Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 for October 27, 1999

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Issue]
[Pages 26918-27279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 26918]]

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.

October 27, 1999
October 27, 1999

SENATE--Wednesday, October 27, 1999

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Gracious Father, it is through an experience of Your grace that joy
surges in us this morning. For life and strength, for work and friends,
for every gift Your goodness sends, we praise You, loving God. May this
be a day dedicated to gladness. Chase from our hearts all gloomy
thoughts. Make us glad with the sheer delight of being alive. We are
uplifted by Zephaniah's assurance that in spite of everything that we
do or fail to do, You sing over us with gladness--Zephaniah 3:17. And
that motivates us to accept the Psalmist's admonition as our motto
today: ``Serve the Lord with gladness.''--Psalm 100:2.
May the Senators and all of us who work with them grasp the
opportunities and meet the challenges this day holds with divinely
inspired gladness. You are our God, the Sovereign of this Nation, our
Lord and Savior. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable WAYNE ALLARD, a Senator from the State of Colorado, led
the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

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

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a
period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. By previous consent, the
Senate will then begin consideration of H.R. 434, the African trade
bill. It is the hope of the majority leader that the Senate can
complete action on the bill prior to the close of business on Friday.
Therefore, Senators are encouraged to work with the bill managers if
they intend to offer amendments. The Senate may also consider any
legislative or executive items cleared for action during today's
session of the Senate.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE ADS

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to respond to a series
of ads that are being run in my State by the National Republican
Congressional Campaign Committee. These ads are false. They are what
can only be charitably termed misleading, and they diminish the
credibility of the National Republican Congressional Campaign
Committee.
That is not just my conclusion, Mr. President. That is the conclusion
of the major newspaper of my State, the Fargo Forum, which has written
an editorial in which it says:

Politics is often a down and dirty business, but the
National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's early
TV ads 13 months before the election, and even before State
Republicans have an endorsed congressional candidate, are a
new low in the campaign gutter. They're false on every level.
Decent North Dakota Republicans should tell the national
group to clean up its act.

Well, amen to that because the National Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee ought to be ashamed of the ads they are running in
North Dakota. They are claiming that Democrats are raiding the Social
Security trust fund here in Washington. They must have forgotten they
are in control in the House of Representatives and they are in control
in the Senate. It is not Democrats who are determining the spending
priorities in the House of Representatives. The Republicans are in
control. They are deciding the budget outcome in the House of
Representatives. If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle
black, this is it because we know that the majority party themselves
are, in fact, raiding Social Security.
That is not just the conclusion of the senior Senator from North
Dakota. That is the conclusion of the Washington Post which had a major
news story with the headline ``GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security
Surplus.'' It is the Republican Party's plan that is tapping the Social
Security surplus.
For them to then run ads claiming the Democrats are doing it is just
a giant diversionary tactic. They are trying to avoid responsibility
for what they are doing. It is not only the Washington Post that has
made this point. We also have the Congressional Budget Office. The
Congressional Budget Office, which they control, has sent a letter
which says very clearly that the Republican spending plans have tapped
Social Security for $18 billion. In other words, they are raiding the
Social Security accounts for $18 billion. That is their plan, that is
their responsibility, and to avoid accountability apparently they have
decided, or their campaign consultants have decided, that the best
defense is an offensive attack.
So in my State of North Dakota, 13 months before the election, they
are running ads that the major newspaper in my State says are ``a new
low in the campaign gutter. They are false on every level.'' And,
indeed, they are. They are false on every level. The people of America
who are being subjected to these ads ought to know exactly what is
going on and who is doing what with respect to the budget of the United
States.
One of the things I find most ironic is that the National Republican
Congressional Campaign Committee which is sponsoring these ads are the
very same folks who sponsored a constitutional amendment a number of
years ago that had as its base that they would raid the Social Security
trust fund in order to balance the budget. These folks who trumpeted
this constitutional amendment to balance the budget had as a definition
of a balanced budget the raiding of the Social Security trust fund.
Now they have the chutzpah to come before the American people and run
ads saying the Democrats are raiding the Social Security trust fund
surplus. And the Democrats are not in control. We don't control the
U.S. House of Representatives. We don't control the Senate.
Again, the major newspaper in my State has called these ads false on
every level.
Maybe it is helpful to review the record of who has done what with
respect to budget policy.
I am on the Budget Committee. I am on the Finance Committee. I am
known in the Budget Committee as the ``deficit hawk.''
I have been involved in every effort to get our fiscal house in
order. I believe deeply in the need for fiscal discipline. That is
primarily why I ran for the Senate. I saw back when I ran in 1986 that
things were running amuck; that the deficits were growing; that we were
getting deeper in debt, and this country was in real trouble. I
believed then and I believe now that it is

[[Page 26919]]

threatening the national security of the United States.
If we go back and review the record of the Reagan years, he inherited
a deficit of about $80 billion. Very quickly, under Reaganomics the
deficit exploded up to over $200 billion a year. In fact, during this
time we tripled the national debt. This trickle-down economics was a
disaster.
Then we saw in the Bush years, again, the deficit took off like a
scalded cat. It went from $150 billion a year up to $290 billion a
year.
That is the record of our friends on the other side of the aisle.
They were in charge. They were in control. Reaganomics was carrying the
day.
We saw headline after headline about how the Republicans in the House
and the Senate in conjunction with boll weevil Democrats were passing
Reaganomics and Reaganomics exploded the deficit and exploded the debt.
That is the record.
When the Clinton administration came in in 1992, we passed a plan in
1993 that reduced the deficit--a 5-year budget plan. We can go back and
check the record. It is not a matter of running television ads. It is a
matter of fact. Facts are very clear.
The deficit under that 5-year plan declined each and every year. The
deficit went down from $290 billion in the last year of the Bush
administration to $255 billion. And each year that deficit was reduced
in the 5 years of that budget plan.
By the way, we passed that budget plan without a single Republican
vote--not one, not one. In 1997, we agreed on a bipartisan plan to
finish the job.
There I commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because
we did join together in 1997 for a balanced budget plan to finish the
job. But the truth is most of the heavy lifting had been done by the
1993 plan. But we didn't have a single Republican vote--not one.
I heard another ad this morning, this time attacking Bill Bradley and
Al Gore. This was run by some committee called the National Republican
Council. I never heard of it. But they were running ads attacking Bill
Bradley and Al Gore saying they had voted for increased spending and
increased taxes.
Do you know they were here and they were fighting for the 1993 plan
that eliminated this deficit? That is the fact. The fact is Federal
spending in real terms, as measured as a percentage of our national
income, is at its lowest level since 1974. Back in 1993 when we passed
that plan, Federal spending was 22 percent of our national income. It
is now down to 19 percent of our national income.
So the truth about Mr. Bradley, who voted for that 1993 plan, and the
truth about Mr. Gore, who was Vice President and argued for that 1993
plan, is that in real terms they supported a reduction in Federal
spending. That is the truth. That is the truth of the matter.
But I guess political consultants don't have to worry about the
truth. They are more interested in scoring rhetorical points. They
don't have to worry apparently about the factual record.
Let's look at the factual record. Here is the history going back 20
years in Federal receipts and Federal outlays.
The blue line shows expenditures of the Federal Government. The red
line is the income of the Federal Government, the receipts. You can see
during the Reagan years there was an enormous gap between the two. That
is why we had these budget deficits because we were spending more than
we were taking in.
In 1993, right here when we passed the plan, again, without a single
Republican vote, that cut spending. You can see the blue line--the
spending line--is coming down, and it raised revenue. Yes, it did. We
raised taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent in this country; raised income
taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. And it was that combination of
cutting spending and raising revenue that eliminated the deficit.
That is how we balanced the budget. Thank God we did. Thank God there
was a Bill Bradley who was courageous enough to stand on this floor and
cast a tough vote to get our fiscal house in order. Thank God there was
an Al Gore as Vice President of the United States who had the courage
to stand up and support a plan to get our fiscal house in order after
the disasters of the Reagan and Bush administrations when it was all
talk about fiscal responsibility and it was all deficits and debt. That
is their legacy.
If we want to debate, I am ready to debate this anytime anywhere with
anyone about what happened and when and what the results have been. But
they have these smear ads running in my State and smear ads running
nationally that distort the truth.
That is going to get a response because we are not going to allow
people to tell falsehoods about what occurred. Too many people took
real risks in order to get the fiscal house of our country back in
order, and the record is abundantly clear about who did what.
This is the reality. In 1993, a 5-year budget plan was passed that
worked, that cut spending in real terms, that raised revenue, and that
balanced the budget. The result is a dramatically strengthened
economy--the longest record of economic expansion in our history, and
an economic performance that is the envy of the world.
The inflation rate is the lowest in 33 years. Here we went. In 1993,
the plan was passed. Inflation came down. The unemployment rate is the
lowest in 41 years. The central reason was the budget plan that was
passed in 1993 that moved us toward a balanced budget and towards
fiscal discipline to getting our fiscal house in order.
Debt held by the public is coming down dramatically. In 1993, the
first year of the plan, publicly held debt in comparison with our gross
domestic product was 50 percent. If we stay on the course that we have
set now, we will have this debt down to 9 percent of our gross domestic
product in 2009. We can eliminate publicly held debt in 15 years.
That is the course we are on. That is the course the Democrats
established. That is the course which is the result of the 1993 plan
that brought fiscal discipline back to this government and led to an
incredible economic expansion.
Welfare caseloads: Another benefit of getting our fiscal house in
order.
This is also not only a result of a good economy, but it is also a
result of welfare reform, which in fairness I should say was done on a
bipartisan basis. We had help from our Republican friends, and many of
us felt strongly that welfare reform was required, and, indeed, it has
produced incredibly positive results. Welfare caseloads are the lowest
they have been in 29 years.
Republicans, this year, have engaged the Congress in a series of what
I can only call sort of baffling gimmicks, in order to try to make it
look to the American people that they are not raiding Social Security.
They are running ads that the major newspaper in my State has
described as ``a new low in the campaign gutter. They are false on
every level.'' That is what the Republican Congressional Campaign
Committee is instituting in my State. The facts show something quite
different.
The Congressional Budget Office says the non-Social Security surplus
for the year we are working on, fiscal year 2000, is $14 billion. What
does that mean? That means if we take out the Social Security surplus,
we have $14 billion of what I call a true surplus in fiscal year 2000.
If we take the House and Senate committee actions to date, the Budget
Committee directives to CBO spent $18 billion of that.
Emergency spending: The Republicans have labeled a whole series of
spending initiatives ``emergencies'' to avoid the requirements of
fiscal discipline--$13 billion is declared emergencies, including the
census. The census is provided for in the U.S. Constitution. We have
been instituting the census for 200 years in this country, and they
declare it an emergency. They declared the low-income heating program
in this country an emergency--a program we have had for 24 years. That
is absolutely nonsense.
Social Security administrative costs: They have taken those and don't
want

[[Page 26920]]

to count them, debt service costs and others. Add this up, and they are
into Social Security by $21 billion. They are raiding Social Security
by $21 billion and are trying to hide the raid by running television
ads that some clever campaign consultant told them is their best
strategy for avoiding their own responsibility. To try to avoid their
own accountability, they are claiming the Democrats are instituting it.
The problem with that: Democrats are not in control. Republicans are in
control, and this is what they are instituting. They are raiding Social
Security. The record is abundantly clear.
One of the last times I came to the floor was when the Republicans
came up with the gimmick--and they have come up with a whole series of
them to try to avoid the charge that they are instituting precisely
what they claim Democrats are instituting--of having a 13th month. They
came up with kind of a clever idea to get around the problem by
declaring a 13th month in this country. The last time I checked the
calendar, there were only 12 months. But the Republicans decided they
would come up with a 13th month to make it look as though they were not
raiding the Social Security trust fund surplus. That is a novel idea. I
came to the floor and wondered, what would they call it? ``Spend-
tember''? Would they call it ``Fictionary''? What would we call a 13th
month?
Why stop there? Why not have 14 or 15 months? What would be the
additional month that would be added? Would we have two Augusts or two
Decembers? I favored two Octobers because I enjoy baseball; we could
have two World Series. Maybe we could have two Decembers so we could
celebrate Christmas twice.
I know it sounds far fetched, but this is the headline in the
Washington Post: ``GOP Seeks to Ease Crunch with 13-Month Fiscal
Year.'' That is the length to which they go to avoid accountability and
responsibility. That is what happened.
That is not the only gimmick they came up with. They got the 13th
month. They have the census emergency--the census we have been
instituting for 200 years they claim is an emergency. They declared
LIHEAP an emergency, the low-income heating program. We have had that
program for 24 years. They proposed delaying earned-income tax credit
payments to people. They were even chastised by their own leading
Presidential candidate. He made it very clear they were way out of tune
with the American people when they proposed that gimmick.
That is what is going on to cover this mismanagement and to cover
this fiscal irresponsibility. The National Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee is running television ads in my State claiming
Democrats are raiding Social Security. That dog doesn't hunt. That is
not going to fly. We are going to respond very forcefully when people
try to misrepresent the record.
As I began, I conclude: The major newspaper in my State called these
ads ``a new low in the campaign gutter. They are false on every
level.''
That is the truth. I hope the National Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee will stop running these ads because they are false.
They are irresponsible. They are misleading. They ought to be stopped.
That is the record. That is the fact. I hope people, as they evaluate
candidates in this next election, will inquire: What is the record of
candidates on the question of spending Social Security surpluses, on
raiding Social Security trust funds?
I am prepared to answer that question. Every budget plan I have
offered, every budget plan Senate Democrats have offered, has
maintained the Social Security surplus. We haven't touched the Social
Security surplus. We wouldn't engage in a raid of the Social Security
surplus. That is true of the plan Senate Democrats offered in the
Finance Committee. That is true of the plan Senate Democrats offered in
the Budget Committee. For anyone to say anything else is an absolute
falsehood.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand under a previous order the
Senator from Wyoming controls 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator from Wyoming to yield me 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized
for 10 minutes.

