School
in 1956 and served as Staff Judge Advocate in the U.S. Air
Force; and,
Whereas, Father Scanlan served as acting dean of the
College of Steubenville and as a lecturer in theology from
1964-1966 and later became President of the College of
Steubenville, now Franciscan University of Steubenville, in
1974; and,
Whereas, Father Scanlan was honored in 1997 with the Sacrae
Theologiae Magister, an academic degree beyond the doctorate,
and the highest award given by the Franciscan Order; and,
Whereas, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating
Father Scanlan on his lifetime of service to his community as
well as the College. I am proud to call him a constituent.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO HELEN STANTON

______

HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Ms. Helen Stanton, who is retiring this month from her position as
executive director of The Creative Center, a performing arts program
for developmentally disabled adults in Visalia, CA.
Ms. Stanton began her service at The Creative Center 14 years ago,
serving as program manager. In 1993, she was named executive director
of the Center. There, she has supervised a staff of 12 instructors who
help developmentally disabled adults in the Visalia area to achieve
personal growth through expression in visual arts, music, dance and
theatrical performance.
Ms. Stanton has made special efforts to develop the Center's
instruction in life skills. In these classes, Center instructors
address such topics as independence, social graces, dealing with money,
and self-advocacy.
Under Ms. Stanton's leadership, the Center has undergone significant
growth, expanding from 42 students attending part-time in 1985 to a
present enrollment of 84 full-time students.
Ms. Stanton has also overseen the opening of the Center's Jon
Ginsburg Gallery. The gallery exhibits artwork produced by the Center's
students and community members.
Ms. Stanton's commitment to the performing and visual arts is also
evident by her presidency of Arts Visalia, a nonprofit group devoted to
developing an art gallery in downtown Visalia.
Creative Center colleagues have been inspired by Ms. Stanton's
devotion to the Center and its students. She has treated the Center's
students with dignity and respect and provided them with countless
creative opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing
Helen Stanton for her devoted service to The Creative Center. She has
distinguished herself as a caring visionary and tireless leader. As she
completes her service, we wish her a most happy retirement.

____________________

SALUTE TO JOHN M. LANGSTON BAR ASSOCIATION AFRICAN AMERICAN ANNUAL HALL
OF FAME HONOREES

______

HON. JULIAN C. DIXON

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to four prominent
and distinguished members of the legal community in Los Angeles:
Attorney Mary Burrell Fulton; United States District Court Chief Judge
Terry J. Hatter; Attorney Elbert T. Hudson; and Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Sherrill Luke. On October 16, 1999, these four exceptional
individuals will be inducted into the John M. Langston Bar Association
Ninth Annual Hall of Fame. I cannot think of four people more deserving
of this distinct honor and am pleased to have this opportunity to
publicly recognize their extraordinary contributions to the legal
profession.
Attorney Mary Burrell Fulton received her undergraduate degree in
government from Los Angeles State College where she was a member of the
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. In 1961 she became the first Black woman to
graduate from the UCLA law school. She was admitted to the California
State Bar on January 9, 1962, and began her career as an associate in
the offices of legendary Los Angeles attorney Crispus A. Wright. In
1965 she joined the law firm of Lloyd, Bradley, Burrell & Nelson, whose
client list included renowned entertainer Dr. William (Bill) Cosby. She
established a solo practice in 1981 and in 1991 teamed with retired Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Henry P. Nelson to found the firm of
Nelson & Fulton. Mary has served as a mentor to many young, aspiring
attorneys and has contributed much to the Los Angeles community through
her participation in numerous career day programs.
Judge Terry Hatter was appointed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California in 1979. On March 1, 1998, he
was named Chief Judge, presiding over the court which covers the
largest federal district in the nation, serving some 17 million people.
Judge Hatter received his undergraduate degree in government from
Wesleyan University in Connecticut and his law degree from the
University of Chicago. His exemplary legal career spans more than
thirty years, and includes service as an attorney, public defender,
Assistant United States Attorney, Executive Assistant to Mayor Tom
Bradley, and Professor of Law at the University of Southern California
Law Center and Loyola University School of Law. Judge Hatter has
presided over some of the most controversial and difficult cases to
come before the Central District. Widely respected by attorneys and
judges alike, he has served the court with great distinction for twenty
years. He is a Trustee of Wesleyan University, and member of the
Visiting Committee for the University of Chicago Law School.
Broadway Federal Bank Chairman Elbert T. Hudson has had a
distinguished career of service to our community and nation, beginning
with his service during World War II in the U.S. Army Air Corps as one
of the legendary Tuskegee Airmen. He received his undergraduate degree
from UCLA and his law degree from Loyola University School of Law.
Prior to joining Broadway Federal, founded by his father, Dr. H. Claude
Hudson, Elbert practiced law for 20 years. In 1972 he became the
President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Broadway Federal
Savings and Loan Association. Although he stepped down as CEO in 1992
and resumed the practice of law, he remains chairman of he bank's Board
of Directors. He is a member of the Board of Police Commissioners; the
Board of Directors of the Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company;
and President and Board Member of the NAACP ``New Careers'' JEPTA
Training Center. He is a past president of the Los Angeles Branch of
the NAACP, as well as the American League of Financial Institutions. He
has served on numerous other boards, including the Board of Directors
of Drew University Medical School.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sherrill D. Luke was named to the
Superior Court bench after spending nearly a decade hearing cases
before the Los Angeles Municipal Court. He received his undergraduate
degree from UCLA; his master of arts degree from the University of
California, Berkeley; and his doctor of jurisprudence from Golden Gate
University. His impressive career includes service as an attorney;
Cabinet Secretary to former California Governor Pat Brown; Adjunct
Professor of Law at Loyola University Law School; and President of the
Los Angeles City Planning Commission. He is a member of several
professional and civic organizations, including the California Judges
Association, Langston Bar Association, and the California Association
of Black Lawyers. He remains deeply involved with his alma mater, UCLA,
where he is a member and the past president of the UCLA Alumni
Association; member and cochair of the Advisory Board of the UCLA
Performing Arts Program, and the Stephens House of Scholarships
Association.
Mr. Speaker, these four individuals have made enormous contributions
to the system of jurisprudence, and it is especially fitting that they
are being recognized by their peers for

[[Page 22500]]

their exemplary service. As they are inducted into the John M. Langston
Bar Association's Hall of Fame, I am pleased to salute Mary, Terry,
Elbert, and Sherrill for the contributions they have made which
continue to enrich the judiciary and the Los Angeles community. Well
done, my friends!

____________________

TRIBUTE TO FLORENCE CHANDLER

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure
to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who has dedicated the better part
of her life to an admirable career in public service. For over a half
century, Florence Chandler has worked tirelessly for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. During that time she continuously reinforced the
notion that government and politics can be a noble endeavor. On the
occasion of her retirement, I want to express my own personal
congratulations and thanks on a job well done.
Like many patriotic American women during World War II, best
characterized by the defiant Rosie the Riveter, Florence Chandler's
slogan has always been ``We Can Do It!'' From the Town Hall to the
White House, Florence brought her trademark energy and enthusiasm to
every challenge. She was a strong, resilient, and sometimes singular
voice for the people of Southbridge. For nearly a decade, I watched her
place the town's best interests before her own. She would lobby local,
state and national officials for what she believed in. And she always
earned respect and admiration along the way.
A new police station, daycare center and water treatment facility are
part of the legacy she will leave behind. A stabilized tax rate and
major school renovations have also been achieved during her tenure. But
her finest hour was bringing the Department of Defense training
facility to Southbridge. It is her signature accomplishment. Quite
simply, without the charismatic leadership of Florence Chandler that
exciting project and those new jobs would not be in this community.
A town manager, an attorney, a friend, a sibling and a grandmother,
Florence has been a success in life on many different levels. She is
the rare individual who succeeded at bringing the town of Southbridge
to the attention of the President of the United States. For those who
say it can't be done, I would recommend spending a day with Saugus
native Florence Chandler. Like Rosie the Riveter, she has shown that
anything is possible.

____________________

SISTER HARRIET HAMILTON, RECIPIENT OF THE UNITED WAY'S CONGRESSWOMAN
MARY T. NORTON MEMORIAL AWARD

______

HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sister Harriet
Hamilton for winning the United Way's Congresswoman Mary T. Norton
Memorial Award.
Initiated by the United Way of Hudson County in 1990, this award
recognizes individuals who exhibit a deep commitment to community
service as exemplified by Congresswoman Mary T. Norton during her 13
terms in the House of Representatives (1925-1950). A leader who
championed thinking outside of the box, Congresswoman Norton advocated
government action in areas, such as day care, fair employment
practices, health care for veterans, and the inclusion of women in high
levels of government service.
Sister Harriet, a member of the Sisters of Saint Joseph and one of
this year's award recipients, began her career serving Hudson County
under the auspices of Catholic Community Services, providing counseling
and support services to pregnant teens and their families. For the last
12 years, Sister Harriet has dedicated full-time service to the needs
of multi-handicapped blind children at St. Joseph's School for the
Blind.
In addition, Sister Harriet is the executive director of the York
Street Project in Jersey City, New Jersey. A nonprofit social service
organization, the York Street Project provides transitional housing,
education, child care, and counseling to the homeless and economically-
disadvantaged women and children of Hudson County. From the Project's
planning years in the early 1980's Sister Harriet's commitment,
leadership, and faith have helped bring about positive change in the
lives of hundreds of area residents.
Sister Harriet was also proactive in the establishment of Kenmare
High School, an alternative school offering a second chance for young
women forced to drop out of high school, and founded The Nurturing
Place, an Early Childhood Development Center for homeless and at-risk
children.
Born and raised in Newark, New Jersey, Sister Harriet is a well
deserving recipient of the United Way's Congresswoman Mary T. Norton
Memorial Award. For the past 36 years, she has dedicated her life to
compassionate service for others. I ask my colleagues to join me in
congratulating Sister Harriet for all of her outstanding service to the
community and for carrying on the work of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton.