____________________

THE BUDGET

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the comments
made on the floor relative to where we are going with the budget. I
specifically want to talk about the issue as it relates to a committee
of which I am chairman. The committee I chair is the Commerce, Justice,
State, and the Judiciary Subcommittee. The President of the United
States opted to veto our bill. In his veto message, his representation
was that we simply had not spent enough money. That was essentially
what it came down to.
His representation on the other bills he has vetoed is also that we
have not spent enough money as a Congress. In fact, in listening to the
President and the proposals he puts forward, we find he is talking
about spending billions and billions more than what the Congress
suggested we spend.
The Senator from North Dakota has come to the floor and said that the
Republicans have used gimmicks, that we have forward-funded, which we
have, which is not a gimmick; it has been done in the Congress before
on many occasions; that we have declared items emergencies, which we
have. In fact, the Senator from North Dakota supported, I suspect
rather strongly and with enthusiasm, the declaring of the agricultural
situation as an emergency. It has been declared an emergency every year
since I have been here, so I don't know why it is an emergency. But it
has been declared an emergency. It is a way of funding agricultural
issues, and there are severe strictures in the agricultural community
today.
The Senator from North Dakota didn't mention where we are going to
get the extra money the President asked for. Where are we going to get
it? The Republicans have allegedly used gimmicks so we could not take
it from Social Security--which we have not, by the way; we have managed
not to take any money from Social Security. Where is the President
going to get it from? The President is going to get it from Social
Security because the only other option is to raise taxes and we have
already seen a vote in the House of Representatives--415-0 I think was
the vote--saying they were not going to raise taxes. So that is not an
option. It is not even on the table.
The President makes these proposals: We are going to raise spending
here; we want more money here; we want more money here. The Democratic
Members, on the other side of the aisle, say: Hooray, hooray, more
money for this, more money for that. When Republicans say, Isn't that
coming out of Social Security? there is just this silence from the
other side of the aisle.
Of course, it is coming out of Social Security because we have no
other resource from which to draw those funds than Social Security. So
there is a lot of gamesmanship coming from the other side of the aisle
on this issue. There always has been, on Social Security, of course.
There are literally generations, now, of Members of the other side of
the aisle who have demagogged the issue of Social Security. As many of
us have tried to put forward substantive Social Security responses, we
have found this President, who allegedly wants to address Social
Security, has failed to do so in a substantive way. But we hear now he
wants to raid Social Security to pay for his new spending and they will
not even admit to that. The statements from the other side of the aisle
are hollow on that issue, to say the least. But let me go back to the
specifics of this proposal.
The President has vetoed the Commerce-State-Justice bill, which has
under it the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and the State
Department. It also has a lot of agencies such as the Small Business
Administration, FCC, FTC, SEC, elements of

[[Page 26921]]

Government which are critical to the day-to-day operation of the
Government and to our maintaining a sound economy and safe society. But
the President has vetoed this bill. Why has he vetoed it? Basically, he
has vetoed it because we did not spend enough money in some of the
programs he wanted and because we did not include language he wanted in
a couple of areas. He has vetoed it specifically on the allegations we
do not spend enough money on the COPS Program.
Let's look at that for a second. This Congress authorized 100,000
cops to be put on the street under the President's request, in a
bipartisan way. We have paid for every one of those police officers in
this appropriations bill. Not only have we paid for every one of those
police officers, we paid for an additional 10,000 or 15,000 police
officers in this bill. So we can go up to 110,000 or 115,000 police
officers under this bill.
What does the President say? He says that is not enough. He says he
wants 130,000 to 150,000 police officers, even though there are only
100,000 authorized. That in itself is a bit of a reach, to ask for an
extra 30,000 to 50,000 officers when they are not even authorized. But
what is really inconsistent about this, and what really shows what a
sham statement this is, the administration, although they have the
money for 100,000 officers since we paid for 100,000 officers in our
bill, has only been able to get out of the door enough money to fund
60,000 officers. In other words, down there in the White House they are
now asking for another 30,000 to 50,000 officers when they cannot even
undertake the day-to-day administrative event of paying for the full
100,000 we gave them in the first place. They are still 40,000 officers
short from the original authorized number.
It takes 18 months to get this through the system, to get an officer
on the street after they have agreed to pay for that officer. So they
are literally a year and a half away at the minimum from even reaching
the 100,000 level. So we said, OK, we agree more officers on the street
makes sense so we will go over the 100,000 number; we will give you
another 10,000 officers. Then the President vetoes it, saying he hasn't
enough, when his administration has not even put out on the street the
first 100,000. How blatantly political can this administration be? How
hypocritical can this administration be? They did not veto this bill
over police officers who were not there. They vetoed this bill because
they want to put out a press release that they are vetoing bills. It
had nothing to do with the actual substance of how many police officers
we have on the street or how many police officers we paid for because
we paid for every police officer they put out there, and we are willing
to pay for another 40,000, another 55,000 if they could put them out.
But they cannot because they are not able to do it. It is pure hocum,
this language that they want more police officers, and they vetoed it
over the lack of funding in this account. It is just a pure political
thing.
Then they said they vetoed it because they did not get enough money--
no, not because they didn't get enough, because we did not give them
the money for the U.N. We did not give them the money for the U.N.
Every dollar they asked for, for the U.N., is in this bill, every
dollar for U.N. fees is in this bill. Every dollar for arrearages is in
this bill. Yes, there is not the full money they asked for for
peacekeeping, but every other account in the U.N. is fully paid for in
this bill. Why can't they get it out? Why can't they send it up to the
U.N.? Why can't they pay England the arrearages we owe them? Why can't
they pay France the arrearages we owe them? That is where this money
goes. It doesn't stay in the U.N. Most of it flows to other countries
that have picked up our obligations. Because they have a bunch of
activists down at the White House who are focused on a very narrow
issue of international Planned Parenthood and are unwilling to release
the money to fund the world organization known as the U.N., which is a
major international organization, because they are willing to hold up
funding over an extraordinarily narrow issue dealing with Planned
Parenthood lobbying internationally. It does not have anything to do
with the United States.
Not only that, but the language which they are holding up the funding
over is language which was in existence, which this Government operated
under during the Reagan administration and during the Bush
administration. It is, to say the least, genuinely innocuous language.
But they have activists down there at the White House, activists who
are willing to take down the U.N. and our relationship with the U.N.
over this narrow piece of language.
It is unbelievable they would blame the Congress, which has fully
funded the arrearage issue, when it is just a small group of extreme
activists serving at the White House who are tying up the release of
this money. The money is there. The money is physically there. Every
dollar, every cent, is on the table and ready to be sent to the U.N. to
pay the arrearages. The only thing that stops us is, I suspect, one or
two internationalists, activists at the White House who have decided to
make a cause celebre for themselves over this really obscure piece of
language which, by the way, as I mentioned, was the law of the land in
the United States for the Reagan and the Bush administrations.
So the idea the Congress has in any way interfered with the ability
to pay the arrearages is, again, pure hocum. This is a classic example
of the situation where the individual shoots his parents and throws
himself before the court and asks for mercy because he is an orphan.
The White House has decided to shoot its parents--in this case the
U.N.--and then claim it has no role in the event and is pure when, in
fact, it is the reason we cannot pay the arrearages. That is just pure
hocum.
We now know the two major reasons they vetoed this bill; the COPS
reason has no substance to it, and the U.N. language is their problem,
not our problem. We put the money in. They are the ones who are holding
this up.
Then they listed a whole series of little different items, one of
which I found most interesting. In the Senate we took up two different
hate crime proposals to move this bill through so we could actually get
it to conference. Then in conference it became absolutely clear there
was no way an issue such as hate crimes, as massive as it is, could be
handled in our conference. We had two competing ideas. So we put them
aside and sent them back to the authorizing committee. Ironically, the
amendments were offered by the chairman and ranking member of the
authorizing committee, so one would hope the authorizing committee
could straighten this issue out and we, as appropriators, would not
have to straighten it out.
What does the White House say? It says it wants the hate crimes
legislation on this bill. This is an appropriations bill. This is a
bill that funds the FBI, DEA, and the INS. Those are real law
enforcement issues. They are going to undermine the ability of the FBI
to do its job, the ability of the INS to do its job, the ability of the
DEA to do its job, so they can get hate crimes legislation? They are
going to undermine the ability of U.S. attorneys to do their jobs, the
ability of U.S. marshals to do their jobs, the ability of the U.S.
court system to do its job, so they can get hate crimes legislation?
They are going to undermine the FEC, FTC, and the FCC so they can get
their hate crimes legislation?
How outrageous. What sort of priority is this from this White House?
What sort of priority puts language on hate crimes ahead of the FBI,
DEA, INS, ahead of the U.S. attorneys, ahead of the U.S. marshals, the
FCC, FEC, FTC--what type of priority is it when they know in order to
get that language they have to go through an authorizing committee
anyway? It is beyond belief they would put at risk the law enforcement
agencies of this country in order to get hate crimes language, which in
the first place is a State issue.
I note the State of Wyoming--the Senator from Wyoming is on the
floor--is doing one heck of a job in pursuing that issue at the State
level.
It is first a State issue. The irony of it is, he is undermining the
entire law

[[Page 26922]]

enforcement community of the United States because he wants a new
criminal act on the Federal books.
Is there a total disconnect at the White House? There appears to be.
The veto of this bill--and there are a lot of other miscellaneous
points--but the veto of this bill has nothing to do with the substance
of this bill. It was done purely for political reasons so the President
could look as if he was in charge or he could look as if he was
standing up to the Congress.
The practical effect of vetoing this bill, however, is to undermine
law enforcement across this country, to make it impossible for us to
pay our U.N. arrearages, and to make it extremely hard for these
agencies, which are so critical to the functioning of our country, to
continue to function in an effective way.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Wyoming
for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Idaho, the chairman of the majority policy committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I especially thank the Senator from Wyoming
for coming to the floor this morning to discuss with all of us some
very important issues and building a perspective that I do not think
the American people hear or have an opportunity to read or understand
as it relates to the politics inside the beltway and what is good or
not so good for the American people.
We just heard the chairman of a key appropriations subcommittee who
spent the last 6 months crafting an appropriations bill to run a major
portion of our Government while the President was out traveling around
the world and traveling around this country not engaged and not focused
on the budget. When the appropriations bill to fund these key areas of
Government finally arrived at his desk, the President vetoed it and
said: I didn't get my way.
I am always frustrated by an executive branch of Government that does
not come to the Hill and sit down with us and work out our differences
in the proper forum but chooses to set the stage of politics over the
key issues that are substantive when it comes to law enforcement and
safe streets and safe communities for our families and our country.
I have struggled with this President over the last several months,
especially when he decided to allow terrorists out of prison. That is
exactly what happened. I do not know of any other way to say it. This
President personally decided that he was going to offer clemency to
convicted terrorists. What were they convicted of? Violation of Federal
firearms laws. That is law enforcement. Those are Federal laws violated
by people who killed others and violated Federal explosive and firearms
laws. And this President says he is for law enforcement by putting more
cops on the street, then he totally demoralizes or destroys the very
foundation of law enforcement by saying: Arrest them and put them in
prison and I will let them out because it is ``politically correct'' to
do so.
Shame on you, Mr. President; shame on you and your politics at this
moment because somehow you cannot have it both ways, at least I hope
you cannot, but you are trying. You are also trying to make the use of
a firearm a major political issue. Yet you offer clemency to those who
violate the very laws you ought to be enforcing. Shame on you, again,
Mr. President.
The Senate worked its will and did an excellent job with those
appropriations bills. I do not deny the executive branch the right to
participate. They have a legitimate role to play in the shaping of the
budget. But in the final analysis, it is the Constitution that says it
is the right and the appropriate role of the Congress to appropriate
moneys, and it is the responsibility of the Executive to administer
those moneys within the policy and the framework established for the
Congress of the United States.
Mr. President, I am pleased you are finally going to lay off Social
Security. Remember what our President said 2 years ago? Save Social
Security; don't spend a dime of the surplus. Then this year in his
state of the budget message he says: Well, gee, there is so much money
there, why don't we spend a little of it. We will save 60 percent and
we will spend the rest over the next 15 years and, oh, by the way, I
also want to raise taxes during a time of unprecedented surpluses in
our country because I have so many great ideas that I want for people,
and I want to spend all this money and I want to raise your taxes to do
it and I also want to spend some of the Social Security money to do so.
Thank goodness the Congress, the Republican Congress, stood up and
said: No, Mr. President. The House passed a provision to provide a
lockbox so that Social Security surpluses would be dedicated to Social
Security and would pay down the liabilities of Social Security and
strengthen the ability of that great system to support its obligations
in the outyears.
We tried to pass it in the Senate, and guess who opposed it. The
Democrats. They filibustered it and would not allow a vote and
constantly said: We are all for Social Security. Why would they not
guarantee that its moneys would be assured a lockbox provision? The
American people said they wanted it. The seniors of America,
recognizing the importance of Social Security to their very existence,
said that is the right thing to do, but the President said: No, I want
to spend about 30 percent or 40 percent of the Social Security surplus
over the next 15 years.
Just in the last month, it is fair and important to say the President
has finally agreed that he will leave Social Security surpluses alone
and, thank goodness, Mr. President, you have agreed with us because
that would have been a phenomenal fight because we were committed and
dedicated, even though it was filibustered in the Senate by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are going to protect the
Social Security surplus. Period. End of statement.
Let's talk about the rest of the budget we are battling. A couple of
weeks ago, I was amazed to see the President kind of quietly come out
and then not so quietly say: We need more money to spend besides the
record surpluses we have.
I have served Congress and the people of Idaho longer than I want to
admit--19 years. I am amazed that only last year did I begin to see a
slight surplus and this year a substantial surplus. Never at a time of
surplus have I ever heard of a President asking for a tax increase. But
this President did because of all these great new social ideas, that
somehow is going to help people by taking more money away from them and
then giving it back to them in politically correct ways.
I am not sure that ever helps the American family to take money away
from them and then try in some form to decide what is the right way to
give it back. We said: No, Mr. President.
Finally, just this last week, after having tried for well over 6
months, the President is slowly backing away from the tax idea,
although yesterday he came through the backdoor again and said: Well,
let's adjust some fees and let's see if we can come up with a little
more revenue. Shame on you, Mr. President. America's taxpayers are
being taxed at an all-time rate--high rate. While you are saying it is
only a tobacco tax, a tax is a tax is a tax.
And, of course, while I do not smoke, and I wish that others would
not--there are many who do who should not--yet we are going to tax
them. Well, we are not going to tax them because I don't think this
Congress will stand for it.
I have always understood the politics of surplus is more difficult
than the politics of deficit spending. When I first came to Congress in
1980, we had deficits, and they grew very rapidly over fights on budget
priorities. But it was not until 1994, when the American people said:
Enough of deficits. I'm sorry; a Democrat-controlled Congress is out of
control, with a President who wants to spend more money, and we're
going to change those dynamics, and they elected a more conservative
Congress, a Republican Congress.

[[Page 26923]]

We said we were going to balance the budget by the year 2002 and we
would shape a process that would take us there. Thank goodness for a
strong economy and for a fiscally responsible Congress and a monetary
supply that stayed in sync. We are now at a balanced budget. We had it
last year. We now have a balanced budget and surpluses this year. And I
see more wrangling over budgets and spending priorities than I have
ever seen in all my years here.
I understand the politics of surplus are difficult. But why shouldn't
we be giving back to the American people some of their hard-earned
money? It is their money. But, no, we have had a President who has
insisted on constantly spending it. We put a marvelous tax package
together this year, going right at middle America, to enhance the lives
of our citizens, to improve the condition of America's families and
communities, and this President vetoed it because he wants to prescribe
how the money gets spent because somehow we have a White House that
says: I know better. I know I can outthink the American family. I can
shape a school system better than the American family and the American
community because somehow I abide by this unique knowledge of knowing
how to do it better.
I disagree with you, Mr. President. Thank goodness, we have a
Congress that does. That does not mean we are not going to work out our
differences. The President has a right to participate. But I do not
think he has a right to do one thing and say another, and do another
thing and say something else. And that is what he has done with law
enforcement. That is what he is doing in education. That is clearly
what he has done on Social Security. That is what he is now trying to
do with the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for acquiring this time
to speak on these key issues. It is very important the American people
see the difference. Politics should not be the business of hypocrisy.
It ought to be the business of fact. Saying one thing and doing another
should not stand. Yet we have had about 7 long years of it with this
President.
Mr. President, I say no to those kinds of attitudes and reactions,
and I think it is important that some of us speak out on it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, it has been an interesting morning to listen to the
Senator from North Dakota talk a little bit about the economy and about
spending. There are interesting figures in terms of growth. I do not
happen to have one of the charts. I guess it is getting to be where you
have to have a chart to speak, but I hope not.
Let's go back to the second half of the 1970s, when we had a
Democrat-controlled Government. All spending grew 12.2 percent
annually; nondefense discretionary spending grew 15 percent.
In the first half of the 1980s, all spending grew 10 percent, but
nondefense discretionary spending was only 2.8 percent. Defense was
where the money went--10 percent.
Then we scoot on down to currently. All spending grew in the second
half of the 1990s, with this Republican-controlled Congress, 2.8
percent totally; nondefense discretionary spending was 1.4 percent.
If our goal over time is to control the size of Federal Government,
if our goal is to be efficient, if our goal is to control spending,
then these are the numbers; these are the figures. Really, spending is
the key.
Of course, our friend on the other side of the aisle talked about
having the largest tax increase in the history of the United States--
which was true in 1993 with the Clinton tax increase. But what we
really ought to talk about is the size of Government.
There is a great deal of talk about going into Social Security. Let
me read this short letter dated September 30 from the Congressional
Budget Office.

Dear Mr. Speaker: You requested that we estimate the impact
of the fiscal 2000 Social Security surplus using CBO's
economic and technical assumptions, based on a plan whereby
net discretionary outlays for the year will be $592 billion.

That is the cap we put there.

CBO estimates this spending plan will not use any of the
projected Social Security surplus for the year 2000.

We keep talking about that differently. That is the way that is. So
one of the things that is interesting--I will not take long today, but
we have differences of view here. We have differences of view in the
country. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what the political
system is about: To bring together people who have different views
about attaining goals, even, indeed, different views about goals. So we
ought to have legitimate arguments. That is what this system is about.
But we ought not to spin it off into things that we are not really
able to document. We ought not to spin it off into motives and
different kinds of political things. We ought to talk about the basic
differences we have, and then decide whether we want more Federal
Government or less; decide whether we want to spend more, send more of
the decisions back to the State and local governments as opposed to one
size fits all on the national level.
These are the real issues.
Mr. President, we ought to be talking about some of the positive
things we have done this year.
Surplus: 2 years in a row with no deficit, for the first time in 42
years. Pretty good stuff. We even have a non-Social Security surplus
this year. We reduced Federal spending as a percentage of growth.
Unfortunately, we still have taxes as the highest percentage of gross
national product we have had since World War II. Those things are hard
to reconcile. Growth now is a little over 2 percent, compared to 10
percent in the early 1980s.
So these are the kinds of things we have done. We passed tax relief
here. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto it.
Our budget goals, of course, for the rest of the year are: No
Government shutdown; no new taxes; pay down the debt; protect Social
Security. We are going to do those things. We are going to do it in the
next 10 days.
Social Security: We talked a lot over the last few years about ``save
Social Security first,'' but we have a plan to do that with individual
accounts, taking the money off the table and letting it belong to the
people who have paid it in, to earn additional money by having it
invested in equities.
Those are the things we are prepared to do and have done.
Education: We have done a lot this year for education. We have
increased spending for education, more than the President asked for. We
have more flexibility in educational decisions so that parents and
school boards and States can make those decisions.
I can tell you what is needed in Greybull, WY, is quite different
than what is needed in Pittsburgh. And that is the way it ought to be.
We have done that. We have done a number of things.
National security: For the first time, more money is going to defense
than we have had before. We have had more deployments over the last few
years in foreign countries than ever, and yet this administration has
reduced the dollars that go there. We have changed that.
Health care, the Patients' Bill of Rights: We passed it here.
Hopefully, we will get it passed.
A balanced budget on Medicare changes: We are working on that.
Rural provisions in Medicare: We will get that done.
Financial modernization is ready to come to the floor for the first
time since the 1930s.
We have a lot of things to talk about and be proud of in this
session. I am very pleased we have done it. Despite the partisan
rhetoric and the tactics, we have had achievements in the budget, in
Social Security, in education, in defense, in tax relief, health care,
and in finance and banking. I think we ought to move forward and make
the most of those advantages
that we have had.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

____________________

[[Page 26924]]

EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning
business be extended for another 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object. I
had a discussion with Senator Roth. I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized following Senator Baucus. And if the majority leader comes
to the floor, I will suspend. But I would take a maximum of maybe 7
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inquire, is the Senator asking
that she be allowed to speak in morning business?
Mrs. BOXER. Correct; for 7 minutes. Then if the majority leader does
come to the floor and needs it, I will suspend in the midst of that
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
207 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and
Senate Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I also thank Senator Roth for giving
me this opportunity to speak about a number of subjects as in morning
business.

____________________

IN HONOR OF SENATOR JOHN CHAFEE

Mrs. BOXER. As I look over at the flowers at Senator Chafee's desk, I
feel a tremendous sense of loss. Senator Chafee's accomplishments are
going to go down in history. They have been recounted on this floor, so
I do not feel the need to go through all of his incredible
accomplishments, particularly around environmental issues. I do hope we
will not undo Senator Chafee's hard work on the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, Superfund, and so many of the landmark environmental
bills on which he led us.
I wish to comment about Senator Chafee's kindness and his goodness as
a human being and what a joy it was for me to work with him on the
Environment and Public Works Committee, to attend the dinners he
hosted, always in a bipartisan spirit, and how much we are going to
need that kind of spirit right now. Senator Chafee was a champion of
the environment. He was a champion of a woman's right to choose, and he
was a champion of sensible gun laws. On those matters, it was my great
privilege to work with him, and I will miss him deeply.

____________________

THE BUDGET

Mrs. BOXER. Speaking about a bipartisan spirit, it was unnerving this
morning to come to the floor and hear some of the partisan attacks I
heard, mostly aimed at President Bill Clinton, in particular at his
budget priorities, which Democrats share. At some point in the
discussion this morning, it approached a near-hysterical level.
I will talk about what the differences are. I think we can breach
those differences and resolve our problems.
Putting 100,000 teachers in the classrooms to reduce class size,
everyone in America wants us to do that, I believe. We have already put
30,000 of those teachers in the classrooms, and we are simply asking to
continue the program. This Republican budget would mean sending pink
slips to those teachers. That is wrong. We ought to sit down and
resolve it.
Secondly, in continuing our efforts to put more police on the
streets, we have seen a tremendous reduction in the crime rate. We know
one of the reasons is putting more community police on the streets.
Surely we can find a compromise with the Republicans on this point.
Then, paying our U.N. dues. How can we lead the world if we don't at
least do that, while encouraging and demanding reforms at the United
Nations? I thought it was resolved. It has not been resolved. Funding
peace agreements, that has not been resolved. We can't be the world
leader if we don't do that.
I think these differences are important.
There are also environmental riders, giveaways to big special
interests. They are wrong. We should sit down and resolve them.
The one that really is extraordinary, with the partisanship that
surrounds it, is the Social Security issue. Republicans say they have a
lockbox and the Democrats want to go into Social Security and destroy
it. In some ways, it is rather laughable. Going back to 1994, House
majority leader Dick Armey said: I would never have created Social
Security.
If we look back at the record, we will find the Republicans voted
against a retirement benefit for the people of this country when Social
Security was voted on. They voted against Medicare. Now they are going
forward with TV commercials telling people they are the party that is
going to protect a program they didn't even like and didn't even want.
It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Here is the deal. They have a lockbox. They say: We are never going
to touch it. That is good. However, they forgot to tell you something--
they have the key. They have opened it up, and they have taken $18
billion out of it already, according to their own Congressional Budget
Office. That is not Barbara Boxer saying it. It is their own
Congressional Budget Office that stated they have gone into Social
Security for $18 billion.
So why don't we just sit down and talk--talk about the legislative
graveyard that has been created in the Senate. What is in there? HMO
reform. People can't get the health care they need and deserve. That is
in the garbage heap. Sensible gun laws, the juvenile justice bill, that
is in the graveyard. They put the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in
there; campaign finance reform; judicial appointments; long-term
protection of Medicare and Social Security; minimum wage is in the
legislative graveyard. As Senator Mikulski said, these were lost
opportunities to us. So I feel very strongly that we have more work to
do. We should sit down with the President and resolve these
differences.
Lastly, I hope we can move forward on some of these judgeships. Judge
Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were nominated years ago, voted out of
the committee on a bipartisan vote. Judge Paez has been waiting almost
4 years to get a vote. Marsha Berzon has been waiting almost 2 years.
Later, when I get to talk about these nominees in detail, I will tell
you the strong Republican support they have--Republican Congress
people, Republican sheriffs, and Republican law enforcement officials
in the State of California. These are good nominees.
I have put a hold on a particular nominee the majority leader wants
for the TVA. I have no problem with that nominee. I voted him out of
committee. He has been waiting 27 days for a vote, Marsha Berzon has
been waiting 2 years, and Richard Paez has been waiting almost 4 years.
I see the majority leader on the floor, and I promised that when he
arrived I would stop this talking in morning business. So I will do
that. I urge everyone to come to the table in a bipartisan spirit, do
the unfinished business, resolve the budget differences, and get moving
with some of these appointments that have been waiting for years,
simply for an up-or-down vote.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 26925]]

Mr. ROTH. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will
continue to call the roll.
The legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHN H. CHAFEE

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
honoring a distinguished public servant and a revered Member of the
United States Senate, Senator John Chafee, who died Sunday evening at
Bethesda Naval Hospital.
While John Chafee was elected to the Senate in 1976, his public
service began years before when he interrupted his education at Yale
University to enlist in the Marine Corps during World War II, serving
in the original invasion forces at Guadalcanal. He later returned to
complete his education, receiving a bachelors degree from Yale in 1947
and, in 1950, a law degree from Harvard.
In 1951, John Chafee was called again to serve his country, returning
to active duty to command a rifle company in Korea. Later, John Chafee
served six years in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, where he
was elected Minority Leader. He served as Governor of Rhode Island for
three terms and in 1969 was appointed Secretary of the Navy.
As a Senator, John Chafee continued his proud legacy of leadership
and accomplishment. I worked with Senator Chafee perhaps most closely
in the U.S. Senate in his capacity as Chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee where he labored tirelessly on behalf of many
critical environmental initiatives, including efforts to strengthen the
Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Senator Chafee has been recognized for his important contributions in
the area of environmental protection throughout his service in the U.S.
Senate and has received nearly every major environmental award. He was
also a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee where he worked
hard to expand health care coverage for women and children and to
improve community services for persons with disabilities.
John Chafee was a well-respected member of this body who engendered
the affection of every member with whom he served. He had a unique
ability to achieve consensus under very difficult circumstances. His
unfailing courtesy and civility provided a positive and unifying force
in the Congress which will be sorely missed by his colleagues on both
sides of the aisle.
The Senate was a better place because of John Chafee and his devoted
public service. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to
him and to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his family.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in mourning the
loss of our colleague, John Chafee. John was a good and honorable man
who served his state and his country with distinction. A devoted public
servant and member of this body for 23 years, Senator Chafee's
influence extended beyond the aisles and transcended partisan rhetoric.
His accomplishments as a lawmaker and his unquestionable influence
among his peers stand as a testament to his ability.
Senator Chafee will long be admired and remembered for his devotion
to this country both as a soldier and public servant. His distinguished
service in the military, including serving in the Marines at
Guadalcanal and commanding a rifle company in Korea, were indicative of
the man who would never shy away from duty or responsibility.
His record as a legislator, governor, and senator in Rhode Island
indicate the amount of trust the people of Rhode Island put in John.
Although political views may vary from person to person, it is easy
to put these differences aside and to recognize men of strong character
and integrity. These are qualities which were abundant in John, and his
steadying influence in the United States Senate will be truly missed.
My thoughts and prayers extend to his family and all those whose
lives Senator Chafee touched.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to
the memory of our friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee.
Senator Chafee was the living embodiment of Senate decorum. He always
honored this body through his thoughts, deeds and actions. His ideas
and messages were delivered thoughtfully and respectfully. He truly
followed his heart and soul while representing the people of Rhode
Island and this great nation.
His honorable service in both World War II and the Korean Conflict,
as well as his distinguished tenure as Secretary of the Navy, reflect
his profound respect for America's armed forces and his deep love of
country.
I am especially appreciative for all he did to advance causes near
and dear to the state of Florida. He took time to visit the Florida
Everglades, and his work on this important issue will ensure the
preservation of this unique natural system, and will always be a part
of his lasting legacy.
Senator Chafee devoted his life to public service. He will be
remembered as a thoughtful and patriotic American who cared
passionately about those he served, the issues he fought for, and the
institution of the United States Senate. He was not only a fellow
Republican, but a colleague who was respected on both sides of the
aisle. He will be sorely missed in the U.S. Senate.
My heartfelt sympathies go to his wife Ginny, to their five children
and 12 grandchildren, and to his staff here in Washington and
throughout Rhode Island.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I extend my sympathies to the
family of John Chafee.
It has been my privilege to serve with John Chafee for but 3 of the
years of his long and distinguished career in the Senate. But I will
miss him. I do miss him.
I want to say publicly how much I appreciate the many times he came
up to me and told me how much he appreciated me and how glad he was
that I was here.
I thank him publicly for the many times he came to me and talked
about environmental issues and told me he had a good environmental bill
that he wanted me to be on. Many times, I was on them with him.
I appreciated his looking out for me in that regard, and in so many
other ways. It was a great pleasure and a high privilege to serve with
him in the Senate.
I wish his wife and his family my very best and pray God's comfort be
with them in this time of their bereavement.