____________________

FRIEDMAN BAG COMPANY CELEBRATES OVER 70 YEARS OF OPERATION

______

HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
Friedman Bag Company for over 70 years of continuous operation in my
congressional district and to highlight its leadership as a responsible
corporate citizen.
In 1927, four Russian immigrant brothers started a small bag
manufacturing company in the heart of Los Angeles. Sam, Saul, Harry and
Morris Friedman fled Imperial Russia with their family in search of
freedom, settling temporarily in Mexico until they were granted
permission to enter the United States. Over the years, Friedman Bag
Company grew almost as quickly as the city around it.
In many ways, the founding and growth of Friedman Bag Company
personifies our nation's immigrant experience. The company was born
from an immigrant family's dream to provide their children with a
better life. The Friedmans succeeded, eventually becoming one of the
largest suppliers of textile and polyethylene bags in the West. Their
bags were primarily used for agriculture products such as Idaho
potatoes, walnuts and other crops such as carrots and lettuce from the
Central Valley of California.
But like many manufacturing companies in the United States, fierce
competition from lower cost producers, in countries like China,
eventually threatened the survival of Friedman Bag Company. To endure,
the company needed to change and adapt to the new economy, and the
successful effort was lead by two sons of the founding members.
Friedman Bag Company desperately needed to invest money in new
equipment. Company workers were still sewing burlap and mesh bags by
hand. Morale and sales were suffering. Having never taken on debt
financing in its history, the company embarked on a somewhat radical
and risky venture to make sure it could remain competitive. Working
with a financial institution that recognized its special history as a
family business, and overcoming internal and external challenges,
Friedman Bag Company secured the resources to continue its operations
in the 33rd Congressional District.
Friedman Bag Company also worked with the Mayor and City Council to
consolidate operations, ultimately bringing more jobs to Los Angeles.
Today, Friedman Bag Company employs more than 250 people, with
operations in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. The company's morale has
soared as its future prospects have brightened. Friedman Bag Company is
now firmly positioned so a third generation of the Friedman family can
continue the dream started by their family's ancestors.
I am proud of Friedman Bag Company's long tenure in southeast Los
Angeles. Their efforts to modernize and adapt to an ever-changing
economy in order to stay competitive are to be commended. Many men and
women in my congressional district have worked at

[[Page 22501]]

Friedman Bag Company, supporting their families and contributing to our
community. I congratulate Friedman Bag Company for over 70 years of
success which has epitomized the contributions to America made by our
immigrant community, and I wish them many more years of successful
operation to come.

____________________

COMMEMORATING ARMENIA'S INDEPENDENCE DAY

______

HON. BILL McCOLLUM

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, we commemorate modern Armenia's eighth
independence day--counted since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. This
independence is a long overdue recognition by the world community of a
proud and ancient people. Since independence, Armenia continued to face
numerous challenges--from the economic and political blockade
orchestrated by Azerbaijan and Turkey, to the war with Azerbaijan, to
the lingering socio-economic legacy of the horrendous earth-quake of
1988. Nevertheless, Armenia has overcome these existential threats,
establishing itself as a functioning democracy, and can now feel
sufficiently secure to look forward to charting and determining its own
progress into the next millennium.
As a young modern nation for an ancient people, Armenia should rely
on its rich heritage for inspiration and guidance. Since the dawn of
history, Armenians have held to their land despite repeated
occupations, oppression and slaughter. They have retained their
distinct heritage, language, culture and Church. All this time,
Armenians have not only yearned for independence or self-determination
but have repeatedly paid a heavy price in numerous attempts to realize
these aspirations.
Armenia is one of the oldest peoples with a recorded history.
According to tradition anchored in the Bible, Armenia is the place
where Noah's Ark set down on Mt. Ararat and where life was resurrected
on earth. Ultimately, Armenia's is a documented history of one of the
oldest nations that has retained distinct political entry for close to
three thousand years. In the early 6th Century B.C., Prophet Jeremiah
spoke about the ``Kingdom of Ararat'' as one of the key states that
would challenge and ultimately break the dominance of the Babylonian
Empire. In the 4th Century B.C., the great Greek commander Xenophon
wrote about a distinct political entity called Armenia within the
Persian sphere of influence through which he marched his troops on
their way back to Greece.
Since the 2nd Century B.C., Armenia constituted the northern tier of
imperial advances--initially of the Romans, the Selucids, and the
Parthians; and then of all the successor empires. Throughout these
times, Armenians have repeatedly tried to assert self-determination
against repeated campaigns of empires determined to consolidate
dominance over this most important geo-strategic asset. For the next
two millennia, Armenia was destined to become a key battleground
between the Empires of Eurasia for the control over the geo-strategic
road junction between West (Europe) and East (Heart of Asia), North
(Russia) and South (Middle East).
Armenia's acceptance of Christianity in the early 4th Century A.D.
constitutes a turning point. Armenia was the first country to adopt the
socio-political connotations of Christianity, leading King Tiridates to
establish an independent state. However, given Armenia's geo-strategic
importance, neither the Romans nor the Persians permitted the existence
of an independent Armenia. Indeed, by the end of the 4th Century,
Armenia was partitioned between the two leading empires of that era--
Rome and Persia. Since then, and essentially until the end of the Cold
War, Armenia repeatedly succumbed to bigger armies and bigger states or
empires--all coveting the geo-strategic key locale that Armenia is.

By the 6th Century, despite Armenia's loss of independence, the
Armenian Church separated itself from Rome in order to ensure the
people's distinct and unique character. This distinction has since
enabled Armenians to endure the prevail even as eastern Christendom
succumbed to the advent of Islam and its civilization was lost forever.
All this time, Armenian civilization and cultural legacy has been
maintained by the Church through the countless invasions, occupations,
destructions and mass killings that would impact Armenia until the late
20th Century.
The lait motif in this brief history is simple: a small people
steadfastly holding to their land and heritage as their country is
repeatedly subjected to occupations because of its unique geo-strategic
importance. As Bismarck once said: ``Of all the elements that make up
history, geography is the one that never changes.'' We, the U.S. and
the West, still need this geo-strategic road junction. But unlike
empires of past, we must secure it not through occupation but through
the empowerment and support of the true ``owners'' of this land--the
Armenians. They have demonstrated throughout their history their
determination to hold to independence against overwhelming odds. It is
in our national interest to help the Armenians safeguard their current
freedom and independence.
Armenia is now independent as the consequence of the determination,
commitment and sacrifices of its own people. Its geo-strategic location
remains as important as ever before. And although the tenuous cease-
fire with Azerbaijan is holding, Armenia's overall security posture is
worsening. The entire Caucasus is now being set aflame by Islamist
radicalism. The Islamist leaders of the insurrection in Dagastan have
repeatedly vowed to ``liberate'' and ``cleanse'' the entire Caucasus of
the presence of non-Muslims so that they can establish a unified Muslim
state. Moreover, the flames of terrorism and radicalism not only affect
Russia--now subject to Islamist terrorism and subversion--but also
penetrate and profoundly affect Turkey, an allay and a NATO member.
Further more, this eruption has a direct bearing on vital economic
interests of the U.S. and its closest allies. The Caucasus is the
West's primary gateway to the energy resources of the Caspian Sea basin
and Central Asia--a region commonly known as the Persian Gulf of the
21st Century. An Islamist state in the Caucasus is bound to endanger
the West's freedom of access to these energy resources.
Hence, it is imperative for the U.S. to have a bulwark of stability
in this crucial geo-strategic road junction. The U.S. needs an ally in
place that is not susceptible to the lure of, and/or vulnerable to the
ruthlessness of, the rising Islamist militancy. Determined to remain a
loyal member of the West without forsaking its distinct heritage and
culture, independent Armenia is uniquely eligible to be as such a
bulwark. Now, on the eve of the next millennium, it is imperative for
us to ensure the growth, development and betterment of Armenia so that
a strong and free Armenia continues to serve as a source of stability
and Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as Western security and
economic interests, in this most important and increasingly volatile
region. It it therefore, in our national security interest to ensure
that Armenia's eighth independence day is just one of many more to
come.

____________________

THE CAPTIVE ELEPHANT ACCIDENT PREVENTION ACT

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the
Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act to make circuses more humane
for the animals and safer for the spectators. I would like to make it
clear that I am not interested in seeing the circus industry unduly
hindered or encumbered. My bill is a practical, reasonable one that
addresses a fundamental wrong in the entertainment industry.
When an elephant rampages it can injure and kill spectators, not to
mention damage property. There is simply no stopping a rampaging
elephant until the animal is dead, a tragedy which is obviously a
symptom of a larger problem. Because of circuses and elephant rides,
we've grown accustomed to seeing elephants perform tricks or being
ridden as if they are domesticated animals such as horses. But these
are not domesticated creatures. Elephants are wild animals--animals for
whom all the coaxing in the world will not encourage them to let you
ride on their backs, or get them to stand on their heads, rear up on
their hind legs, walk a balance beam, or any of the other unnatural
stunts they perform in circuses.
To get a 5 ton, 10 foot tall animal to perform these stressful, often
painful stunts 2 or 3 shows per day, animal trainers use fear and
torture. In his arsenal, the elephant trainer has devices such as high-
powered electric prods, ancuses, bull hooks (long sharpened metal hook
at the end of a handle), and Martingales (heavy chains binding an
elephant's tusks to his front feet). To get these giant, willful, wild
animals to behave like trained dogs, elephants are brutalized. It is
therefore understandable that when they get the chance, they kill
people.
Since 1983, at least 28 people have been killed by captive elephants
performing in circuses and elephant ride exhibits. More than

[[Page 22502]]

70 others have been seriously injured, including at least 50 members of
the general public who were spectators at circuses and other elephant
exhibits. In fact, 9 states have banned elephants from close contact
with the public. This includes giving rides or even photo ops, because
of the danger of rampages.
Why do we continue to use taxpayer dollars to murder endangered
species in the middle of our major metropolitan areas when we could
simply address the problem by removing elephants from these tragedies
waiting to happen.
My bill proposes to exclude elephants from traveling shows and to
eliminate elephant rides, not to close down circuses. I ask my
colleagues to join me as a cosponsor on the Captive Elephant Accident
Prevention Act. I also want to thank game show host Bob Barker for
coming to Washington, D.C. to support this bill H.R. 2929.