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

____________________

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 434, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment
policy for sub-Sahara Africa.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the
Senate's consideration of the trade bill, all first-degree amendments
must be relevant to the trade bill or the filed amendment No. 2325, and
any second-degree amendment be relevant to the first-degree it proposes
to amend.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
Mr. LOTT. I truly regret the objection to a reasonable consideration
of this very important pending trade bill. This is obviously a vital
piece of trade legislation. As I indicated last week on the floor, this
is something in which the President has been very interested.

[[Page 26926]]

He discussed it with me personally last week on, I think, Tuesday and
twice since we have discussed it in telephone conversations. I am not
doing it just because the President asked for it. I am doing it because
I think it is the right thing to do.
I think it would be good for our country, help to create jobs. This
is very carefully crafted legislation that the chairman of the
committee and ranking member have worked on. I think it would be just
vitally important to our friends in Central America and the Caribbean,
as well as a major step symbolically and other ways to have African
free trade.
I want to get this bill done. There are legitimate objections to it.
The Senator from South Carolina is going to use every rule in the book
that he has access to, and there are lots of them. He has staff members
who will make sure he knows them all. I understand that. But I am sure
everybody can understand I have to take advantage of the rules
available to me also because I do not want this to become a debate
about farm policy, sanctions policy--one Senator just suggested we
should offer fast track on this bill. I agree; I think fast track
should be done. That is another very important trade policy. But it
will completely bog down this bill.
I think we need to be serious about this bill. I plan now to fill up
the tree and file cloture. The cloture vote will be Friday. We will see
if the Senate wants this trade bill or not. If we do not get cloture,
then it is clear what is going on and we will just have to move on to
something else.
My consent would simply keep the Senate on the subject of the African
trade and trade benefits for the Caribbean Basin countries. Obviously,
with objection from the Democrats, they do not want this subject matter
to be the pending issue. I think it is unfortunate, but I understand.

Amendment No. 2325

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Roth and others, I call
up amendment No. 2325 and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment and begin
reading the text.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Roth, for
himself, and Mr. Moynihan, proposes an amendment numbered
2325.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LOTT. 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.

Amendment No. 2332 to amendment No. 2325

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment.)

Mr. LOTT. I send a first-degree amendment to the substitute to the
desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment and begin
reading the text.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an
amendment numbered 2332 to amendment No. 2325.

Amendment No. 2333 to Amendment No. 2332

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment.)

Mr. LOTT. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment and begin
reading the text.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an
amendment numbered 2333 to amendment No. 2332

Motion To Commit With Instructions

Mr. LOTT. I now move to commit the bill with instructions and send
the motion to the desk.
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.

Amendment No. 2334

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

Mr. LOTT. I send an amendment to the desk to the motion to commit
with instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report and begin reading the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an
amendment numbered 2334 to the motion to commit with
instructions.

Amendment No. 2335 To Amendment No. 2334

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

Mr. LOTT. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an
amendment numbered 2335 to amendment No. 2334.

Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT. I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending
amendment No. 2325.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
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 the substitute
amendment to Calendar No. 215, H.R. 434, an act to authorize
a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa.
Trent Lott, Bill Roth, Mike DeWine, Rod Grams, Mitch
McConnell, Judd Gregg, Larry E. Craig, Chuck Hagel,
Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici, Don Nickles, Connie
Mack, Paul Coverdell, Phil Gramm, R.F. Bennett, and
Richard G. Lugar.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate we have to take
this step. I have discussed it with the Democratic leader. Let me
emphasize he did not agree with this at all, but we did discuss our
situation and our mutual concerns and our mutual desires to try to find
a way to move this trade legislation forward. Filling up the tree is
not a new practice. It is one I haven't used, I don't think, this
year--maybe once. It is a practice that has been used in the past by
majority leaders when it is necessary to try to get to a conclusion.

[[Page 26927]]

I do not know exactly when our adjournment for the year will come,
but it is obvious we do not have a lot of time left. We do have some
other issues we would like to have a chance to consider. Again, that is
on both sides of the aisle.
The cloture motion vote will occur on Friday, October 29. I will
notify all Members of the exact time, after consultation with the
Democratic leader.
In the meantime, I ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule XXII
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I say to the Senate, I would be willing to withdraw the
last amendment pending. I will be glad to come back in an hour and
withdraw that, allowing Members' amendments to be offered if they were
relevant to the trade bill, and this would allow us to make some
progress on the bill. I would offer that idea to the minority leader
when he returns, and I am glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota
if he would like to ask any questions or make a comment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I heard the majority leader mention he did not want to
see amendments that he did not think were directly related, such as
agriculture. As the majority leader knows, for the last 5 weeks I have
asked him when I would have the opportunity. The majority leader said
he thinks this is the first time he has filled up the tree, or second
time. I think there may be other times, but I would have to check. I do
not remember an opportunity in the last 4 or 5 weeks, or longer than
that, to have an amendment out here that I think will speak to the pain
of farmers.
When might I have an opportunity to introduce this amendment that I
think would make a difference for family farmers in Minnesota who are
being driven off the land? If the majority leader is filling up the
tree and therefore I cannot do this, can he tell me when I might have
an opportunity? Will he make a commitment there will be a piece of
legislation out here that I can amend?
Mr. LOTT. I am not sure when that might occur. I told the Democratic
leader just a few minutes ago, if it were just an amendment by Senator
Wellstone on agriculture, I would be prepared to have that discussion,
that debate, and a vote. But that is not the end of the string. We have
a lot of innovative thinkers here on both sides of the aisle who are
now working feverishly with their very competent staffs to develop
other amendments.
If it were just an amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, I think
probably that could be done. I think if we would open the door, there
would be no end to it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader be willing to entertain a
freestanding bill I might introduce and have debate on? We have to do
something, I say to the majority leader, about what is going on in farm
country.
Mr. LOTT. First of all, I will be willing to discuss that with the
Senator. I would have to also discuss it with the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee and its members. I could not just unilaterally
reach an agreement. But, again, I personally would not have a problem
with that.
I do not know what his amendment would be, but I am sure I would vote
against it. But we could have a discussion. I would need to check with
both sides and I will talk with the Senator to see if it is possible,
to see if we can do that in some freestanding way.
Having said that, I want to be sure the record has been made at this
point. Last Friday, the President of the United States signed the
Agriculture appropriations bill--I believe last Friday. It provides
funds for agricultural needs all across this great land, in my State
and that of the Senators from Minnesota and New York. We have lots of
agriculture in New York. I don't know if you are aware of that, but I
have been very impressed when I have been up there, some of the areas
outside of Long Island. I found there is a lot of agriculture up there
and all across this country.
We did get the Agriculture bill. In that bill was a very significant
amount of funds for disaster-related problems. Some of them have been
caused because of the depressed prices, some because of drought, some
because of floods--all the different problems we have. Others say it
was not enough; it should have been more. Some others would say it was
not targeted in the right way. We can debate that endlessly, I believe.
But the President, upon review--and I believe he took the full 10
days--decided the right thing to do was go ahead and get this bill
signed and get that disaster money to the farmers, the men and women
who live on the farms in this country, as quickly as possible. It is
not as if this is an issue we have not addressed and we will not
address next year.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate the leader's graciousness. I will not
take up any more time with questions to him.
Having just heard the majority leader's report about disaster relief,
he may want to reconsider his view about whether or not he would vote
for or against an amendment or piece of legislation I would introduce
because I say to the majority leader in the form of a question: I am
quite sure that, as the majority leader travels around the country in
rural America, he understands that the financial assistance package did
not deal with the price crisis. People are going to be driven off the
land and we have to change the policy.
I appreciate what he said. I guess it is less a form of a question,
but perhaps I will get his support because I am sure the majority
leader wants to see the Senate take some action that will make a
positive difference for family farmers.
Mr. LOTT. Let me say in answer to the Senator's comments, I have
learned from past experience that you should never say exactly what you
are going to do until you have seen the details of an amendment or a
bill because it could be different or it could be something that, in
the end, you find would be acceptable. I have a suspicion I might not
use that approach, but I had to reserve final judgment until I saw its
content. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' amendment
to H.R. 434. That substitute includes the Senate Finance Committee-
reported bills on Africa, an expansion of the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, an extension of the Generalized System of Preferences, and
the reauthorization of our trade adjustment assistance programs.
It is critically important that we move this legislation. Let me say
a few words, in particular, about the Africa trade portion of the bill.
The last decade has been a period of great change in Africa. Some of
these changes have been quite heartening to those of us who have been
watching the countries in that continent for many years. The failed
economic policies of socialism and central planning have begun to give
way to market reforms, bringing economic growth and an improvement of
living standards with it. There have been positive changes on the
political front as well. The tragedy of apartheid has, thankfully, come
to an end in South Africa. At the same time, democracy has begun to
flower in South Africa and in a number of other sub-Saharan countries.
The picture, however, is not all positive. As we know all too well,
the countries in Africa continue to suffer through more than their
share of difficulties. War, disease and hunger are still very
significant parts of the story of that region. Africa is a continent
that is on the brink of a new and more positive future, but still has a
number of significant hurdles that it must overcome.
For the Senate, the question is what we can do--what this great
country can do--to help the African nations obtain the peace and
prosperity that they have been working so hard to achieve. In other
words, what can we do to help

[[Page 26928]]

them complete the work that they have already begun.
The manager's amendment is clearly not a panacea; the challenges that
the Africans face are too great for any single piece of legislation or
any single act to cure. This legislation is, however, an important
start towards building an economic partnership between the United
States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. This partnership, in my
view, is a significant first step towards giving the African nations
the opportunities they need to continue the progress that many of them
have made over the past decade.
I am proud of the support that this legislation has received among
the African-American community and among the Africans themselves. I say
this because a few of my colleagues have suggested that the African-
American community and the African nations themselves are divided in
their support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am standing
here to say that nothing could be further from the truth. If there was
any doubt, it should have been put to rest with the Roll Call ad which
ran last week. The ad, appropriately, stated the following:

To the United States Senate, Setting the Record Straight.
We endorse legislation that provides social and economic
opportunity in Africa and we, the undersigned, are working
together to achieve this goal. Can we count on you?

The signatories to this Roll Call ad are a very distinguished
collection of religious, civic, political and business organizations
and individual leaders. I will name just a few: the NAACP, the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, the African Methodist Episcopal
Church, the National Council of Churches, AfriCare, the Council of
National Black Churches, which represents 65,000 churches and
20,000,000 members, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The list of individuals signing this ad includes such notables as
Bishops Donald Ming and Garnett Henning of the African Methodist
Episcopal Church, Mrs. Coretta Scott King, Mr. Martin Luther King III,
Ambassador Andrew Young, former mayor David Dinkins, the Honorable
Kweisi Mfume, and Mr. Robert Johnson, the head of Black Entertainment
Television. I want to note that Mr. Johnson testified eloquently about
the need to create new economic opportunities in Africa when he
appeared before the Finance Committee last year. He, like the others
listed in this ad, have spoken powerfully on the pressing importance of
this legislation.
Let me read a quote in the ad from just one of these individuals.
That individual is the very distinguished Rev. Leon Sullivan of the
nearby city of Philadelphia. Rev. Sullivan is quoted in the ad as
saying that:

The African Growth and Opportunity Act will open new
markets for American products and will create additional jobs
for Americans and Africans. For every $1 billion in exports
to Africa, 14,000 jobs are created or sustained in the United
States. Those are powerful and important words.

Let us not forget that this legislation is also good for Africa. That
is why every single one of the 47 African nations covered under this
the legislation have publicly stated their support. Let me repeat that,
because it is important. Every single one of the countries covered
under this legislation supports this legislation. I think it is fair to
say that these countries have the judgment to decide what is in their
interest. In this instance, they have spoken loudly and clearly. The
African Growth and Opportunity Act is good for Africa.
I am proud to say that President Clinton is also a strong supporter
of this legislation. He recently said, and it is quoted in the Roll
Call ad, that:

Our administration strongly supports the African Growth and
Opportunity Act which I said in my State of the Union Address
we will work to pass in this session of Congress.

That, Mr. President, is exactly why we are here. We are here to work
on a bipartisan basis to work for passage of an important piece of
legislation that is good for the American people and good for Africa.
I was honored to have representatives of many of the groups and
individuals I mentioned join me in a press conference this past week to
express their support for this legislation. What these individuals and
groups understand--and stated at the press conference--is that Africa
has for too long been neglected in our trade policy. They also
understand that the African Growth and Opportunity Act is the right
legislation to begin the strengthening of our economic relationship
with that continent.
Let me emphasize that these individuals and groups support the
African Growth and Opportunity Act and not the HOPE bill. They support
this bill because it is good legislation. It is the right thing to do.
It is good for the American people, and it is good for the people of
Africa.
There is, of course, much more that is part of the manager's
amendment. The enhancement of the CBI program is long overdue. It is
also a vital step to strengthening the economic compact begun with that
region by President Reagan with the original CBI initiative. The
reauthorizations of the Generalized System of Preferences and Trade
Adjustment Assistance programs are also of critical importance. These
measures are essential for ensuring that the benefits of the global
economy are felt as broadly as possible and to ensure that workers and
firms displaced by trade receive the assistance and training that they
need.
The effort to move the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. But, it
is long overdue. The House of Representatives passed the Africa
legislation by an overwhelming vote of 234-163 in July of this year. It
is now time for the Senate to Act.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R.
434, as amended. The time to act is now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate our revered
chairman for his achievement in a partisan setting. I think it is
generally agreed that this Congress has not been one governed from the
center. Here we have major legislation brought to the floor by near
unanimous vote of the Committee on Finance and with extraordinary
support across the country.
I wish to make two points, the first to the question of Trade
Adjustment Assistance. It goes back 37 years as an integral measure in
our trade policy. As Dean Acheson might say, I was present at the
creation. I was an Assistant Secretary of Labor, one of three delegates
who negotiated the Long-Term Cotton Textile Agreement which was
necessary to win the votes in the Senate for authorizing what became
the Kennedy Round. When we came back with that agreement, the issue
arose, if we were to open up trade, there would inevitably be persons
displaced--just as jobs were created, jobs would be lost. There is
nothing complex in the calculation nor very complex in identifying just
whom you are talking about.
We started Trade Adjustment Assistance. It has worked. We included a
comparable provision in the NAFTA implementing legislation. In Fiscal
Year 1998, we had 150,000 workers eligible to receive Trade Adjustment
Assistance; last year, we had 200,000 eligible workers. Those are
rounded numbers.
This is an active program. There are families who are displaced in
the world economy, and they are living off this transitional benefit--
200,000 eligible workers. That is not a small number. The authorization
for this program, that has been integral to our trade policy for 37
years, expired on June 30. The appropriation expires on Friday; on
Saturday, it is no more. And when it can come back, how it comes back--
have we seen many things started of late in this Congress or the
previous ones? No.
Now, those are lives of American workers we are talking about, just
as President Kennedy talked about them. John Pastore of Rhode Island
was very vigorous on this matter, and many Members of the Senate who
are marked in history by their capacity to see the large national
interest.
One other matter: The chairman noted the meeting which the Committee
on Finance had with the group of presidents, vice presidents, and
foreign ministers from Central America,