____________________

CONGRATULATING DR. EDWARD L. FLORAK

______

HON. ROBERT W. NEY

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following proclamation to my
colleagues:

Whereas, Dr. Florak served as the President of Jefferson
Community College for 13\1/2\ years and under his leadership
the College expanded its curriculum and aligned itself with
major higher education institutions around the country; and,
Whereas, Dr. Florak has represented the College throughout
the state in the Ohio Association of Community Colleges; and,
Whereas, Dr. Florak represented JCC and Jefferson County as
one of America's Community Heros and carried the Olympic
Torch during the ceremonies in June 1999; and,
Whereas, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating
Dr. Florak on his lifetime of service to his community as
well as the College. I am proud to call him a constituent.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO FRED MARTELLA

______

HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Mr. Fred Martella, who has been named the 1999 Agriculturist of the
Year by the Lemoore Chamber of Commerce and Kings County Farm Bureau.
Mr. Martella was born in Lemoore in 1917, the second of Louis and
Elvezia Martella's seven children. He attended Hanford High School
before leaving to assist with the family dairy operation. Mr. Martella
started milking cows for $25 a month, and later held positions at
numerous sales yards in the San Joaquin Valley.
In 1944, Mr. Martella entered into a dairy partnership, selling the
dairy two years later. In 1952, he entered into another partnership
with his brother, Art. Throughout his career, Mr. Martella has also
been active as a professional auctioneer, and has donated his services
to Valley charities on countless occasions.
During his 82 years in the Valley, Mr. Martella has been active in
the farming community and the life of Kings County. He served on the
Agricultural Kings Fair Board of Directors until 1986, was named Grand
Marshall at this year's Kings County Homecoming Parade, and was named
Citizen of the Year in 1993.
Mr. Martella is also well-known throughout the Valley as a supporter
of Kings County youth. He has been a regular fixture at the Kings
County Fair's Youth Auction, helping 4-H and Future Farmers of America
(FFA) participants auction off their projects at top prices, and
assisting with their annual Lamb Barbecues.
Finally, Mr. Martella is a dedicated family man. He is married to Ann
Martella, and has three daughters, two stepdaughters, twelve
grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Fred
Martella for his contributions to the agriculture field and to his
community. We send our sincere congratulations for the well-deserved
honor of being named Agriculturist of the Year.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO OPHELIA COLLINS McFADDEN

______

HON. JULIAN C. DIXON

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my distinguished
colleagues, Representatives Howard Berman, Maxine Waters, Lucille
Roybal-Allard, Xavier Becerra, and Juanita Millender-McDonald, in
paying tribute today to Opehelia Collins McFadden, legendary leader of
Local 434 of the Service Employees International Union in Los Angeles,
California.
One of labor's most extraordinary and influential leaders, Ophelia is
retiring and will be feted at a celebration in her honor in Los Angeles
on October 8, 1999. We are, therefore, especially pleased to honor her
today and to publicly acknowledge her more than three decades of
outstanding service to the labor movement, to the Los Angeles
community, and in particular, to the thousands of working men and women
throughout Los Angeles who have achieved greater economic parity
because of her steadfast leadership. Indeed, it is impossible to talk
about the labor movement or the advances achieved in Los Angeles during
the past thirty-plus years, without invoking Opehelia's name.
The story of Ophelia Collins McFadden begins, of course, with her
birth in Kendleton, Texas. She attended schools in Conroe, Texas and
received her undergraduate degree from Conroe Christian Teachers
College. She moved to Los Angeles in 1959 and immediately joined the
civil rights movement where she quickly gained a reputation as an
indefatigable soldier in the fight to remove the insidious
discriminatory barriers that were prevalent throughout this great
nation.
In 1968 Ophelia joined local 434 of SEIU as a staff representative.
She was promoted to senior staff representative in 1974 and one year
later was elevated to Assistant General Manager. On January 1, 1978,
she made history in the labor movement with her appointment as General
Manager of SEIU Local 434--at the time the third largest County workers
union in California. She is the first African American woman Vice
President of SEIU, AFL-CIO and the first African American woman to
serve on the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor board. Ophelia can
lay claim to numerous accomplishments during her long tenure with SEIU,
not the least of which is the critical role she played in helping to
establish the Los Angeles County Affirmative Action guidelines.
As an activist, Ophelia is a formidable ally to have on your team.
She has been involved in every major political race in Los Angeles
County for the past thirty-one years. She has worked in voter
registration drives throughout the county and was among the first SEIU
members to work with former California State Legislators Richard
Alatore and Art Torres in registering voters in the Latino community.
She worked on the presidential campaigns of Walter Mondale and Ted
Kennedy, and played a vital role in helping Los Angeles County
Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke Capture her first victory for a seat
on the Board of Supervisors.
She is a founding member of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists,
as well as the Coalition of Labor Union Women; Vice President of the
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Western States
Conference, SEIU, AFL-CIO; member of the Advisory Board of the Los
Angeles Chapter of the Black American Political Association of
California (BAPAC); and Chancellor of the Elinor Glenn Joint Council of
Unions, Scholarship Trust.
In addition to her enormous responsibilities as the influential head
of one of the most important labor locals in Los Angeles County,
Ophelia serves as a member of the Conroe College Alumni Association,
and is Vice President and a life member of the Los Angeles Branch of
the NAACP. She is a member of Praises of Zion Church.
Ophelia Collins McFadden has taken her place on the front lines of
every major labor initiative in the Los Angeles community. In 1986 she
led the kick-off Homecare campaign and in 1989 was appointed General
Manager of the Homecare Workers Union of local 434B. Each of us paying
tribute to her today can, I am sure, offer a personal anecodote of a
time when she has prevailed upon us to help her in her tireless fight
for the rights of county workers.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to honor Ophelia Collins McFadden as one of
the greatest labor unionists of this century. We are privileged to know
her and to thank her for the many contributions she has made to the Los
Angeles community, and in particular to the thousands of health care
and homecare workers in our respective congressional districts. We
salute and commend her and ask that you join us in extending our
heartfelt best wishes to her for a long and joyous retirement.

[[Page 22503]]

____________________

TAX RULES WAIVER EXTENSION

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing for
myself and Mr. Houghton, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Coyne, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, and Mr. Matsui, legislation to extend for one additional
year the temporary waiver of the minimum tax rules that deny many
families the full benefit of nonrefundable personal credits, pending
enactment of permanent legislation to address this inequity.
This problem is well known. The tax credits for education and
children are limited by the alternative minimum tax. Consequently, more
and more average Americans who use the dependent care credit, the new
child credit, the HOPE credit or the lifelong learning credit, will be
forced to fill out the time consuming, complex alternative minimum tax
form. Even worse, a growing number of Americans will have all or part
of these credits denied because they are part of the AMT base. For
families with three or more children, the refundable portion of the
child credit is also subject to the AMT cutback, which this bill also
fixes for 1999.
The Department of the Treasury estimated that in 1998, without the
``one year'' waiver that was enacted last year, eight hundred thousand
taxpayers who were entitled to the child credit or the education
credits would have been denied the full benefit of these credits by the
AMT. And although the AMT was enacted into law to ensure that wealthy
individuals pay some tax, a large percentage of these new AMT taxpayers
will be married couples who earn between $45,000 and approximately
$100,000.
Mr. Speaker, we know that there is widespread agreement to fix this
problem either on a permanent basis, or if that is not possible, for
one additional year. The Clinton Administration, the House and Senate,
and both parties agree. Yet, it has not been accomplished. We are
introducing this bill, which extends last year's waiver for one
additional year, to highlight the problem once again and to urge quick
action to solve it for tax year 1999. Given the lead time the Internal
Revenue Service needs to draft and print tax forms for next year, it is
necessary for us to take action early next month. Hopefully,
legislation that is acceptable to all of us will be enacted on a
bipartisan basis shortly.

____________________

HONORING OF DR. LORETTA LONG, RECIPIENT OF THE UNITED WAY'S
CONGRESSWOMAN MARY T. NORTON MEMORIAL AWARD

______

HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Loretta Long
for winning the United Way's Congresswoman Mary T. Norton Memorial
Award.
Initiated by the United Way of Hudson County in 1990, this award
recognizes individuals who exhibit a deep commitment to community
service as exemplified by Congresswoman Mary T. Norton during her 13
terms in the House of Representatives (1925-1950). A leader who
championed thinking outside of the box, Congresswoman Norton advocated
government action in areas, such as day care, fair employment
practices, health care for veterans, and the inclusion of woman in high
levels of government service.
Dr. Loretta Long, one of this year's award recipients, has been with
the goundbreaking children's show Sesame Street since its first season.
As television has been evolving to portray a more real and true vision
of American life, particularly in roles for women and minorities, Dr.
Long has enjoyed watching her role as Susan grow from housewife to
nurse to working mother.
In addition to her work on Sesame Street, the former schoolteacher is
a sought-after educator and consultant who holds a doctorate degree in
education from the University of Massachusetts. She has joined several
institutions as a distinguished visiting scholar and has taught at Sage
College, Rowen University, the University of Scranton, the University
of Massachusetts, and Western Michigan University.
Dr. Long extended her years of knowledge and experience in the field
of education on topics such as the media and cultural diversity in the
following school districts: Albany City Schools; Troy City Schools;
Schenectady City Schools; Atlantic City School District; Pittman
Consolidated School; Cape May County Schools; Pocono Valley School
District; Scranton City Schools; North Pocono Valley Schools; Valley
View School District; Scranton Prep; and the Laboratory School at the
University of Scranton.
A much deserving award recipient who embodies the life work of
Congresswoman Mary T. Norton, Dr. Long has dedicated her life to the
education of America's children. I ask my colleagues to join me in
congratulating Dr. Long for all of her outstanding service to the
community and for carrying on the work of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton.

____________________

VOICES AGAINST VIOLENCE CONFERENCE

______

HON. TOM UDALL

of new mexico

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of an
issue of critical importance: the young people of our nation. In a
recent essay competition I held in the 3rd district of New Mexico,
students shared the following comments:
``It is extremely sad wondering if we are safe when we go to school
everyday. Teenage violence is soon going to be a bigger concern than
college preparation for teens if something is not done about the issue
soon.''--Liz Gonzales, senior, Santa Fe High School.
``Most kids need the adults in power to continue to tell us that we
can do it and we can be more, because through knowledge there is power
to make your dreams come true.''--Erin D. Muffoletto, 9th grade, Mesa
Vista High.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to tell the young people of my district
and of the nation that we hear them. They are asking for help and we
are listening.
On October 19th and 20th Sierra Anne Blue from Kirtland and Erin
Muffoletto from South Ojo Caliente will come to Washington, D.C. to
participate in the national Voices Against Violence Conference. These
dedicated young people will meet with their peers, federal law
enforcement and education officials, and many others to help develop
solutions to problems related to youth violence.
In addition, I have selected Matthew Garcia from Springer, Amanda
Lynn Chavez from Bernalillo, Domnic Biava from Gallup, Liz Gonzales
from Santa Fe, Christopher Morris from Navajo, Randy Maestas from Mora,
Twana Seschille from Crownpoint, and Deema Rashad from Gallup, to
represent their schools on my Student Education Forum in New Mexico.
These students will work throughout the school year to explore
solutions to problems that plague our schools.
Youth violence is an issue we are all responsible for solving. The
Voices Against Violence Conference and the Student Education Forum are
two ways to start this process.
To all of the students of New Mexico and the nation, know that I am
listening, know that we are listening, know that your voices are being
heard.