[[Page 26929]]

ranging from Trinidad and Tobago all the way up to Honduras. It took
place just off the Senate floor in the LBJ Room. It was a special
occasion.
They came here as representatives of elected governments asking to
trade. They weren't asking for foreign aid. They weren't asking for
military assistance. They were simply asking to become part of the
trading system of the western hemisphere in that Monroe Doctrine
context about which the chairman spoke.
It already seems to have happened long ago. In the 1980s, we spent $8
billion sending arms to Central America, with precious little to show
for it. A good enough outcome in the end, but the weaponry was
everywhere, on all sides--a fantastic miscalculation, in my view, in my
view at the time.
I will give my colleagues a moment's recollection. It was 1983. I was
in El Salvador in the capital of San Salvador having breakfast with the
president and provost of the University of Central America, a Jesuit
institution. At that time, the United States was going through enormous
efforts to prevent the Sandinistas in Nicaragua from smuggling arms to
their rebel counterparts in El Salvador.
I asked the President and the provost, with whom I had a relationship
through a professor at the University of Chicago, ``Father, are the
Sandinistas sending weapons to El Salvador?'' He said, ``No.'' I said,
``No? Well, surely they had been.'' He said, ``Yes.'' I asked, ``And
they don't any longer?'' He said, ``No. You do.''
Every day, the skies over Salvador were filled with American planes
bringing in weaponry, which was promptly divided--half for the
government, a quarter for the rebels, and a quarter for the
international arms market. And what a better thing now to be talking
about trade. And we have stability. If we want to ensure it, there has
to be an economic basis. This legislation does so and, again, and
finally, there are 200,000 American families entitled to trade
adjustment assistance, which expires on Friday after a 37-year run as
part of the American safety net as a condition of expanding trade.
Let's not let them down. We can do this if only we will do it together,
as we did in the Finance Committee. I only hope the same can be
repeated on the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my friend from South Carolina
who is seeking recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New York. I have been trying to get the floor. I tried earlier today to
be recognized to speak on this bill. It was the objection I had made,
of course, to the motion to proceed, due to the strong feelings I had
with respect to trade. Incidentally, on yesterday, I could not be
present. Amongst others, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota more
or less carried the day. I am obligated to him. Senator Wellstone did
an outstanding job. He asked that, if I could ever get the floor --and
I tried twice this morning and could not get the floor--to please ask
unanimous consent that he be recognized when I had completed my
remarks. I have talked to fellow Senators and there is objection to
that. I wanted to let him know that I remembered the promise made. I am
not making the request because I know it will be objected to.
That brings us right to the unsenatorial, more or less, procedures
into which we have bogged down by. In a line, the distinguished
majority leader says what we ought to have had was fast track and,
within a breath, he gives us fast track. We have fast track on this
bill. You cannot put up an amendment. He ``filled up the tree,'' and he
says, ``oh, but I am so considerate that I will be glad to help you out
if I can give you permission to give you relevant amendments.'' Of
course, he decides what is relevant.
What about relevance with respect to the Finance Committee? What they
are calling a trade bill is actually a foreign aid bill, because you
have the Secretary of State calling around on the bill, not the
Secretary of Labor for jobs--I don't think she had the gall to do it.
But the Secretary of State, with pride, is calling the various Senators
because this is a foreign aid bill. It is a one-way street. It is
unilateral. It does not have the labor side agreements. It does not
have the environmental side agreements that were included in NAFTA. It
does not include the reciprocity that we got from the Mexicans when we
passed NAFTA. I have prepared amendments that would be relevant, but
you can't tell around here. I don't think that I should have to stand
as a Senator and beg another Senator permission to put up an amendment.
That is the most arrogance I have ever seen since I have been here,
some 33 years. It has gotten really raw in this particular body, when
you try to debate the most important subject that you can possibly
imagine, which is hollowing out not only our industrial strength, but
the middle class of our society and the strength of our democracy, and
you have to beg to put up an amendment in order to satisfy what the
majority leader says what is relevant.
Could it be the minimum wage amendment that the Senator from
Massachusetts has been trying to get up since the beginning of the
year? Well, it is not for Africa, not for the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, but more for the workers of America. I say why not? Don't
we have trade adjustment assistance in the bill? If that is relevant so
is minimum wage. Doesn't minimum wage have relevance to the welfare,
the pay, the being of American workers?
The question in my mind is what rules are we under? I presided for 6
years under Heinz's precedent. I presided for 4 years under Jefferson's
rule. When I got to the Senate, we threw away the rule book because it
is whatever the majority leader says. That is the rule. That is what
happens up here--we all understand that--in order to facilitate
legislation. But when it gets to this point of arrogance it is totally
counterproductive. Here you have been trying to get up the bill all
year long, and then you put it up in the last few days and say we are
all trying to get out of town, let's not have any debate, let's take it
or leave it as the Finance Committee has it, and thereupon, let's have
cloture, let's have fast track.
Well, with respect to the minimum wage amendment, I would gladly put
it up. I understood today--and the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts can speak for himself--but I talked to him the day before
yesterday and advised him that if he didn't, I would, because I think
it is just as important as trade adjustment assistance.
I see that the distinguished Senator from Texas is on the floor. I
understood he said this would create 400,000 jobs. That's very peculiar
because I understood the distinguished Senator from New York indicating
that we are going to have to put 200,000 on trade adjustment
assistance--in other words, we are going to put them out of a job, we
are going to give them welfare. What a wonderful thing it is; we
started it some 37 years ago. Has this body got any idea what is going
on? Are we really creating jobs, or are we decimating the jobs? One
brags that we put them on; the other brags that we put them out. And
there we are, with respect to relevant amendments.
Mr. President, there is another relevant amendment. This is the Time
magazine for this week. It is an article called, ``The Fruit of Its
Labor.'' I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record in
its entirety.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Time Magazine, October 1999]

The Fruit of Its Labor

(By Adam Zagorin)

Washington.--If you are an underwear mogul, you surely
cannot lack confidence. So it is with Bill Farley. The
handsome physical-fitness buff has under his belt brands like
BVD, Munsingwear and his flagship, Fruit of the Loom. He rubs
shoulders with the rich and powerful, and recently co-chaired
a lunch that raised more than $500,000 for George W. Bush.
Muscles rippling, Farley, 57, has also shown up wearing a
tank top in Fruit of the Loom advertising. He once even put
himself forward as a candidate for President of the United
States.

[[Page 26930]]

These days, however, Farley's political focus is squarely
on Congress, where Fruit's adventures in lobbying offer a
choice example of how the game is played. Fruit of the Loom
is a tattered company, suffering from bad performance and
poor management and lobbying heavily for a bill that would
ripen its bottom line.
How likely is it that the company's case will be heard on
the Hill? Well, last year alone Fruit handed out more than
$435,000 in soft-money donations, a figure that puts
contributions by the firm (1998 sales: $2.2 billion) ahead of
those of such giants as Coca-Cola, Exxon and Bank of America.
Most of Fruit's plums go to Republicans, including $265,000
to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by
Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the principal opponent of
campaign finance reform.
This week, with Congress having for now killed campaign
finance reform, McConnell and other Republicans will get on
with other business, such as an amendment to an African trade
bill that would allow apparel produced in the Caribbean Basin
to enter the U.S. duty free, provided it is assembled from
U.S. fabric.
Fruit's lobbyists--along with those from competitors like
the Sara Lee Corp., which makes Hanes underwear, and
retailers like the Limited and the Gap--are pushing hard for
passage. Fruit officials claim the measure, which Bill
Clinton supports, will create jobs, and deny that the
company's donations can buy influence. Says Ron Sorini, a
Fruit lobbyist: ``There's absolutely no correlation between
our soft-money donations and those who decide to vote in
favor of this bill.''
Whether there is or not, Farley's much coveted tariff break
comes at a cost. Eliminating duties on apparel from the
Caribbean will run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost
revenue over five years--a figure that, by congressional
rules, must be made up with cuts in other programs.
Fruit confirms that the bill is expected to deliver a quick
$25 million to $50 million to the bottom line, adding to
savings achieved after moving some 17,000 of its U.S.-based
jobs, mostly to the low-wage Caribbean Basin, and
reincorporating in the tax haven Cayman Islands. The jobs
cuts were spread across the South, especially Kentucky, where
earlier in this decade Fruit was one of the largest
employers. ``They are trying to win in Washington what
they've been unable to achieve in the marketplace,'' says
Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public
Integrity, a watchdog group. ``They're now trying to secure
advantages from Congress at a time when they're in dire
financial straits.''
Dire is right. After a major inventory snafu, Fruit's
financial elastic stretched again last month, when it had to
make a $45 million interest payment on accumulated debt of
$1.3 billion. Its stock, traded at $48 a few years ago, now
sells for less than $4. The board, its confidence in Farley
shaken, managed to shunt him into the role of nonexecutive
chairman in August, and the company is searching for a new
CEO. Farley retains a role in large measure because he still
controls 28.5% of Fruit's voting shares. He has also arranged
for the company to guarantee loans to himself worth $65
million.
Fruit of the Loom's favorite trade bill has led to a rare
split between Kentucky's two conservative Republican
Senators. While McConnell is expected to support the tariff
cut, his colleague Jim Bunning has no intention of backing
the measure. Asks Bunning: ``How many more jobs do we have to
lose until we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee?''
Yet for Bill Farley, the aroma is nothing if not enticing.
By one count, he's tried to get versions of the bill through
Congress six times in recent years. Perhaps seven's the
charm.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I don't know whether the distinguished
majority leader would agree that this is a special interest bill, but
the public domain thinks it is a special interest bill. The leading
news magazine in the world thinks it is a special interest bill.
Therefore, campaign finance reform would be relevant.
Why do I say that?
``The Fruit of Its Labor.''
It is on page 50.
``How a company that exports jobs pushes for a Capitol Hill
handout.''
``The politics of underwear.''
I quote:

If you are an underwear mogul, you surely cannot lack
confidence. So it is with Bill Farley. The handsome physical-
fitness buff has under his belt brands like BVD, Munsingwear
and his flagship, Fruit of the Loom. He rubs shoulders with
the rich and powerful, and recently co-chaired a lunch that
raised more than $500,000 for George W. Bush. Muscles
rippling, Farley, 57, has also shown up wearing a tank top in
Fruit of the Loom advertising. He once even put himself
forward as a candidate for President of the United States.

Maybe that is where Trump got the idea. I always wondered where that
rascal could think he could be President.
But, in any event, reading on:

These days, however, Farley's political focus is squarely
on Congress, where Fruit's adventures in lobbying offer a
choice example of how the game is played. Fruit of the Loom
is a tattered company, suffering from bad performance and
poor management and lobbying heavily for a bill that would
ripen its bottom line.
How likely is it that the company's case will be heard on
the Hill? Well, last year alone Fruit handed out more than
$435,000 in soft-money donations, a figure that puts
contributions by the firm (1998 sales: $2.2 billion) ahead of
those of such giants as Coca-Cola, Exxon and Bank of America.
Most of Fruit's plums go to Republicans, including $265,000
to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by
Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the principal opponent of
campaign finance reform.
This week, with Congress having for now killed campaign
finance reform, McConnell and other Republicans will get on
with other business, such as an amendment to an African trade
bill that would allow apparel produced in the Caribbean Basin
to enter the U.S. duty free, provided it is assembled from
U.S. fabric.
Fruit's lobbyists--along with those from competitors like
the Sara Lee Crop., which makes Hanes underwear, and
retailers like the Limited and the Gap--are pushing hard for
passage. Fruit officials claim the measure, which Bill
Clinton supports, will create jobs, and deny that the
company's donations can buy influence. Says Ron Sorini, a
Fruit lobbyist: ``There's absolutely no correlation between
our soft-money donations and those who decide to vote in
favor of this bill.''
Whether there is or not, Farley's much coveted tariff break
comes at a cost. Eliminating duties on apparel from the
Caribbean will run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost
revenue over five years--a figure that, by congressional
rules, must be made up with cuts in our programs.
Fruit confirms that the bill is expected to deliver a quick
$25 million to $50 million to the bottom line, adding to
savings achieved after moving some 17,000 of its U.S.-based
jobs, mostly to the low-wage Caribbean Basin, and
reincorporating in the tax haven Cayman Islands. The jobs
cuts were spread across the South, especially Kentucky, where
earlier in this decade Fruit was one of the largest
employers. ``They are trying to win in Washington what
they've been unable to achieve in the marketplace,'' says
Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public
Integrity, a watchdog group. ``They're now trying to secure
advantages from Congress at a time when they're in dire
financial straits.''
Dire is right. After a major inventory snafu, Fruit's
financial elastic stretched again last month, when it had to
make a $45 million interest payment on accumulated debt of
$1.3 billion. Its stock, traded at $48 a few years ago, now
sells for less than $4. The board, its confidence in Farley
shaken, managed to shunt him into the role of nonexecutive
chairman in August, and the company is searching for a new
CEO. Farley retains a role in large measure because he still
controls 28.5% of Fruit's voting shares. He has also arranged
for the company to guarantee loans to himself worth $65
million.
Fruit of the Loom's favorite trade bill has led to a rare
split between Kentucky's two conservative Republican
Senators. While McConnell is expected to support the tariff
cut, his colleague Jim Bunning has no intention of backing
the measure. Asks Bunning: ``How many more jobs do we have to
lose until we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee?''
Yet for Bill Farley, the aroma is nothing if not enticing.
By one count, he's tried to get versions of the bill through
Congress six times in recent years. Perhaps seven's the
charm.

Mr. President, I ask the same question as the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning. How many more jobs do we have to lose until
we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee? Is there any question in
anybody's mind? As we used to say in the law, any reasonable and
prudent man--and now woman--can see that this is not a special interest
bill. And with campaign finance reform, which is mentioned in this
article and which is mentioned in this particular bill, it would be
relevant--not under the majority leader's rule of relevancy.
Ask the majority leader when he comes to the floor. I can offer the
campaign finance reform, or I can offer the minimum wage. Then we will
all agree to move right along and vote on the amendment. I will agree
to a time agreement. We are not holding anybody up. We can vote both of
those amendments this afternoon. We don't have to worry about cloture
on Friday. We are ready to roll. We, like the majority leader, want to
get out of town. We have a lot of work to do. Don't put on this act
about how reasonable and thoughtful and so pressured we are in

[[Page 26931]]

trying to reconcile all of the particular problems there are in the
closing days. Don't give me any of that. Let's get to the reality.
We have a special interest bill; we have a bill affecting workers. I
want to put up another bill affecting the workers that have been up all
year long and all last year--minimum wage. The majority leader won't
come out and say it is relevant. When he comes out and says it is
relevant, I will put up the amendment; we can vote in 10 minutes' time.
When he says a special interest bill, Shays-Meehan is relevant; we can
vote in 10 minutes. The House has voted on it overwhelmingly.
We couldn't get a vote on account of the so-called rules of the
majority leader with respect to when we can call something and when we
can't call anything around here. They won't give us a freestanding
Shays-Meehan without the cloture and everything else.
I have been interested in campaign finance reform since I voted for
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. We had that bill up, and we
had a good bipartisan cross-section vote for the measure saying one
cannot buy the office. We have come full circle. What we are saying in
Washington today is, the trouble is, there isn't enough money to buy
the office. Do you know what? We have amendments. Mr. President, $1,000
isn't enough; we ought to be able to buy it quicker with $3,000 and
$5,000, $10,000. We have moved in the opposite direction from the
original intent of cleaning up politics in this land of ours by stating
categorically one could not buy the office.
I can still see the Senator from Louisiana, Russell Long. He said,
every man a king--everybody, regardless of economic circumstance or
background, could aspire for the Presidency of this land of ours.
Listen to Elizabeth Dole. One can be a former Secretary of Commerce,
one can be a Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Labor, one
can have been head of the American Red Cross, every kind of track
record, but unless the candidate has the money, the candidate doesn't
stand a chance--money is what talks.
We are saying it is a real problem. On the one hand, we have too many
limits, we ought to have more money in this; or, on the other hand, let
taxpayers, let the public, pay for our politics; let's have public
campaign finance. We have had about three votes on it.
I remember when I first introduced it, it was a joint resolution.
There was one line, and it is in now, but I can't get it up. I have
been waiting for a good joint resolution to come over, Senator. If it
comes over, I will offer it. They told me I couldn't offer it to
campaign finance reform because mine was a joint resolution and it was
a simple bill, with three readings to be signed. A joint resolution, of
course, and amending the Constitution, is not to be signed by the
President.
That being the case, I put in this particular one-line amendment that
the Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to regulate or
control spending in Federal elections. I had a dozen good Republican
colleagues--my senior colleague and others--joined as cosponsors way
back; this has to be almost 20 years ago. We can't get that, except for
the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. So the
Hollings-Specter amendment was so salutary that the States said, wait a
minute, add that the States are hereby empowered to control or regulate
spending in Federal elections.
So we added that. We have gotten a majority vote, but we never have
gotten the two-thirds necessary. It would pass. I am not worried about
it at any next election. It would easily come about.
We relied upon looking at the last five of the six amendments. They
passed in an average of 17 months.
Does the distinguished Senator have a question? I am just feeling
good about this particular measure.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I do have a question. I
personally am in agreement with the different issues the Senator has
raised--campaign finance reform, minimum wage, being able to amend
bills. I agree with the Senator in that regard.
However, the Senator from Texas and I have a matter on the floor. I
ask the Senator about how much longer he will speak. I know the Senator
has a lot of capacity, but if he could give an idea so we could either
interrupt at this time or come back at whatever time the Senator
indicates.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the Senator come back because I am just
beginning to cover the subjects. We have a luncheon in the next 15
minutes, and I will complete my thoughts.
Mr. REID. The Senator will finish in the next half hour?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
What happens if we can get up campaign finance and get an up-or-down
vote on Shays-Meehan? I have my doubts about its constitutionality. I
have voted several times for McCain-Feingold. I voted against the most
revised or limited McCain-Feingold for the simple reason it was similar
to half a haircut; it was worse than none at all. It said the parties
couldn't take soft money but everyone else could take soft money.
Immediately, my adversary, Tom Donohue at the Chamber of Commerce,
said we had not participated financially sufficiently in campaigns. So
I am getting up a kitty of $5 million. The Chamber of Commerce will get
up a kitty of $5 million and pick some 8 or 10 senatorial races and
give them at least $100,000.
Mind you me, the Chamber of Commerce no longer represents Main Street
America, no longer represents the middle-size or small business; rather
the international, the transnational, the gone overseas crowd, such as
the Farley group that has already transferred 17,000 jobs offshore. It
is headquarters to the Cayman Islands. I don't know whether those are
foreign contributions. I had better look into that. It strikes me they
are talking about the Chinese. I am wondering whether the Chinese have
any worse position that the Cayman Islanders to make contributions. I
think we ought to call Janet Reno and say here is an example of foreign
contributions by the Cayman Island Farley to the campaigns--$500,000
for George. Poor George W. will never get through the year. They will
find these things I am talking about. Poor fellow, he hasn't gotten
into the Washington go-round. This crowd will chew anyone up.
See how the logic applies. We are all talking about the Attorney
General not doing enough on some antiquated contribution; that happened
way back. I am talking about what is being made now in this week's Time
magazine, the Cayman Island contributions to poor George W. in Texas,
and he probably doesn't even know it--when one runs a mammoth national
campaign. We will have to look into that.
We have a special interest bill. We need a vote on Shays-Meehan to
find out whether it is constitutional or to make sure, along with it,
to constitutionalize Shays-Meehan by coming right along and taking the
Hollings-Specter amendment to constitutionalize it.
As I was about to say before examined by my distinguished friend from
Nevada, we have found that of the last eight amendments to the
Constitution, seven have passed in 17 months' time.
There is no debate, and they all relate to elections. There is no
greater cancer on the body politic than the campaign finance practices
in this land.
Everybody talks about the amount of money. I would say a word about
the amount of time. As a full-time Senator, I am supposed to be giving
full time to the problems of the people of South Carolina. But I found
myself last year giving full time to my particular problem of staying
in office, by going all over the country, trying to collect funds from
anybody and everybody who thought I could be a pretty good Senator.
This was the seventh time I have been elected to the Senate. I am
still the junior Senator. I am working hard on my way up.
Be that as it may, when I first got elected back 33 years ago, it was
a little budget, somewhere, I think, around $400,000 or $500,000. I had
to collect $5.5 million last year.

[[Page 26932]]

In a small State where they are all Republicans, such as Delaware and
South Carolina, we have that Dupont crowd. We have them. They are the
best of the best. But all my State has gone Republican as did the
South: two Republican Senators in Texas, two in Alabama, two in
Mississippi, and two in Tennessee. October of last year I was the last
remaining statewide Democrat in office except for my friend the
comptroller, Earl Morris. He and I were the last two: city councils,
mayor, the Governor, the legislature--all Republican. With this
recording of every contribution in and every contribution out, there
were a lot of Republican friends who wanted to participate. But we put
that burden on them. They would have to, literally, explain why they
gave that fellow Hollings $100 or $1,000, whatever the contribution
was.
Rather than become involved--if we want to know what cuts off people
have from involvement in the process in America today, it is just this
particular requirement. I voted for that requirement. I think it ought
to be made public. But it can get bad, and it does, and has gotten bad
in my State.
We can correct this. We can constitutionalize whatever is the intent
of Congress. You do not have to get that distorted opinion of Buckley
v. Valeo for the simple reason that they said money amounted to speech.
Those with money had all the speech they wanted, but those who did not
have money could get lockjaw. They could just shut up and sit down.
``You are not in the swim, Liddy Dole; you are not in the race at all.
You can forget about it.'' The party has already arranged and crowned
George W. in Texas, and he has $50 million to $60 million. He doesn't
need the public money, and everybody thinks that is great.
I think that is not great at all. I think when it has gotten to be
that bad, when you have enough money, like Perot, to start a party, and
you have enough money to control the party as is being done now on the
Republican side, we have to clean this thing up and get back to not
being able to buy the office. So I would have campaign finance reform
as a very strong amendment and make sure there is no question.
Time magazine thinks it is relevant, but the Senator from Mississippi
does not think it is relevant. If he can come out and if he will make
the proposal that he does think it is relevant, we can agree on a time
agreement on Shays-Meehan, 5 minutes to a side, and vote. Do not come
weeping and wailing that, Oh, we have so many things to get done, we
have the appropriations' bills, we have this bill, we have that bill,
and everything like that. This is not a time-consumption strategy on
the part of the Senator from South Carolina. This is to bring to the
fore that which has been prevented from even being debated in this
body. The most deliberative body in the history of the world can no
longer, under the process, deliberate. You have to walk up to the table
and find out how to vote.
I was here with Senator Mansfield. Senator Mansfield would think that
demeaning, to put there how a Senator is supposed to vote. Senator
Dirksen would absolutely oppose nonsense of that kind. But that is how
we all are going. You have to do it this way and get on message. You
cannot debate what the public wants debated. You can only debate what
the polls show to be debated.
Everybody is running all over the world talking about education
because it shows up in the polls. But we only control 7 cents of every
education dollar; the 93 cents, that is the State and local
responsibility. Bless them, I am a leader on that subject. You name
another Senator in this body who has put up a 3 percent sales tax and
passed it for public education. You name another one who has come in
with a system of technical training that would even equal--much less be
better than--ours.
I have worked in the vineyards over the years for education so I do
not demean the need for improving the quality of education, namely,
doubling the pay of teachers. So you get what you pay for. If we start
attracting the best and the brightest, they do not need retraining;
they need money. They need to be paid. The average pay, I think, in
South Carolina, is around $27,000 or $28,000. Maybe it has gone up to
$31,000. Don't hold me to the exact figure. But I know that is
relevant. That doesn't pay for the children to go to college. I go to
the graduations and they come across the stage. ``Senator, I would like
to have taught, but I am not able to get into teaching because I cannot
save enough money to get my children through school and college. So
what do I do? I get into international studies, business course and
otherwise.''
Mr. President, we have the Kathie Lee sweatshop bill here before us,
where 17,000, according to Time Magazine, have gone from Kentucky in
the last few years. I have the exact figures. I had a talk the weekend
before last to the northern textile industry. The Senator from Delaware
had all of his textile people there, Drew Potter and otherwise. I was
glad to talk to the northern textile industry people.
I want to make a record of this particular situation because this is
how bad it can get, how politics can really take over. I have been the
principal sponsor of five textile bills that have passed this Senate,
four of them have passed the Senate and the House of Representatives
and gone to the President of the United States. One was vetoed by
President Carter, two by President Reagan, and one by President Bush. I
remember when President Bush implied, in his commitment to the talk in
Greenville, that he was for textiles. When asked how come he vetoed it,
he said, ``C'est la vie.'' He not only wants to import the textiles, he
wants to import the language. That is how far off we have gotten.
I could not get invited. I tried last year. Here is a fellow who has
grown up and held just about every office at the local level:
Lieutenant Governor and Governor and Senator elected seven times. But I
tried. They have a little lunch or evening meal, I think it is, at the
Piedmont Club, these new young executives. I said: You know, I ought to
make an appearance there because they have a new group and everything
else. I could not get invited. They never could find a time.
I had some old-time leaders say: We will arrange it for you. I could
get invited, thanks to Karl Spilhaus and the leadership of the northern
textile industry. At least I can get invited now to the northern
textile industry, but I could not get invited to my own backyard.
Here, as the cosponsor and voter for the right to work bill, I am out
here trying to protect organized labor because--where are they? I heard
that Ms. Evelyn Dubrow is finally back in town. She is the best of the
best. She just won the Presidential Medal last month. I congratulate
her. She has been outstanding over the years. Maybe if I explain this
bill long enough, we might be able to pick up some votes.
I see others waiting. I said I would take at least 15 minutes. My
good friend from Minnesota, who really held the fort down yesterday,
has been trying to get recognized to say a few words. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Ohio is here. I
ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for
his courtesy. I say to him and the Senator from California, I plan on
speaking probably 12 minutes.
Yesterday, I filed an amendment to H.R. 434, the African Growth and
Opportunity Act, which amendment would improve our Nation's ability to
retaliate against illegal trade practices by foreign governments.
Despite efforts to reduce European trade barriers against American
agriculture, despite repeated rulings by international trade bodies
that European trade barriers are illegal, there still remains a
``fortress Europe'' mentality against free and fair trade.
The amendment I have filed is designed to strengthen the one and only

[[Page 26933]]