____________________

PULASKI DAY TRIBUTE TO POLISH-AMERICANS

______

HON. MARK FOLEY

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the Polish American Club of Lake Worth,
Florida is preparing to celebrate Pulaski Day on October 1st, 2nd, and
3rd, I rise today to pay tribute not only to Casimir Pulaski but to all
men and women of Polish descent who have helped to make this Nation the
greatest in the world.
Casimir Pulaski was an energetic and fiery soldier who, in July 1777,
came to America to offer his services in the Revolutionary War. As a
cavalry general he fought courageously and won distinction in several
campaigns.
Pulaski was to the American Revolution what Patton was to World War
II. Though he was mortally wounded in the Battle of Savannah, he left
behind a cavalry unit that earned him the title ``Father of the
American Cavalry.''
Casimir Pulaski knew that freedom isn't free and that America is a
great nation because it provides an opportunity for every person
regardless of ethnicity.
So Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to pay tribute to all Polish-
Americans as we prepare to celebrate Pulaski Day.

[[Page 22504]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE GREEN BAY POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR RECEIVING THE HERMAN
GOLDSTEIN AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

______

HON. MARK GREEN

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to share
with my colleagues some wonderful news from my district--the Green Bay
Police department was recently awarded the prestigious Herman Goldstein
Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
The national award formally recognizes the truly outstanding job the
Green Bay P.D. continues to do to serve and protect our community. I
would particularly like to recognize Green Bay Mayor Paul Jadin, Police
Chief Jim Lewis, as well as Steve Scully and Bill Bongle. Officers
Scully and Bongle are the community policing officers who submitted the
presentation for this award, and continue to do the innovative police
work that earned it.
The community policing program is so successful because it tackles
crime in a creative new way--giving police the flexibility to work
within communities to find the best solutions to the problems certain
at-risk neighborhoods face. Rather than simply reacting to crime and
pushing it out, community policing seeks to attack crime at its
source--focusing on prevention, and effectively choking off the root
problems that cause crime in the first place.
The department's community policing program in Green Bay's North
Broadway area achieved much more than just this award. Police calls
dropped 25 percent from 1997 to 1998, and they're down a whopping 58
percent since 1993. This impressive reduction means so much more than
any award could ever express. This success story means local residents
and businesses have experienced a genuine and dramatic improvement in
their quality of life and and work. The officers involved, the Green
Bay P.D. and the entire community can be proud of this extraordinary
accomplishment.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO ROGER DURBIN

______

HON. MARCY KAPTUR

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, our World War II veterans remind us of a
time when our country stood united in the pursuit of independence and
liberty, whether it be for others on foreign soil, or here at home.
Twelve years ago, Roger Durbin, my constituent and a World War II
combat veteran, asked me why there was no national monument to honor
those who served in this war. Legislation I sponsored and Congress
passed will rectify that grievous oversight. However, until the
memorial is completed, a new postage stamp will serve to recognize
those contributing to the war effort. I am inserting in today's Record
the following speech by Roger Durbin, documenting the bravery of those
who served and celebrating the release of the new stamp in their honor.

An Address by Roger Durbin Celebrating the Stamp Unveiling, November
19, 1998

Mr. Vice-President, Mr. Postmaster General, General
Woerner, thank you for allowing me to share this honor with
you today.
It's a double honor for me to participate in a ceremony to
unveil a stamp commemorating World War II. In 1979, I retired
from the U.S. Postal Service after spending 32 years as a
rural carrier in Berkey, Ohio, near Toledo. I've been told
that I am that last surviving member of branch 4408 of the
National Association of Letter Carriers.
I am proud of my career as a letter carrier. But today, on
the eve of Veteran's Day my thoughts are focused on a
different uniform-one I wore in Europe in the 1940s. I was a
member of the Tenth Armored Division and participated in the
Battle of the Bulge, one of the costliest battles ever fought
by Americans. I have memories of those cold bitter days that
will be with me until I die.
One memory I wish to share with you is about the Battle for
Metz. It was the first time Metz had been captured in 1,500
years. Three bridges had to be built to cross the Mozells
River at Thionville, France, while the 4th and 90th Infantry
established a bridgehead. They met a terrible resistance.
During the night, civilians pointed out to the Germans where
the Americans were sleeping. By morning, only one man was
still alive from the German counter-attack. Later history
called this attack the ``Killing Fields of Kerling.''
When daylight came, it was a terrible sight-a sight that
cannot be forgotten by those who saw it. The American dead
were neatly stacked in the ditches like cords of wood. The
German dead were in their foxholes, eyes wide open still
keeping their vigil of surveillance. The retreating Germans
had body-trapped their dead. They had to be removed by our
engineers. Right then I decided that those Germans were
really trying to kill me.
``Saving Private Ryan'' has brought attention to the horror
of war to those born since World War II ended. The D-Day
depicted was but one battle. Six hundred thousand American
soldiers fought in the Battle of the Bulge. There were 91,000
casualties in just 30 days. The bitterness of that 1944
December cold cannot be forgotten. A wounded, bleeding
soldier could be dead and frozen solid in just three hours.
It was so cold that on Christmas night I had lain on top of
the half-track transmission in an effort to get warm.
We moved back east of Metz after the battle had ended to
draw new equipment and to get replacements. The replacements
were eighteen and nineteen year old boys that had been home
with families for Christmas dinner in 1944.
Those of us in the Tenth Armored Division who survived the
Battle of the Bulge had the honor of being the first American
soldiers from Patton's Third Army to cross the German border.
The Tenth seized 450 towns and cities and earned more than
3,000 medals. But it was achieved at a terrible cost. When
finished, the Tenth Armored had 8,381 killed, wounded, and
missing casualties. There was a 78.5 percent turnover of
personnel.
As a nation we must never forget that cost.
The stamp we are unveiling today commemorates World War II
as one of the most significant events of the Twentieth
Century. It is a fitting tribute for all who were involved in
this struggle for a way of life, a world. This was the war
that had the involvement of almost the entire population.
Three years ago I had the honor of joining President
Clinton in dedicating a World War II Memorial site on the
Mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln
Memorial. We sprinkled sacred soil from sixteen overseas
American cemeteries in which are buried thousands of
Americans who were not as fortunate as I am. They never made
it home.
Ground is to be broken in 2000 and the memorial dedicated
in 2002. When Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur started the memorial
legislation eleven years ago there were 13.5 million living
World War II veterans. An average of 30,000 World War II
veterans now die each month. Only 7 million remain of those
alive twelve years ago. For most of those now remaining, this
stamp will be the nation's tribute to their service.

____________________

LOPEZ FOODS, INC.--MBE MANUFACTURER OF THE YEAR

______

HON. ED PASTOR

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. John Lopez, an
Arizona native and Hispanic-American leader. Recently, Mr. Lopez'
company, Lopez Foods, Inc., was named the 1999 National Minority
Manufacturing Firm of the Year by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
After beginning his career as an owner-operator of several McDonald's
restaurants, seven years ago, Mr. Lopez sold them and obtained
controlling interest of the company that now bears his name: Lopez
Foods, Inc. As one of the select few beef and pork suppliers for
McDonald's restaurants, this Oklahoma City company plays a vital role
in the success of more than 25,000 McDonald's restaurants.
As the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lopez Foods, Mr. Lopez
has guided his company to great success. Under Mr. Lopez' leadership,
this firm has steadily expanded their workforce diversity program. As a
result, currently, nearly 55 percent of Lopez Foods employees are
minorities. Because of his efforts, first as a McDonald's owner-
operator, and now as the head of Lopez Foods, Mr. Lopez was selected by
the National Hispanic Employee's Association as its 1997 Entrepreneur
of the Year.
Throughout his career, Mr. Lopez has worked tirelessly to promote
economic progress for minorities well beyond his own firm. He is a
member of several influential boards, including: the McDonald's
Supplier Diversity Council, the Oklahoma City Latino Community
Development Agency, the National Advisory Board of the Hispanic
American Commitment to Educational Resources, and the National Minority
Supplier Development Council.
I applaud the Commerce Department for recognizing the outstanding
efforts of Mr. John Lopez, and for designating Lopez Foods, Inc. as its
1999 National Minority Manufacturing Firm of the Year. In closing, I
commend this

[[Page 22505]]

gentleman for all of his admirable accomplishments and societal
contributions.

____________________

IN HONOR OF MS. SUSAN CORRIGAN, RECIPIENT OF THE UNITED WAY'S
CONGRESSWOMAN MARY T. NORTON MEMORIAL AWARD

______

HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Susan
Corrigan for winning the United Way's Congresswoman Mary T. Norton
Memorial Award.
Initiated by the United Way of Hudson County in 1990, this award
recognizes individuals who exhibit a deep commitment to community
service as exemplified by Congresswoman Mary T. Norton during her 13
terms in the House of Representatives (1925-1950). A leader who
championed thinking outside of the box, Congresswoman Norton advocated
government action in areas, such as day care, fair employment
practices, health care for veterans, and the inclusion of women in high
levels of government service.
Ms. Corrigan, one of this year's award recipients, is the founder and
President/CEO of Gifts In-Kind International, the world's leading
charity in product philanthropy. Under her guidance, Gifts In-Kind
International is now the 13th largest charity in the United States.
And, as the organization has continued to have a very positive impact
on the nonprofit sector, Ms. Corrigan has twice been named in The
NonProfit Times' list of the Top 50 Most Influential Leaders in
Philanthropy.
Because of her commitment to community service, Ms. Corrigan received
the 1991 Cantor Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management from the
Pacific Graduate School in Stanford, California, and the Samaritan
Foundation's 1996 Humanitarian Partnership Award. In addition, she is a
member of The Washington Center's Independent Sector Program Initiative
Honorary Advisory Committee.
A graduate of Carnegie Mellon University, Ms. Corrigan has served as
Assistant to the President at United Way of America and is the author
of several publications, including Establishing an In-Kind Program, The
Business Sense of In-Kind Giving, and Employment Generating Services.
A well deserving award recipient who embodies the life work of
Congresswoman Mary T. Norton, Ms. Corrigan has dedicated her life to
community service. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms.
Corrigan for all of her outstanding service to the community and for
carrying on the work of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton.

____________________

YOUTH SUICIDE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION WEEK

______

HON. RON PACKARD

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of H. Res.
286. The purpose of this legislation is to recognize the week of
September 19-25, as Yellow Ribbon Youth Suicide Awareness and
Prevention Week.
This resolution is important to any person who has children, and to
any family that has lost loved ones through suicide. The bill
recognizes that there is a need to increase awareness about youth
suicide and make it a national priority.
I would like to recognize the Light for Family Foundation of America
and their founders, the Emme family, who tragically lost their teenage
son, Michael, to suicide in 1994. It was through the vision of the Emme
family that the Yellow Ribbon Program, which has helped save countless
lives, has become an integral part of the fight against youth suicide.
Mr. Speaker, teenage suicide is extremely tragic. I hope and pray
that this resolution can increase awareness and hopefully prevent the
loss of more of our Nation's children.