allowable weapon in our arsenal against WTO noncompliance, the only
weapon we have when a country is found to be in violation of the WTO
and repeatedly refuses to comply. The only weapon we have, the only
method of forcing compliance, is tariff retaliation.
The amendment I filed enjoys widespread bipartisan support. In fact,
the bill I filed is similar to the amendment and now has 24 sponsors.
It is bipartisan.
This amendment has strong backing by our very diverse agricultural
community, and this is certainly no surprise. Ask any corn grower or
cattle producer or pork producer. They know and understand their well-
being depends on expanding our export markets. We have the greatest
agriculture in the world. We do it more efficiently and cheaper and
better than anyone in the world today. All our farmers say is: Give us
a chance to sell; give us a chance to compete. That is what this
amendment is about.
It is my hope the Senate, by adopting this amendment, will take a
stand for our farmers and ranchers and send a strong signal to the
European Union that their gross violations of international trade law
simply must stop.
Specifically, the European Union, despite years of efforts to find a
fair solution, continues to defy the World Trade Organization's rulings
against its ban on U.S. beef imports and its banana import rules. Both
cases are important not just for the specific producers and the
distributors impacted by these two cases, but it is important for every
American business, particularly small businesses, seeking a fair shot
at the European market.
To appreciate the magnitude of Europe's current actions against
American agriculture, it is important to put it in the context of
recent history. Both these specific trade cases took several years to
work through the WTO and were undertaken at great expense to the U.S.
Government, and the producers in the businesses are at the heart of
this dispute.
Here are the essential facts. This is the story.
The E.U. first imposed their ban on U.S. beef with growth hormones in
1985 and officially banned all U.S. beef in 1989. When the United
States sought rulings on this ban, either through the WTO or the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade process, the result was the
same: The E.U.'s ban was found to be without merit and in violation of
international trade rules. That was the ruling repeatedly, time after
time. First through the GATT process and then through the WTO, the
results were the same.
In other words, the WTO, and before that the GATT, found against the
European Union for violating trade laws. However, in spite of these
repeated rulings, the E.U. has refused to comply, and to this very day,
to this hour, to this minute, they continue to refuse to comply. In
spite of these rulings, the E.U. has refused to change its practices.
In spite of these rulings, they continue to thumb their nose at the WTO
decision.
The real question is whether or not the WTO rulings are enforceable,
do they mean anything, and every nation that is a member of the WTO has
a vested interest in making sure the rulings are enforceable, they do
mean something, and they do matter. That is what this amendment is
about.
In the face of noncompliance by the E.U., the United States only has
one remedy, and that remedy is tariff retaliation. We have no other way
to go. This is prescribed, it is allowed, and it is provided for in the
WTO rules. This is the only recourse a country has when another country
refuses to comply.
Under current WTO rules, the United States can retaliate against a
beef ban by imposing tariffs on European imports at a total amount
equal to the amount of financial pain being inflicted on our U.S. beef
industry. The WTO determined in this particular case that the E.U. beef
ban was inflicting $116.8 million per year in economic damages to U.S.
farmers.
Although the WTO's $116 million figure is significant, our cattle
industry strongly believes this is a very conservative estimate. They
believe the actual impact is closer to $1 billion annually.
Let me talk for a few moments about the other case, the banana case.
With bananas, the E.U. imposed import quotas and licenses in the early
1990s. While the United States produces bananas in Hawaii, we also have
a significant stake in the distribution and sale of bananas
domestically and internationally.
Seven times, the WTO ruled that the European Union's attempts to
obstruct U.S. banana distribution violated WTO rules--seven different
rulings. The WTO determined that the banana policy of the E.U. is
resulting in $191.4 million worth of economic damage annually to U.S.
interests. Again, the impacted U.S. companies believe the actual damage
is more than $1 billion annually. Again, the United States, with regard
to bananas, as was the case with beef, has the authority to impose
retaliatory tariffs against E.U. products.
Let me recap where we are in the story. With both bananas and beef,
the European Union repeatedly has been in violation of the WTO rulings.
The European Union has refused, in spite of these rulings, to change
its policies.
The WTO procedures provide a waiting period of 15 months for a nation
that is found to be in violation of rules to comply. In other words,
nothing happens--even as the ruling comes out, nothing happens for 15
months. What happened here in 15 months was nothing, absolutely
nothing. The European Union, again, continued for that 15-month period
of time not to comply. On the beef and banana cases, we waited these 15
months, and the European Union still didn't comply. So at that point,
the United States simply had no choice but to impose tariffs in
retaliation--tariffs that are fully allowed under the WTO.
The purpose for allowing the United States to impose tariffs is, of
course, to compel compliance with the WTO rulings. It has been 6 months
since tariffs on European imports were imposed in response to the
banana case, and it has been 3 months since tariffs were imposed in
response to the beef ban. So we had the 15-month waiting period. We had
some other time that elapsed, and then we had the 6 months and the 3
months in the banana and beef cases. After all this, are the Europeans
making any effort to comply with either ruling? We know the answer. The
answer is, no, on both counts. They still are not in compliance, and
they still give absolutely no indication that they are going to come
into compliance.
This is not just about beef. It is very important. It is not just
about bananas. It is about whether the WTO is going to mean anything.
And it is whether or not the rulings of the WTO are going to mean
anything. I think we have to look at the big picture and put this in
perspective.
While the European Union, the E.U., continues its fortress mentality
and thumbs its nose at the WTO rulings, other WTO member nations
finding themselves on the wrong side of a WTO ruling have acted
responsibly.
Members of the Senate may ask: Well, what has happened in other cases
when other countries have been found to be in noncompliance, to have
violated the WTO, and the ruling has come down, and they lost their
case and they have lost their appeal? What have they done? The answer
is, they have done what you would expect them to do. They have
complied.
The United States has lost four separate WTO cases. In each case,
after losing, we complied. Canada has lost and they complied. Korea
lost and Korea complied. Japan lost and Japan complied. Everybody but
the E.U.--all of these countries that lost their cases came into
compliance. In fact, every nation found in violation of a WTO ruling
has come into compliance--every nation--except for the nations of the
European Union.
Retaliation is the only authorized tool to bring a country into
compliance with WTO rulings. That is the point of this amendment, to
make this authorized retaliation more effective and to get the job
done.
What is a nation to do if its current list of imports subject to
retaliatory

[[Page 26934]]

tariffs is not working to move the offender such as the E.U. into
compliance? The solution, I believe, is to seek other products to
target and at tariff levels that will impose the kind of pain that will
cause the European Union to see compliance as the remedy. This is a
process known as ``carouseling.'' That is what this amendment is about.
In both the case with bananas and the case with beef, we came forward
with a list of products that we were retaliating against and the duties
were imposed. Nothing has happened. What our amendment provides--and I
will discuss this in greater detail later when I formally offer this
amendment--is that if the first list of items on which we are imposing
tariffs to retaliate against the E.U., quite candidly, does not inflict
enough pain to get their attention, then we need to carousel or change
the list.
The amendment provides that at least one of the items must be
changed. It provides that many can be changed, but at least one has to
be changed. The whole idea is, if this is the only way we can get their
attention, the only remedy we have, the only tool we have, the only
stick we have is this type of retaliation, we must make sure it is
effective and we must make sure the correct products are being chosen
on which to inflict the pain to get the attention of the E.U. That is
what this amendment is all about. It is a rather modest amendment, but
it is an amendment that we believe will significantly make a
difference.
To date, the administration has refused to carousel products in
either case. They do have, currently, the authority to do it, although
they are not compelled to do it. As long as the E.U. remains unwilling
to comply with WTO rulings, it becomes more imperative that the tool of
retaliation be used effectively. Our amendment would do that by
requiring the United States to change retaliation lists periodically to
inflict pressure, pain, on the noncomplying party to comply--in this
case, the E.U.
The ramifications of the E.U.'s noncompliance with the entire WTO
dispute settlement process is staggering. If the E.U. is successful, if
they get away with this, then we can expect them to continue this
tactic on other products and other commodities, and the entire WTO
process will mean nothing, at least as far as the E.U. is concerned.
The issue today is beef and bananas, but tomorrow it could be grains,
apples, peaches, potatoes, perhaps even computers. Who knows? A lot is
at stake. We must ensure our retaliation does, in fact, result in
compliance. We must ensure that it works.
This amendment would require the carouseling--or the rotating--of
products on a list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign
country or countries have failed to comply with a previous WTO ruling.
This amendment would help ensure the integrity of the WTO dispute
settlement process because it would provide the U.S. Trade
Representative with a powerful mechanism to place considerable pressure
on noncomplying countries to actually comply.
In conclusion, it is my hope that in the near future, my fellow
cosponsors and I will have an opportunity to have a more detailed
discussion of this amendment and the issues involved and that the
Senate will overwhelmingly approve our amendment.
It is time, frankly, to break down the barriers of fortress Europe in
the name of fairness for American farmers.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor. And I do thank my colleague
from Minnesota for his courtesy.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me repeat, in about 2
minutes, what I suggested today about the legislation before us, the
several trade bills.
I think while those who argue, with the WTO meeting that is coming up
in Seattle, that we might be able to have some enforceable labor
provisions and environmental provisions, and, for that matter, think
about a fair shake for farmers in this trade regime, now bring to the
floor of the Senate some trade agreements where there is no enforceable
labor standards whatsoever, no enforceable environmental standards--
zero--the message of this legislation to working people in this country
is: If you should want to organize and bargain collectively to make a
decent wage, those companies are gone. And the message to people in
other countries, the Caribbean and African countries, is: The only way
you get investors to your country is if you are willing to work for
less than 30 cents an hour, or whatever.
This is hardly legislation that leads to the uplifting of living
standards of working families in our country, much less poor and
working people in other countries.
I am opposed to these trade bills and have had a chance yesterday to
lay out my case. And Senator Hollings has spoken today. Others may have
spoken, as well.
But what I want to do right now is speak to another issue which I
think is almost more important than the legislation before us.
We now have legislation out here, and the ``tree'' has been filled
with amendments, so there is no opportunity whatsoever for those of us
who have been saying for a while that we wanted to have an opportunity
to offer some amendments, some legislation that we think will make a
difference for the people we represent, there is no opportunity for us
to be able to do so. That is what is at issue.
If the majority leader, to whom I spoke about this earlier, was
serious about trying to get this legislation passed, getting the
necessary votes for cloture, then certainly we wouldn't have a piece of
legislation on the floor with the tree filled with no opportunity for
Senators to offer amendments. The majority leader wants to argue they
have to be relevant amendments. Who gets to define relevant? One
wonders whether or not, if we had amendments to have enforceable labor
standards, that would be viewed as relevant.
For me, it has been, now, about 6 weeks. This is why I deferred to
the Senator from Ohio. First of all, he was on the floor first and I
didn't want to precede his speaking. Secondly, I want to take a little
bit of time. I think probably I will wait for a more timely time to
take more time because one way or the other I am going to force a vote
on some agricultural initiatives. The Chair and others can vote for or
against it, but I have, for the last 6, 7 weeks, asked the majority
leader, when will I have an opportunity to offer legislation I think
will fix not all that is wrong but at least could make a positive
difference? Other Senators can disagree. But we take responsibility for
what we do, and we vote one way or the other. We debate one way or the
other, and then we are held accountable.
The exchange I had with the majority leader today about this has been
going on for quite some time. The majority leader said he was pretty
sure if I introduced an amendment, he probably would be opposed to it.
That is fine. It think the more important point, which is what I tried
to explain--I don't choose to debate the majority leader; he is not
here--is that nobody in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, should be
under the illusion, because we passed a financial assistance package,
emergency package, that we have, in fact, dealt with the price crisis.
I don't know of any producers who feel good about this bailout
legislation every year. People are sick of it. They want us to get to
the root of the problem.
They don't think the farm policy is working. I don't think it is
working. I don't even choose to point the finger. I thought Freedom to
Farm was ``freedom to fail.'' I never liked it. I thought it was a big
mistake. I thought it was great for the packers and the grain
companies. I didn't think it was good for family farmers. Others take a
different position.
It seems to me the point is, looking forward not backward, whether or
not we are willing to talk about some modification, some adjustment,
some changes. If Senators don't think taking the cap off the loan rate
makes sense,

[[Page 26935]]

then what else? If Senators don't think a moratorium on these mergers
and acquisitions, which is what I will talk about today--that is the
amendment I wanted to introduce to this legislation, which the majority
leader shut me out from doing right now--makes sense, then perhaps
Senators will have other proposals.
In farm country in Minnesota--maybe it isn't that way in Montana--
almost everybody I know thinks there is a correlation between monopoly
power, the power of a few companies that muscled their way to the
dinner table and have control, and their low prices. The farm retail
spread grows wider and wider, a lot of our producers face extinction,
and the packers are in hog heaven. IBP makes record profits, and pork
producers are going under.
I thought I could introduce this amendment today, which I will
explain.
Mr. President, I came to the floor probably for the sixth or seventh
time today to ask the majority leader when I would have an opportunity
to submit an amendment to introduce legislation that I believe will
speak at least in part to the economic convulsion that is taking place
in agriculture. We have too many family farms that are going under the
auctioneer's hammer. There are too many of our producers who are being
driven off the land.
If I had to pick one ``issue'' that means the most to me right now
just in terms of the emotion of it, it would be what is happening to
our producers. What is happening to our producers is they are being
driven off the land. This is not only where they work. It is where they
live. I think it is all quite unnecessary. I think if we were willing
to change some of the policies, this wouldn't be happening.
I am determined one way or another to force the Senate to vote up or
down on several initiatives that I believe would make a difference. If
there are other Senators who have a better idea than having a
moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions that are leading to more
monopoly power by these conglomerates and driving farmers off the land,
or have a better idea of taking the cap off the loan rate, or creating
a farmer loan reserve, or extending the payment period on the loan rate
so that farmers have some leverage vis-a-vis these huge conglomerates,
then come out on the floor of the Senate with your ideas. If there are
Senators who believe we should leave in the next week or two without
taking any action whatsoever to deal with the price crisis, to deal
with what is really going on in agriculture, then come on out and make
the argument.
I appreciate the exchange with the majority leader. But, to tell you
the truth, I think what is going on in the countryside doesn't have
much to do with whether or not the majority leader says something that
is fairly clever, or I say something that is fairly clever, or we have
a kind of back and forth discussion. That is fine. Each of us is saying
what we believe. Each of us is representing what we think is right.
The only thing I know is that October 25, 1999, at the Bird Island
Elevator in Renville County, wheat was $2.89 a bushel; corn was $1.43 a
bushel; soybeans were $4.04 a bushel; and this is way below the cost of
production. These farmers can work 19 hours a day, be the best managers
in the world, and they are still going to go under.
If U.S. Senators want to come out on the floor and amend the
``freedom to fail'' bill, feel free to do so. But let's have the
debate. More importantly, let's all come out here with some
legislation, some change in policy, that will make a difference so we
don't lose a whole generation of family farmers.
In Minnesota, farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1966, and
more than 25 percent of the remaining farmers may not be able to cover
expenses, or won't be able to cover expenses in 1999.
That is why I take it so personally when I am essentially told again:
We are going to shut you out. We are going to bring this legislation to
the floor. We are going to fill up the tree, and we are going to make
sure, Senator Wellstone, that you can't come out here with an
amendment, or with legislation that you think would help farmers in
your State.
I hope my colleagues will vote against cloture, whether or not they
are for this trade legislation, just because of the way business is
being conducted in the Senate. The way business should be conducted in
the Senate is that when we have a piece of legislation, Senators must
be able to come out with amendments they believe are an important part
of their work to represent people in their State. If other Senators
don't agree, they can come out and disagree. If other Senators want to
come out and say you have no business bringing legislation to the floor
of the Senate that deals with agriculture because we are on a trade
bill, then I would ask you: When have I had the opportunity over the
last several months or for the last year? The majority leader alluded
to some of my colleagues who think that because we passed the financial
assistance package we have dealt with the problem. Spend one second in
Minnesota, come on out to northwest Minnesota, or west central
Minnesota, or southwest Minnesota, or southeast Minnesota, and meet
with some of our producers. Look in their faces and see grown men and
women break down and cry. Why don't you come out to do that? Since,
again, we are not going to take any action--this legislation is now
filled up with amendments--people in greater Minnesota don't know and
have any idea what ``fill up a tree'' means. It means, once again, we
can't come out here and fight for the people in our State.

Dear Farm Aid: My husband and two of our sons live on the
farm in Missouri. My husband has loved the farm ever since he
was a little boy. It would just kill him if he loses it. And
in fact it might just kill him. I am so very concerned. We
have been farming several years, and we have gone in and out
of bankruptcy. That is why we cannot get financing to save
our farm.
I will make a long story short. I am not used to this. We
have no place to go. Our farm may be sold at the end of
September on the courthouse steps. Many lives will be
affected. I am really worried about what will happen if we
can't hold onto our farm. We have worked our entire lives and
made many improvements to the farm. I do not know how you can
help. You cannot give farmers a price for what they sell, but
anything you can do would be appreciated. The banks are
demanding $200,000 from us. Time is very critical. If you can
save our family farm, we will be forever grateful. You may
even save one's life.

Actually, we can do something about the price. When we talk about
taking the cap off the loan rate, we are saying to farmers, get more
leverage in the marketplace to get a better price. When we talk about
farmer on reserve, we are talking about farmers being able to withhold
their grain until they get a decent price. When we are talking about
the need to take antitrust action and a moratorium on the acquisitions
and mergers, we are simply saying to our livestock producers when there
is less concentration of power, there is a much better chance of
getting a decent price.
When a farmer is at an auction and there are three buyers for what is
being sold, one does not get a very good price.