____________________

MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL K. WYRICK GIVES 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE

______

HON. LARRY COMBEST

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our nation's
finest military leaders. General Michael K. Wyrick proudly has given 30
years of uniformed service to our country, and now begins his
retirement. Capping his stellar career by serving as Deputy Surgeon
General of the United States Air Force, he is the only healthcare
administrator in the Air Force to ever attain this position. It is both
fitting and appropriate to take a moment to celebrate the
accomplishments of this decorated officer.
General Wyrick, a young West Texas gentleman, entered the military in
1969 as a graduate of the Texas Christian University Air Force Reserve
Officers' Training Corps. General Wyrick displayed his natural
leadership abilities in successful early, military assignments at
Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina and Elmendorf Air Force Base,
Alaska. General Wyrick then earned a Master's Degree in Health Service
Administration from Baylor University. His vast knowledge of
administrative strategy and leadership was complemented by additional,
highly competitive academic endeavors. Graduation from Air War College
and participation in select leadership development programs at Duke
University and Cornell University are included among his most recent
academic accomplishments. Baylor University has since recognized
General Wyrick with the Distinguished Alumni Award from the Graduate
Program in Health Care Administration. Many additional honors have also
been bestowed upon the General for his administrative excellence,
including the Outstanding Federal Services Administrator Award from the
Association of Military Surgeons of the United States and the
Healthcare Administration Award from the American Academy of Medical
Administrators.
General Wyrick has held numerous key domestic and overseas
assignments in the Air Force Medical Service. In addition to being
named the Chief Administrator of four Air Force hospitals, he directed
the medical programs and resources in the headquarters of the Office of
the Surgeon General prior to being named the Deputy Surgeon General of
the Air Force. As Chief of the Air Force Medical Service Corps, General
Wyrick's vital task was coordinating and executing the health care
mission of the United States Air Force. The finesse with which he
shoulders every responsibility has helped General Wyrick become such a
highly decorated leader. Today, he proudly wears the Air Force
Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Meritorious Service
Medal with four oak leaf clusters, and the prestigious Legion of Merit.
Major General Wyrick's wife, Carol, and children, Brian and Lauri,
and his hometown of Amarillo, Texas look to General Wyrick as a source
of great pride. He has brought honor to the distinguished uniform of
the United States Air Force that he has proudly worn for the past 30
years. His unmatched leadership ability and strength of character set
him apart as one of our nation's finest citizens and most valued
military officers. It is my pleasure to recognize General Michael K.
Wyrick's outstanding career of exemplary service.

____________________

SIKHS SHOULD NOT BE HARASSED FOR CARRYING A RELIGIOUS SYMBOL, THE
KIRPAN

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, America is a country where everyone enjoys
religious freedom. There are about 500,000 Sikhs in this country and
they have every right to practice their religion in this country. Sikhs
have contributed to America in many walks of life, from agriculture to
medicine to law, among others. Sikhs participated in World War I and
World War II, and a Sikh even served as a Member of Congress in the
1960s. His name was Dalip Singh Saund and he was from California.
When a Sikh is baptized, he or she is required to have five symbols
called the five Ks. They are unshorn hair (Kes), a comb (Kanga), a
tracelet (Kara), a kind of shorts (Kachha), and a ceremonial sword
(Kirpan). Sometimes law enforcement officers in this country consider a
Kirpan a concealed weapon and arrest the Sikh carrying a Kirpan.
Earlier this week, Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, a 69-year-old Sikh, was
arrested in the suburbs of Cleveland for carrying a concealed weapon.
He is to appear at a pretrial hearing on October 4. I hope that the
case against Mr. Bhatia will be dismissed.

[[Page 22506]]

A similar case happened in Cincinnati in 1996. The First Ohio
District Court of Appeals overturned a municipal court conviction of a
Sikh man for carrying a concealed weapon. Judge Mark Painter of that
court wrote that ``to be a Skih is to wear a kirpan--it is that simple.
It is a religious symbol and in no way a weapon.''
Like Christianity, the Sikh religion is a monotheistic, divinely
revealed and independent religion which believes in the equality of the
whole human race, including gender equality. They pray, work hard to
earn an honest living, and share their earnings with the needy.
I know many Sikhs in my district who are baptized and carry this
symbol Kirpan. I would not like any of my constituents to be harassed
for practicing their religion. We must educate our law-enforcement
agencies regarding this religious symbol of the Sikhs.
Our Constitution grants religious freedom to all. We want Sikh
Americans to practice their religion without any interference, even if
we have to pass special legislation allowing the Sikhs to carry
Kirpans.
I would like to put the Detroit News article on the Bhatia case into
the Record.

[From the Detroit News, Sept. 23, 1999]

Can a Weapon Be a Religious Icon?

Mentor, Ohio--When he was baptized a Sikh in India,
Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, now 69, vowed to always wear a
kirpan, a 6-inch knife symbolizing his willingness to defend
the faith.
But during investigation of a minor traffic mishap in this
Cleveland suburb, Bhatia was arrested for carrying a
concealed weapon. At the time, he was returning home from a
religious ceremony blessing the new home of a Sikh family.
Police Chief Richard Amiott said his officers acted
properly in enforcing the law banning concealed weapons.
``How can you describe for me the difference between a
ceremonial knife and any knife?'' he asked.
Bhatia must appear for a pretrial hearing Oct. 4. If
convicted, he could face up to six months in jail and a
$1,000 fine. But Ron Graham, city prosecutor, said he may be
willing to drop the charges if the Sikh priest can
demonstrate that he is required by his religion to carry the
kirpan.
Although state law does not allow for exceptions, Graham
said, ``We don't want to prosecute anyone for exercising
religious freedom.''
In a similar case in Cincinnati in 1996, the 1st Ohio
District Court of Appeals overturned a municipal court
conviction of a Sikh man for carrying a concealed weapon.
``To be a Sikh is to wear a kirpan--it is that simple. It
is a religious symbol and in no way a weapon,'' Judge Mark
Painter wrote.

____________________

RECOGNIZING OF JOANNA LUBKIN AND THE STUDENT HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM

______

HON. CHARLES F. BASS

of new hampshire

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention an event in
which I participated celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, and to bring recognition to the remarkable
young girl I met and the group to which she belongs.
On July 22, 1999, I joined civic and conservation leaders on a
bicycle tour of Mine Falls Park in Nashua, New Hampshire, which has
received four separate state-side grants totaling $684,496. During the
tour, we stopped at a gatehouse built in 1886. Fairgrounds Junior High
School student Joanna Lubkin told us about her involvement with the
Student Historic Preservation Team (SHPT) and their efforts to restore
the building.
The team's restoration efforts began last May with the removal of
graffiti from the building's exterior. Once the removal is complete,
the students plan to landscape the area surrounding the building and
create inside a museum. The museum would highlight the gates that
regulated the flow of water into a canal that runs from Mine falls to
Nashua's millyard, providing power to the textile mills that were a
vital part of Nashua's development as a manufacturing center in the
19th century.
This project is important, not only because of the gatehouse's
historic value to the community, but also because of the impact
participating in its restoration has had on Joanna Lubkin. I hope that
Joanna's experience will encourage other young people to get involved
in their community.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you a copy of Joanna Lubkin's remarks for
the Record:

My name is Joanna Lubkin and I have been an active part of
the Student Historic Preservation Team for about a year. I
hope to see this project out to the end and beyond. Being in
SHPT has really changed my outlook on life and the world
around me. I have met many new friends and have been able to
meet with city officials and have conversations with them
about our generations vision for the future. For once I felt
that I could really make a difference in our community.
When Ms. Coe told my class about the Gatehouse and its role
in the making of our city and its sad story of neglect, I
felt compelled to join the club, if nothing else to learn
some more about the history of Nashua. Over that school year,
I learned about more than just my city's past, I realized
that we cannot hope to achieve a new future without
maintaining the links to our past. I accomplished things that
I didn't think I'd ever be able to do, (or want to do for
that matter--but I had a blast!) such as editing the first
issue of our newsletter.
I also spent many hours fundraising and planning with the
group. During that time, I often found myself thinking about
what a monumental task it was that we were trying to
accomplish, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt
proud to be a part of such a group of people.
I'll never forget how nervous I was at the first Charrette
that we held at City Hall. Other older members in the group
had meetings with big professionals like this before, but for
me, I had never even been in City Hall except once on a tour.
The feeling I had when I saw the other adults in the room
nodding in agreement with our plans was almost indescribable.
Until then, I had this tiny voice in the back of my head
saying, ``What are you nuts? You're a kid! No one's going to
listen to you.'' But they did listen. And for once someone
thought of kids not as a bunch of little gremlins to keep
control of, but as real people who could be just as serious
as any adult.
I look at things now from a point of view where if there is
something that I see as unjust I can do something to make a
difference. I find myself sticking up for other kids more
often now and voicing my opinions about what is going on in
the world. I realize that I can no longer be a passive person
who sits and watches the news and says, ``Wow. Wish I could
do something like that.'' I have the chance to actually be
the person making the news, and that I can really do things
to help other people.
Joanna Lubkin,
SHPT Member.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. EVA M. CLAYTON

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 21, 1999 I was in my
district assisting my constituents with the devastation of Hurricane
Floyd.
Had I been present, the following is how I would have voted: Rollcall
No. 427 (H.R. 2116) ``aye''--Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act;
rollcall No. 428 (H.R. 1431) ``aye''--Coastal Barrier Resources
Reauthorization; and rollcall No. 429 (H.R. 468) ``aye''--Saint Helena
Island National Scenic Area Act.

____________________

DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM

______

HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Dollars to the
Classroom Resolution, to benefit schoolchildren and teachers all across
this country, by calling on education agencies at all levels to get 95
percent of federal education dollars into the classrooms of this
country. A similar resolution passed the House 310-99 in the 105th
Congress.
Further, the Dollars to the Classroom Act language to codify the
principles in the resolution also passed the House in the 105th
Congress.
I have been working on this legislation because I believe in the
importance of doing all that we can to improve the academic achievement
of our public school children. How is this accomplished? We believe
that empowering the teachers and bolstering the classroom resources of
our kids directly improves their learning process.
When we think of our childrens' efforts to learn, we often think of
the tools that go into forming and shaping their young minds: tools
like books, globes, computers . . . and things like flash cards,
spelling tests, and calculators. We do not think of bureaucratic
programs and stacks of paperwork. Yet, many of our federal dollars that
go to elementary and secondary education do not reach our kids. That's
why Dollars to the Classroom is so important. This is a simple concept.
Instead of keeping education dollars here in Washington, let's ensure
that 95 cents on every federal dollar is sent directly to parents,
teachers, and

[[Page 22507]]

principals who are truly helping our children in the learning process.
Passage of the Dollars to the Resolution, followed by the Dollars to
the Classroom Act would mean millions in new dollars for schoolchildren
across the country.
This is the next common sense step in our efforts to improve public
education for the students of the next millennium.

____________________

RACIAL TERRORISM AT FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY

______

HON. ALLEN BOYD

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, many of you have seen in the Washington Post
today that Florida A&M University, a historically black college in
Florida's Second Congressional District, has been targeted by a racist
bomber. In the last month, the school has received several bomb threats
and has suffered two random blasts in an administrative facility and an
academic building. While we are grateful that none of the students or
faculty have been injured in these horrible incidents, a caller to a
local television station, using racial slurs and profanity, indicated
that these two bomb blasts are ``just the beginning.''
This racial terrorism has brought classes at Florida A&M to a halt,
frightened students and faculty, and stunned the surrounding
Tallahassee community. Following this most recent bombing, I spoke with
the President of Florida A&M, Dr. Frederick Humphries, about his
efforts to avoid further tragedy. With the assistance of local and
federal law enforcement officers, school officials have been working to
improve security and identify suspects. Dr. Humphries has increased
mechanical surveillance and the number of police officers patrolling
campus. However, as with any large school, the challenge of scouring
every inch of campus is monumental.
Today, I ask for your prayers and support for my constituents whose
lives have been turned upside down by this evil plot. Florida A&M has a
history of excellence, and the school's efforts to provide superb
educational opportunities to its students should not be hindered by the
acts of one hateful individual. I pray that these terrorist acts will
not only be brought to a quick demise, but they will also serve to
unite the Tallahassee community against the racial hatred of a select
few.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000

______

speech of

HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, September 15, 1999

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support
for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, S.
1059, which includes legislation to reform the Department of Energy
(DOE) to ensure the security of our strategic nuclear defense.
I rise today to address the concern that by creating the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) there may be a negative effect
on Defense Facilities Closure Projects. In fact, the language
establishing the NNSA is intended to complement the ongoing work at
Closure Project sites rather than to hinder it.
Specifically, the NNSA should have a positive effect at Closure sites
because a greater priority will be placed on the consolidation of
defense program and material disposition inventories from Closure sites
to other DOE facilities with an ongoing national security mission. In
addition, the creation of the NNSA does not impact the funding
structure of the Environmental Remediation and Waste Management
activities.
Part of the reason we have seen progress at the Closure sites has
been the use of integrated funding under a separate Closure Projects
line item and the Department should continue this approach in order to
ensure that Closure sites retain maximum funding flexibility and
expedited nuclear materials movement.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MS. BARBARA BROWN'S EFFORTS FOR PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS

______

HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Barbara
Brown of Coleman, Texas who is crusading for increased awareness of
prostate cancer in honor of her late father, Carl Houston Hale, of West
Memphis, Arkansas, who lost his life to this cancer on December 12,
1997. Known as a silent killer, prostate cancer will affect over
175,000 men in the United States this year. Today alone, approximately
100 men will die from this disease, and in one year over 37,000 will be
lost as well. Excluding skin cancer, cancer of the prostate is the most
common malignancy and the second leading cause of death among men in
the United States. The risk of prostate cancer increases with age; more
than 80% of all prostate tumors are diagnosed in men over age 65. And
while 1 in 5 men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime, we
still know far too little about the cause and behavior of this silent
killer. Clearly, it is a national problem that has a severe impact on
our nation.
In her younger years, Barbara sang in gospel groups, and dreamed of
recording her own album. Through the grief of her father she wrote two
songs, ``Resting In the Arms of the Lord'' and ``Wind That Blows From
Heaven,'' in an effort to cope with the overwhelming emotion of losing
her father. These two songs eventually led to the recording of her
first album in March 1998, entitled ``Resting In the Arms of the
Lord.'' With this Barbara achieved a life-long aspiration amidst
unfortunate circumstances, and she is committed to donating a part of
her tapes' proceeds to the American Cancer Society. As each tape is
sold, a part of her father's life and his memory touches the lives of
so many others, all while working towards the ultimate goal of a cure.
Additionally Barbara has devoted her life to bringing more awareness
to this disease by urging men to seek regular check-ups and treatment
if necessary. At Barbara's urging, the Coleman County Commissioners
Court passed a proclamation declaring September 21st through September
27st as Prostate Cancer Awareness Week and advocating all to be aware
of prostate cancer. With this proclamation, countless lives could be
saved. Barbara also has plans to continue to promote awareness of this
disease in the community of Coleman as well as surrounding areas by
hosting various on-going promotional events raising money for the
American Cancer Society.
I close by using Barbara's words which I believe have distinguished
her as a heroic woman: ``Out of our pain comes some of our greatest
accomplishments. As I continue to educate men on this disease,
hopefully it will prevent another person from having to face this
needless pain. I have a responsibility to do this: in honor of my
father's memory.''
I ask that all of my colleagues join me in honoring Barbara for her
efforts, and I encourage all Americans to take that crucial step of
participating in important health screenings and visiting your doctor
regarding health concerns. Early detection is critical for survival.

____________________

CELEBRATING OF LORRIE NELSON'S DEDICATION TO EDUCATION

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the energy and
dedication that Lorraine ``Lorrie'' Nelson, a fifth-grade teacher in my
district, brings to her classroom and her profession. The Poinsettia
Elementary School educator was honored this week as Ventura County's
Teacher of the Year.
Mrs. Nelson was raised to be a teacher, although she didn't realize
it until she was engrossed in law school. Her parents encouraged the
young Lorrie and her brother to engage in family discussions, to ask
questions and expect answers. She learned to listen from her parents'
example. Now, after some 10 years of encouraging other young minds to
learn. Mrs. Nelson couldn't see herself doing anything else.
Children in the Ventura Unified School District who have experienced
her lesson plans calls her ``funny'' and even ``crazy.'' But it's fun
with a purpose. Mrs. Nelson encourages her students to set high
standards and helps them achieve them. She believes teachers should be
skillful in the topics they teach our children, a subject I have
strongly supported legislatively for several years.
To achieve her goal, Mrs. Nelson directed the Ventura Unified Writing
Project from 1993 to 1997. The Writing Project is a mentoring program
for teachers who write extensively, demonstrate instructional
techniques and examine research in the teaching of writing.

[[Page 22508]]

This past summer, Mrs. Nelson taught a two-week course titled
``Integrating Standards with Inspirational Teaching.'' She has been a
presenter for the South Coast Writing Project Summer Institutes for the
Ventura Unified School District and Santa Barbara School Districts, in
such topics as Writing Workshop, Writing Response and Reading
Comprehension. In the fall, she will work the Shoah Foundation to
develop a curriculum for oral histories of Holocaust survivors.
She is, of course, a published writer.
But her real accomplishments are in inspiring her students. One way
she has done that is by pairing her students with some influential
adults--their parents--in a writing program suitably titled ``Family of
Writers.''
Not surprisingly, Mrs. Nelson has garnered numerous honors, starting
with her first year of teaching, when she was recognized as the Ventura
Unified School District Sallie Mae First Year Teacher of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, Ventura County has rightly honored Mrs. Nelson as the
model other educators should strive to be. She holds her students
accountable in a fun, productive learning environment. She holds
herself and her peers accountable by stressing the skills teachers need
to be effective educators.
Next month, Mrs. Nelson will compete for California Teacher of the
Year. Win or lose, education will always be victorious in her
classroom.
Mrs. Speaker, I'd like to close with Mrs. Nelson's own thoughts, her
closing words in her Professional Biography. After hearing these words,
I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating her for her award
and thank her for dedicating herself to our children.
``Even though students leave my classroom with beautifully bound
poetry anthologies, framed self-portraits, and cherished pet beetles,
my greatest contribution as a teacher is invisible. Students leave with
an understanding that their opinions are important. They know that life
is a process of learning, questioning and revising. They become
lifelong learners.`
We couldn't ask for anything more.

____________________

HONORING THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
GREATER LANSING

______

HON. DEBBIE STABENOW

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, the Big Brother Big Sisters of Greater
Lansing program celebrates 45 years of bringing together young people
at risk with older people willing to serve as a role model and mentor.
Before terms like ``quality time,'' ``mentoring,'' or ``at risk
youth'' were buzz words in our society, Big Brothers and Big Sisters
has been helping to give young people something we all need--a friend.
Perhaps more than any other program this century, the Big Brothers
Big Sisters program offers an inspiring example of what can happen when
an adult is willing to be a friend to a young person in need of a
positive influence. Like similar programs throughout the country, the
Big Brothers Big Sisters Program of Greater Lansing has been a smashing
success.
I would like to thank the Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Lansing
and everyone who has made the commitment to serve as a big brother or
big sister for a child. Thousands of children have found the friend,
the confident, the role model they never had in their big brothers and
big sisters. I send my sincere thanks to the Big Brothers Big Sisters
of Greater Lansing for taking the time to care and make the Lansing
community a better place for all children.

____________________

PRAISING THE CAREER OF P-I PUBLISHER, BILL WILLIAMS

______

HON. JOHN S. TANNER

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, Bill Williams understands what community
journalism is all about: ensuring an informed citizenry.
And he practiced that kind of community journalism in the pages of
the Paris Post-Intelligencer every day.
Now at 65, he has decided to retire as publisher of the Paris Post-
Intelligencer on August 20, 1999. He had been the paper's publisher
since 1978, when he took his father's place at the paper's helm.
Bill took seriously the responsibility that comes with a free press,
and you knew it immediately when you read his editorial page. Whether
it involved the Land Between the Lakes, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
State government, or even national issues, Bill Williams stood up for
his community and he wasn't afraid to take a controversial position
when he believed it was the right thing to do. Indeed, in 12 of the
past 21 years his editorials were recognized among the best in the
state.
Bill's family has owned the Paris Post-Intelligencer since 1927, when
his great grandfather, W. Percy Williams moved to Paris from Alabama
and purchased the P-I.
Upon his retirement, Bill Williams said he ``is very proud of the
newspaper.'' It's safe to say that the citizens of Henry County and
many beyond the county's borders are proud of Bill and his commitment
to this community.
His son, Michael Williams, takes over as the fourth-generation
publisher and will continue the tradition of community journalism that
has made the P-I an award winning newspaper.
An article published in the Paris Post-Intelligencer in Paris under
the headline, ``Publisher bill Williams steps down; Has been with P-I
most of adult life'' as well as his last column are printed below in
honor of Bill's service and commitment to his community.

Publisher Bill Williams Steps Down; Has Been With P-I Most of Adult
Life

With the retirement today of Bill Williams and the
promotion of Michael Williams, The Post-Intelligencer will
have a fourth-generation Williams as editor and publisher.
Bill Williams has been with the paper most of his adult
life and has been publisher since 1978. His son, Michael, 40,
who has served as editor since 1992, will add the duties and
title of publisher.
Bill Williams, who turns 65 today, became editor and
publisher at the retirement of his father, Bryant. Bryant
Williams in turn had taken over as publisher at the
retirement in 1967 of his father, the late W. Percy Williams,
who had come from Alabama to purchase The P-I in 1927.
Bill Williams said Thursday he ``is very proud of the
newspaper.''
``I tired to see that it's been a good citizen of our
community,'' he added.
He said that even though it's no fun dealing with an irate
advertiser or a reader who thinks he's been wronged in the
newspaper columns, he ``never seriously considered doing
anything else.''
While attending Atkins-Porter and Grove High schools,
Williams was a paper carrier. During his high school years,
he also worked as a reporter after school, on Saturdays and
during the summers.
After graduating third in his high school Class of 1952,
Williams went on to graduate with honors as a journalism
student at Murray State University. During his summers,
Williams took a break from his college work to be a reporter
for the P-I.
Throughout his college years, Williams was also a member of
The College News staff. He was named the outstanding
journalism student during his senior year.
After graduating from college, he was a reporter for the
Memphis Press-Scimitar for a brief period, then for The
Tullahoma News for three years before he returned to Paris in
1960 to become The P-I's news editor.
One of the things he said he enjoyed about his work was
that at the end of each day, he was able to hold a paper in
his hands and say, ``Here's what we did today.''
``It's also a joy to hear from people who used to work here
and have gone on to do well in the newspaper business or
elsewhere, and heard them speak fondly of their time at The
P-I,'' Williams said. ``You feel like you had a small part to
play in making someone's life a little more complete.''
Williams also added he appreciated the contact he had with
people both inside The P-I building and out, and that he
enjoyed meeting people and being involved in various
activities.
``Not every job offers that opportunity,'' Williams said.
The P-I has won awards and honors while under Williams'
guidance. His editorials won state press awards in 12 of the
past 21 years, including the best single editorial in 1998.
That editorial lauded U.S. Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., for his
controversial vote against a constitutional amendment to
outlaw flag-burning.
A 125th anniversary edition of The P-I, published in 1991,
won first prize in contests sponsored by the University of
Tennessee and the TPA. Those judging the entrants declared it
the best daily newspaper promotion in Tennessee during that
year.
``This is an exceptional service not only for the reader
but for the entire community, present and future,'' a contest
judge from the Washington State Press Association commented
about the anniversary promotion. ``Many newspapers do
something similar, but none with the depth and attention to
detail so evident in your entire project.''
Williams has served as president of the Tennessee Press
Association and of the Tennessee Associated Press Managing
Editors. He was a founding member of the board of directors
of the Mid-America Press Institute.

[[Page 22509]]

In retirement, Williams said he plans to stay involved in
civic activities, including the Optimist Club, where he's
past-president; the Heritage Center, where he's past-
executive director; and the Presbyterian Church, where he's
an elder and Sunday school teacher.
He added he and his wife, Anne, also plan to do some
traveling--``possibly snow birding to Florida or Texas in the
winter.''
They also have three daughters, Cindy Barnett and Joan
Stevens, both of Henry County, and Julie Ray of Clarksville;
and 11 grandchildren.

____
[From the Paris Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 20, 1999]

I'm Not Very Retiring About the Role of the Newspaper

(By Bill Williams)

Upon retirement, a fellow gets asked the usual questions
about the most memorable experiences or what it all has
meant. I suppose a valedictory is called for.
I will not fib and say that every moment has been pure joy
or that I can't understand why I get paid for doing something
that is so much fun.
There have been times that publishing a newspaper was pure
hell. It's no fun dealing with an irate advertiser. It's even
worse to talk with someone who's been hurt because we made a
mistake in print.
I can truthfully say, though, that I've never seriously
considered any other line of work.
If there any regrets, they're that I didn't spend more time
and energy preaching to our staff and to you, dear reader,
that newspapering is a noble business.
When we think of the highest callings, what usually come to
mind are the ministry, the healing arts, teaching and perhaps
law and law enforcement. A lot of people put the press down
near the bottom, somewhere close to congressmen.
Pardon my conceit, but I put the press up in that top
batch. We are in effect in the public education business.
People depend on us to know what's going on in the world so
they can react--where to spend their money, whom to vote for,
what to do this weekend.
The function is contained in the name of our newspaper. An
intelligencer, as I understand it, was a town crier, one who
spreads intelligence (in the information sense) among the
public.
I've always thought that Mirror is a good name for a
newspaper, too. I believe a newspaper's highest function is
to reflect as perfectly as possible what the world looks
like--both warts and dimples--so that the people will know
what to do. It's the philosophy of the Scripps-Howard
newspaper chain, which uses an image of a lighthouse and the
slogan. ``Give light and the people will find their own
way.''
It's a view that puts the public in an exalted position.
Some think that people are basically stupid and can be led
this way or that by anyone who is smart, glib and media
savvy. I disagree; I think when people are fully informed,
they usually make the right choice.
Others believe that the basic duty of a newspaper is to be
the community leader, beating the drum for needed
improvements and pushing people to do the right thing. That's
a high purpose, all right, but I really believe that an even
higher is the duty to tell just as fully as we can what's
happening and to trust the people to come to the right
conclusions.
Well. I didn't intend to preach so, but this is a bully
pulpit.
Let me take this opportunity to thank you for allowing The
P-I to be part of your life. I trust it will continue to be
for many years to come.

____________________

LEWIS FLACKS OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

______

HON. HOWARD COBLE

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, Lewis Flacks, who was employed nearly 25
years in the U.S. Copyright Office, died on July 23, 1999, in London.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, I
have come to rely on the technical expertise on copyright matters that
are available through the auspices of the Office. The men and women who
work there provide a great and needed service to the Congress and the
American public, and their contributions should be recognized with
greater frequency. In this regard, while I was saddened to learn of
Lewis' death, I am honored to have this opportunity to acknowledge his
life and his work.
I wish to enter in the Congressional Record the following article
regarding Lewis Flacks' accomplishments. It originally appeared in the
August issue of Copyright Notices, the staff newsletter of the
Copyright Office.

Lewis Flacks, An Appreciation

(By Ruth Sievers)

Lewis Flacks, 55 whose career at the Copyright Office
spanned over 20 years, died of cancer in London on July 23,
where he had lived for the past 6 years since leaving his
position as a policy planning advisor to the Register. He was
the director of legal affairs for the International
Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
Known for his brilliance, his wit, and his devotion to his
family, Lewis (also known as Lew in the Office) played major
roles in the revision on the Copyright Act in 1976 and in the
decision for the United States to adhere to the Berne
Convention in 1988. He was the senior copyright advisor to
the U.S. delegation during the TRIPS negotiations at the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Traffics and Trade
(GATT). He served on virtually every Committee of Experts
convened by the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) from 1984 to 1992 to deal with the Berne Convention
and the Universal Copyright Convention, and he was
influential in negotiating the final texts of the Geneva
Phonograms Convention and the Brussels Satellite Convention.
More recently, his work was critical in the adoption of two
important intellectual property treaties in December 1996,
the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty.
It was not only the incredible depth of his knowledge of
copyright law that made him an important resource in
negotiations, but his role as a ``peacemaker,'' as former
Register of Copyrights Barbara Ringer characterized him.
During the revision process, the lengthy period leading up
to the passage of the 1976 Act, Lewis came up with
``brilliant solutions'' enabling ``innumerable compromises,''
said Ringer. He was essential ``in putting out all those
brush fires.''
``He was a man of ideas,'' said Register of Copyrights
Marybeth Peters. ``He was brilliant at strategies. He could
talk about any subject in a way that bound his audience to
his ideas.''
``Because of his unsurpassed copyright expertise, his deft
diplomatic touch, and his legendary ability to forge
compromises, the United States spoke with a strong voice at
the international bargaining table,'' said Ralph Oman, a
former Register of Copyright.
A native New Yorker, Lewis was a 1964 graduate of the City
College of New York and a 1967 graduate of Georgetown Law
School. That was the same year he began his career in the
Copyright Office, when Barbara Ringer hired him as an
examiner, though she says her primary purpose in bringing him
on board was to get a project underway at the Library for the
preservation of motion pictures. A mutual friend had
recommended him to Ringer, who talked with him twice before
passing him along to Former Examining Division Chief Art
Levine for the actual hiring interview. ``As I recall, we
talked nothing but movies,'' she said. ``Nobody knew more
about movies than he did.''
He served the Office in various positions: senior examiner,
attorney-advisor in the General Counsel's Office, special
legal assistant to the Register, International copyright
officer, and policy planning advisor.
In speaking with his friends and colleagues to write this
piece, what comes across in his complete uniqueness.
``I've never known a more brilliant person, but he covered
it with his wild, modant humor,'' said Ringer. ``That's what
people remember him for, but he had a great deal of depth.''
``The most remarkable thing about Lewis was that time was
of no relevance to him,'' said Neil Turkewitz of the
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) who has
known him since 1987. ``It was the real genius of him; it
allowed him to explore the very details of things. He learned
from everything, because he was so patient. . . . What really
set him apart was his ability to learn.''
``He would recognize the little nugget tucked away'' that
others overlooked, said Ringer. ``He was a fantastic legal
technician; he could grasp things that would take others
weeks to see, and he could see all the ramifications.''
Furthermore, she said she knew she could rely on him to
``tell things like they are. He'd tell you if he thought you
were off on the wrong track. . . . So many people have their
own agendas or they just tell you what they think you want to
hear. You could always trust what Lewis said--he always saw
both sides of the picture.''
Said his wife, Frances Jones, who was his partner for 31
years, ``He had a strong sense of ethics . . . a sense of
fairness.''
To a person, everyone mentioned his wit. ``He had keen
insights into people, and he was always a wonderful and
entertaining person to be around,'' said Art Levine. ``I'd
introduce him to some of my clients at WIPO [meetings], and
they would always be eager to get together with him again.''
``He could be very funny, trotting out a variety of voices,
especially Yiddish ones, that left his listeners laughing in
the aisles,'' said David Levy, former attorney in the
Examining Division.
``He was the funniest person I ever met,'' said Eric
Schwartz, a former policy planning

[[Page 22510]]

advisor who worked with Lewis. Schwartz recounts a story of
how Flacks met comedian and actor Jerry Lewis in Paris--where
Jerry Lewis is revered--in 1987 at a meeting on moral rights.
``Lewis (Flacks) approached Jerry Lewis and introduced
himself as Jerry Lewis' `only American fan,' since only the
French really appreciate Jerry Lewis' films. Jerry Lewis
thought it was the funniest thing he'd heard.''
``He was a perfect colleague--smart, funny, and bluff; a
much sought-after dinner companion, he always had the best
jokes, the hottest news, and the latest photographs of his
beloved son, Paul,'' said Ralph Oman.
His love and devotion to his son Paul, who is now 14, is
something else that no one failed to mention in talking about
Lewis. As Peters said, ``His son was one of his greatest
joys.''
His wife mentioned another important role that Lewis played
in private life and in the Office--that of teacher. Said
Schwartz: ``He was a great teacher. He taught me
international copyright law in a series of long talks in his
office, which, combined with our love of films and his sense
of humor, made it fun to come to work.'' Said Peter
Vankevich, head of the Public Information Section, ``Lewis
made copyright come alive, after talking with him, you felt
really proud to work in the Office.''
Lewis had many passions--among them books, wine, theater,
and more recently, music. He was teaching himself to play the
guitar, Chicago-style blues. But above all, he was passionate
about movies.
``He knew more about film and film preservation than anyone
I've ever met, except for Barbara Ringer,'' said Schwartz,
who served as the Library's counsel to the Film Preservation
Board. ``I incorporated many of his ideas about film
preservation into the legislation creating and reauthorizing
the National Film Preservation Board (1988 and 1992) and
Foundation (1996). His suggestions really helped the cause of
film preservation, and he was very highly regarded in the
Motion Picture and Recorded Sound Division.''
Admittedly, Lewis was not perfect. He was famous--or
notorious--for not meeting deadlines. ``People had to flog
him to get him to finish,'' said Ringer. ``It could be
infuriating,'' said Levin, ``because he'd never get anything
done on time. But then, when he finally produced a piece, it
would be so brilliant, he'd get away with it.''
``Lewis did everything slowly,'' said Turkewitz. ``He even
walked slowly. You had to be careful or you'd be three blocks
ahead of him. . . . He was someone who just decided that the
decline of western civilization was being caused by its
frantic pace, and he wasn't going to live that way.''
Turkewitz said you might think that would mean Lewis was, in
terms of technology, a dinosaur, ``but he was just the
opposite. He was very interested in technology. . . . He was
a true renaissance man. He was complete sui generis.''
Or, as Ringer said, ``I never met anyone like him. He was
utterly unique.''
Or, as Jason Berman, head of IFPI said, ``The legacy of Lew
Flacks remains the legions of friends and admirers he made
around the world in a distinguished 30-year career.''
The Copyright Office is holding a memorial program for
Lewis Flacks on September 24 in the Mumford Room of the James
Madison Memorial Building.

____________________

COLLEGE MISERICORDIA ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 23, 1999

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of
my colleagues the 75th anniversary of a fine institution of higher
learning--College Misericordia of Dallas, PA. I am honored to have been
asked to participate in the kickoff event of the anniversary on
September 24.
Founded and sponsored by the Religious Sisters of Mercy in 1924,
Misericordia was the first 4-year college, the first Catholic college,
and the only all-female institution in Luzerne County, with 37 young
women in its first freshman class. Offering both bachelor of arts and
bachelor of science degrees, the college boasted 22 faculty members, 16
of them Sisters of Mercy. Today the bustling campus is home to more
than 1,700 students, 83 full-time faculty and 65 part-time faculty.
Misericordia offered its first summer courses in 1927 and began its
graduate program in 1960. In 1975, Misericordia opened its enrollment
to men and began to offer continuing education courses.
Mr. Speaker, College Misericordia is an integral part of the
Northeastern Pennsylvania community. In 1972, when Tropical Storm Agnes
caused the Susquehanna River to overflow her banks, more than 100,000
people were left without food and shelter. College Misericordia became
a shelter and hospital, with the benevolent Sisters of Mercy
administering aid to the victims of the disaster. Mercy Hospital,
totally inundated by raging flood waters, evacuated its patients and
staff to College Misericordia.
The college annually offers community-based cultural and athletic
programs. Each summer, former members of the National Players, a
Shakespearian theater company, present Theater-on-the-Green, bringing
the wit and wisdom of William Shakespeare to the area. The college
boasts an outstanding art gallery, the MacDonald Gallery, and the
Anderson Sports and Health Center, which offers community-based,
health-related activities for young and old.
Still under the sponsorship of the Sisters of Mercy, the college
currently has a lay president, Dr. Michael A. MacDowell. A liberal arts
college, it is especially known for its Education, Health Sciences,
Humanities, Social Work, Business, Mathematics, and Natural Sciences
programs.
The kick-off of the anniversary celebration is the dedication of the
Mary Kintz Bevevino Library on Friday, September 24. A 1987 graduate of
College Misericordia and later a Trustee until her death in 1993, Mary
saw a real need for a new library at Misericordia. Her family has
helped to make this dream a reality in Mary's honor. Beginning with one
building 75 years ago, the college now proudly boasts 13 beautiful
buildings.
Mr. Speaker, many alumni, students, faculty, staff and Sisters will
pay tribute on Saturday to the spirit of giving which was the ideal of
the Founding Sisters. They will volunteer their time and efforts around
the community in various projects of Habitat for Humanity, St. Vincent
Soup Kitchen, Catherine McCauley House, and Mercy Center, just to name
a few. It is a fitting start to an anniversary year and a fitting
tribute to an order of religious Sisters whose very purpose is to help
others. I am extremely pleased and proud to have had the opportunity to
bring the history of this fine institution to the attention of my
colleagues. I send my sincere best wishes for continued success to
College Misericordia.

____________________

THE HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

______

speech of

HON. BARBARA LEE

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, September 22, 1999

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague today in strong
support for implementing legislation to substantially reduce the
exorbitant prices of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Our
current Medicare program drastically fails to offer protection against
the costs of most outpatient prescription drugs. H.R. 664, the
Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999 aims to create an
affordable prescription drug benefit program that will expand the
accessibility and autonomy of all Medicare patients. This bill will
protect Medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug
manufacturers and make prescription drugs available to Medicare
beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices.
Currently, Medicare offers a very limited prescription drug benefit
plan for the 39 million aged and disabled persons obtaining its
services. Many of these beneficiaries have to supplement their Medicare
health insurance program with private or public health insurance in
order to cover the astronomical costs not met by Medicare.
Unfortunately, most of these plans offer very little drug cost
coverage, if any at all. Therefore, Medicare patients across the United
States are forced to pay over half of their total drug expenses out-of-
pocket as compared to 34 percent paid by the population as a whole. Due
to these burdensome circumstances, patients are forced to spend more of
their limited resources on drugs which hampers access to adequate
medication needed to successfully treat conditions for many of these
individuals.
In 1995, we found that persons with supplementary prescription drug
coverage used 20.3 prescriptions per year compared to 15.3 for those
individuals lacking supplementary coverage. The patients without
supplementary coverage were forced to compromise their health because
they could not afford to pay for the additional drugs that they needed.
The quality and life of these individuals continue to deteriorate while
we continued to limit their access to basic health necessities. H.R.
664 will tackle this problem by allowing our patients to purchase
prescription drugs at a lower price.
Why should our patients have to continually compromise their health
by being forced to decide which prescription drugs to buy and which
drugs not to take, simply because of

[[Page 22511]]

budgetary caps that limit their access to treat the health problems
they struggle with? These patients cannot afford to pay these
burdensome costs. We must work together to expand Medicare by making it
more competitive, efficient, and accessible to the demanding needs of
our patients. By investing directly in Medicare, we choose to invest in
the lives, health, and future of our patients. By denying them access
to affordable prescription drugs, we deny these individuals the right
to a healthy life which continues to deteriorate their well-being and
quality of life.
The House Committee on Government Reform conducted several studies
identifying the price differential for commonly used drugs by senior
citizens on Medicare and those with insurance plans. These surveys
found that drug manufacturers engage in widespread price
discrimination, forcing senior citizens and other individual purchasers
to pay substantially more for prescription drugs than favored
customers, such as large HMO's, insurance companies and the Federal
Government.
According to these reports, older Americans pay exorbitant prices for
commonly used drugs for high blood pressure, ulcers, heart problems,
and other serious conditions. The report reveals that the
price differential between favored customers and senior citizens for
the cholesterol drug Zocor is 213 percent; while favored customers--
corporate, governmental, and institutional customers--pay $34.80 for
the drug, senior citizens in the 9th Congressional District may pay an
average of $109.00 for the same medication. The study reports similar
findings for four other drugs investigated in the study: Norvase (high
blood pressure): $59.71 for favored customers and $129.19 for seniors;
Prilosec (ulcers): $59.10 for favored customers and $127.30 for
seniors; Procardia XL (heart problems): $68.35 for favored customers
and $142.21 for seniors; and Zoloft (depression): $115.70 for favored
customers and $235.09 for seniors.

If Medicare is not paying for these drugs, then the patient is left
to pay out of pocket. Numerous patients are forced to gamble with their
health when they cannot afford to pay for the drugs needed to treat
their conditions. Every day, these patients have to live with the fear
of having to encounter major medical problems because they were denied
access to prescription drugs they could not afford to pay out of their
pocket. Often times, senior citizens must choose between buying food or
medicine. This is wrong.
Reports studying comparisons in prescription drug prices in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico reveal that United States individuals
pay much more for prescription drugs than our neighboring countries. In
1991, the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that prescription
drugs in the United States were priced at 34 percent higher than the
same pharmaceutical drugs in Canada. Studies administered on
comparisons between the United States and Mexico also reveal that drug
prices in Mexico are considerably lower than in the United States. In
both Canada and Mexico, the government is one of the largest payers for
prescription drugs which gives them significant power to establish
prices as well as influence what drugs they will pay for.
Many Medicare patients have significant health care needs. They are
forced to survive on very limited resources. They are entitled to
medical treatments at affordable prices. H.R. 664 will benefit millions
of patients each year. This bill will address many of the problems
relating to prescription drugs and work to ensure that patients have
adequate access to their basic health needs. Let's stop gambling with
the lives of Medicare patients and support this plan to strengthen and
modernize Medicare by finally making prescription drugs available to
Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. It is a matter
of life or death.