Dear Farm Aid: We are at our wit's end. This farm has been
in our family since 1908. We are one of the only original
homestead families still surviving. We fought off foreclosure
three times since the 1980s. We have four children and we
don't live a fancy lifestyle. We built a new home 6 years
ago. Or rather we tried to build a home 6 years ago. We still
hope to have siding on the house one day. We got running
water 3 years ago, and fortunately we have electricity. We
were able to purchase a window for the house in 1997, and
some day the house will have flooring and sheet rock. This is
our only luxury. We don't have any retirement, life insurance
or health insurance.

I repeat: We don't have any retirement, life insurance or health
insurance.

Our farm has been listed for sale 5 times but so have all
our neighbors' farms. There is not employment in this area
and the nearest city is 78 miles from us [Montana farm.] Yet
we do not want to leave. We owe the bank $39,000 currently
and we know they will not release any income for our land
payment that is due this January. Therefore, we face
foreclosure in 2000. We don't know which way to jump. Should
we declare bankruptcy? We cannot afford a lawyer. We don't
even have money for groceries. We are not ignorant and we are
not bad farmers. We cannot compete against the large
companies. Last year we couldn't even sell our grain and it
had to go

[[Page 26936]]

under the CCC loan. We delivered the grain for loan repayment
but it didn't bring enough to cover the CCC loan and we owe
an additional $1,765 on that, as well. What can we do? Should
we concede defeat and lose our legacy? Our son would have
been the 6th generation to work this land. Where will he go?
We can no longer qualify for conventional loans. What's next?
What do we do? We are so scared. In 1 year we can lose what
has taken 92 years to build. We have tightened our belts as
far as we can. We live on less than $3,000 a year.

Senators, are you listening to that?

Please tell us what we should do. We live on less than
$3,000 a year. Please tell us what we should do.

What we should do, come early February when we come back in session,
before spring planting season, is have 10,000 farmers and rural people
coming to the Capitol and rocking the Capitol. That is what we need to
do. We need to have farmers, rural people, the religious community,
labor and supporters coming right here--people are not going to come by
jet because they don't have the money--buses of people coming from the
Midwest, the South, and other agricultural States, joined by allies,
have face-to-face meetings in every Senator's office, every
Representative's office, be he or she a Democrat or a Republican. That
is what we are going to need to do.
It is clear to me with a week to go we are not going to take this
action. I can't even get an up-or-down vote on one amendment. I can't
even get an up-or-down vote. I can't even get a debate. On this piece
of legislation, the tree is filled. No amendments can be introduced.
But today won't be the day because the Senate right now is waiting
until the cloture vote on Friday. The first opportunity I get to get
the floor when we do need to do a lot of business, I will be out here
talking for hours about agriculture--for hours.
A Kansas farmer's daughter:

My father is a farmer and the bank is foreclosing on his
farm. Due to circumstances beyond his control he has been
unable to make his mortgage payments. He was able to
forestall the sale scheduled for June 9, 1999. I don't know
how much longer he can put them off. He has been farming
since he got out of the army in 1945. He is 77 years old and
he is still trying to make a living. He has no life insurance
and I am fearful that his health will not hold out. Is there
any help for him? What can be done to help him maintain his
farm?
All appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

Including the deaf ears of the Senate.
At this moment, I hold the majority party accountable for not
enabling us to come to the floor with amendments to try to change the
situation for the better.

All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. This farm has been in
our family since the 1800s. We don't want to lose it. But it
seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken.
Either the stress and his health will kill him, or losing the
farm will kill him. Please help.

I am going to repeat that so often on the floor of the Senate. We
debate statistics. It is all abstractions. It is all party strategy.
Several hours ago when I came out ready to go with this good bill to
impose a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and establish a
commission to review large agricultural mergers and the concentration
of market power with Senator Dorgan, the majority leader came out and
through several motions filled up the tree.
That is what we are talking about--filling up the tree. Don't let
Senators have any amendments. Then I heard the majority leader say: We
certainly don't want to have something dealing with agriculture.

It seems one way or the other my father's life will be
taken. Either the stress and his health will kill him or
losing the farm will kill him. Please help.

I guess this woman in Kansas isn't going to get any help today from
the Senate. Won't get any help tomorrow. Since the majority leader has
filled up the tree, there is not opportunity for any amendments at all,
no opportunity to bring legislation to the floor to try to make a
difference. No opportunity.

Please help.

I am going to read this again quickly because several other
colleagues have come to the floor. This woman is talking about her dad.
He is a World War II vet. He is 77 years old. He is trying to make it
on the farm. She says:

What can be done to help him maintain his farm?

With these record low prices and record low income.

All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. This farm has been in
our family since the 1800s. We don't want to lose it but it
seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken.
Either the stress and his health will kill him or losing the
farm will kill him. Please help.

There is no help from the Senate today because the majority leader
has filled up the tree and I don't have the right to come to the floor
with an amendment to try to help this woman, this farmer or other
farmers in our country. When are we going to do something about
agriculture? Are we sleepwalking through history? I see my colleague,
Senator Grassley from Iowa. He knows what is going on in the
countryside. I know he knows. But I just believe the Senate does not.
We are going to go with the current policy? Do Senators not believe
that we need to make perhaps some modification, maybe some adjustments
when farmers are getting prices way below the cost of production? When
the men and women who produce the food and fiber for our country cannot
even make a decent living, do we think we should not be doing anything
about this?
Iowa farmer:

I am a hog farmer and as you know times are tough. I want
to make some changes in my farm business that would
necessitate an off farm job. I do not have much choice. I
have to get an off farm job, or I will have no farm. I'm 54
years old, I'm healthy, and I have a BA in history. When I go
to the employment agencies, I feel like the counselors do not
know how to help me. The only jobs out in my area are low
paying factory or sales jobs. Do you have any suggestions? I
feel that time is running out.

I hear that so often. I hear that so often from farmers. They say,
``I feel like time is running out.''
That is the way I feel, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota. I
feel that time is running out. I feel that time is not neutral. I feel
if we stand still and we do not pass any legislation that will make a
difference and we do not change this failed farm policy, a whole
generation of producers are going to be wiped out in my State of
Minnesota. The majority leader fills up the tree, denying me and
denying other Senators an opportunity to come out here with legislation
we think would help people in our States.
By the way, I am pleased to debate this with any Senator, the
majority leader and others.
An Illinois farmer wife:

Dear Farm Aid: My mother and father-in-law saved and
borrowed enough money in 1945 to buy an 80-acre farm in
Illinois. They farmed with horses, milked cows, raised hogs
in the Timber Creek Bed and raised 12 children. My husband
now has had the farm turned over to him since his parents
have passed away and his sister was killed in a car accident
2 years ago. My husband is, has always been, a very hard
worker.

Boy, I tell you, this sounds like my mother, Mensha Daneshevsky. If
she really liked somebody, this was her ultimate compliment. She would
say, ``He's a hard worker'' or ``She's a hard worker.'' My mother is no
longer alive. I tell you, family farmers in Minnesota and around the
country are hard workers.

We both work at jobs full-time, our other jobs outside the
farm. We were both raised on a farm and we both love to farm.
We cash rent three other farms close by to get along, but we
are still having an awful time. The prices are so low that we
just cannot seem to make ends meet.

That is the point. I cannot believe it when Senators come out here on
the floor, or at least one Senator today, and talk about this emergency
financial crisis bill we passed, this disaster relief bill we passed,
as if this is a response. It does not have anything to do with low
prices.
All that money we have been spending, more than we ever spent before
in the ``freedom to fail'' bill, is only enabling people to live to
farm another day. There will be no ``other day'' for these farmers
until we deal with the price crisis. I am told by this majority party
that I cannot bring an amendment to the floor to try to enable this
family to make a living?

Prices are so low that we cannot seem to make ends meet. If
it wasn't for our jobs in

[[Page 26937]]

town we would have lost everything my husband's parents
worked so hard for. We are doing all we can, but we just
cannot get out of debt. In fact, we are going deeper and
deeper into debt every year. My husband and I have shed many
tears and had many sleepless nights trying to figure out just
what to do to save our family farm. We do not want to lose
it. Do you have any help for us or anything else that we can
do? We lost over $20,000 this year. It breaks my heart to see
my husband work so hard and get so tired of working two jobs
and still not making it. Please help us. If we could just get
a break, even on this year, things would be easier. Thank you
for listening and I hope you will be able to help my husband
save his deeply loved family farm.

I have hours of stories, especially from Minnesota farmers. I am
going to pick the right time on the floor of the Senate to go through
all of that, especially when the Senate most needs to do business.
But this is what I hear over and over and over again. ``Thank you for
listening and I hope you will be able to help my husband and save our
farm.''
The answer is: I can't. I can't. I can't help save family farmers in
my State or in other States because the Senate, and in particular--I
don't usually come out on the floor and do this, but I am doing it
today--the majority party which filled up this legislation with
amendments has turned its back on agriculture. I heard today we do not
want to deal with agriculture.
When are we going to deal with agriculture? Exactly how much longer
do you think these people have? How many farmers do we want to see
driven off the land? How much more pain do we want to see? How many
more families do we want to see shattered before we do something?
This is about the angriest I have ever been since I have been on the
floor of the Senate because I was ready to do this amendment. I say
this to my colleague from Iowa, who is a good friend, he has nothing to
do with anything I am talking about. But I was ready to have a debate.
I was ready to bring out this amendment. I was going to say I think we
ought to have a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers because
they are taking place at such a breathtaking pace, and I think what is
happening is we are moving to monopoly and our family farmers cannot
get a break. Let's have a study of this and let's put a moratorium on
it for 18 months.
I tried. I have an amendment that is I don't know how many pages. It
is well thought out. My colleague from Iowa could agree or disagree. We
even had some discussion. He raised some questions I thought were
important questions. But as long as we have legislation out here with
the tree filled and no opportunity to do the amendment, there is just
no opportunity to do it.
I would not be out here today saying this, but this is the sixth or
seventh time. For the last several months, I have been saying: When do
we have the opportunity to have this debate? It is hard to go home and
meet with people and know people are hoping for some change and know
this disaster package we passed does not do anything but enable people
to survive. But then what about next year and next year? People want to
know: Do I have a future? Do my children have a future? What is going
to be done?
Basically, what we get out here today on the floor of the Senate is a
parliamentary maneuver which basically denies any Senator from coming
out here with amendments.
Therefore, I do not know what is going to happen, but I certainly
hope my colleagues will vote against cloture. Then, of course, it
becomes a game again. Then the President, who wants this legislation,
will not get the legislation. Then some people can say that is good; we
don't care one way or the other anyway. Or people can point the finger
and some people can say: Those who voted against cloture, they are the
ones who killed it, and many of them were Democrats.
It goes on and on and on, this grand political strategy.
Look, I don't support this legislation. I was out on the floor the
other day stating my reasons why. But, frankly, I think there is a
larger question. That has to do with whether or not we are going to
have debate on issues that are important to the lives of people in our
country and whether we are going to have the opportunity to represent
and fight for people in our States. Today certainly is not such a day.
I have at least a 2-hour historical analysis, but not today--I got
the attention of my friend from Iowa--at least a 2-hour historical
analysis of concentration in the food industry. I will go back to the
Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and some of the work of Estes Kefauver. I
will talk about the Farmers Alliance, the populist movement, the gilded
age, Teddy Roosevelt, and what we should be doing. As a matter of fact,
tomorrow I have the opportunity to testify about Viacom buying up CBS.
It is pretty incredible. There we have concentration in the media,
telecommunications, which deals with the flow of information in a
representative democracy. I think food is a pretty precious commodity.
I will summarize what this amendment would have done, if adopted.
This amendment represents comprehensive legislation. I would have
offered this with Senator Dorgan--he would be out here, Senator Harkin
would be out here, and other Senators would be out here--to deal with
the problem of market concentration in agriculture. Anybody who does
not think we do not have a problem of market concentration in
agriculture just does not know what is going on in the countryside. If
anything, we are looking to put free enterprise back into the food
industry.
Given this concentration, given the mergers, given the
anticompetitive practices, and given the failure of our antitrust
authorities to remedy the situation, we need to do something.
A moratorium on these large agribusiness mergers is something the
Congress can do right now. This would apply to mergers and acquisitions
among firms that do at least $10 million of business annually. It would
apply to mergers and acquisitions that, under current law, must already
be filed with the Justice Department and FTC; namely, the mergers and
acquisitions in which one party has net revenue or assets over $100
million and the second party more than $10 million. The moratorium
would last 18 months or until the Congress enacted comprehensive
legislation to address the problem of concentration in agriculture,
whichever occurred first. We also would set up an agriculture antitrust
review commission to study the nature and consequences of concentration
in the agricultural sector.
We have a long history in our country, a glorious history, of
ordinary people who have been willing to take on concentrations of
wealth, of economic power, and of political power that are unhealthy
for democracy. They were some of our greatest leaders: Thomas
Jefferson, Andrew Jackson; think about the New Deal, the Progressive
era, Teddy Roosevelt, and the People's Party of the late 1800s.
The populist platform of 1892 at the nominating convention in Omaha
declared:

The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to
build up colossal fortunes for a few unprecedented in the
history of mankind.

The People's Party founder, Tom Watson, thundered:

The People's Party is the protest of the plundered against
the plunderers.

The late 1800s and the early 1900s is the way it seems to me in this
country now. I keep referring to my colleague from Iowa because he is a
friend. I do not know what his experience is, but when I speak, for
example, to pork producers--there may be several hundred there--it
seems as if I am in the late 1800s when the deck was stacked against
producers. It really does. They work hard. There are just a few packers
who pretty much control everything. The producers do not understand why
they cannot even make a living and IBP is making millions.
Come on, what is going on? Where is the competition? Let's give our
producers a fair shot, a fair shake. That is all they are asking. I
have not met anyone in the countryside--and this transcends all party
differences--who does not believe there is some correlation between the
concentration of power and the low prices they receive.
Everybody thinks this is a problem, and we are sitting on our thumbs.
I am

[[Page 26938]]

told today by the majority leader, in filling up the tree: We don't
want these amendments such as agriculture; that is unrelated; that is
not relevant.
An amendment on agriculture is relevant to me. It is relevant to
Minnesota. It is relevant to family farmers in the Midwest. It is
relevant to rural America. If I cannot meet the majority leader's
definition of relevant, then I will just have to come to the floor
whenever I can and take as many hours as I can to talk about what is
relevant.
There is nothing more relevant to me right now than the pain and
agony of family farmers in my State of Minnesota, and there is nothing
more urgent, from my point of view, than for me to try, even if I
lose--I may very well. Cargill, IBP, ConAgra, and Monsanto have a fair
amount of clout, but I think it is worth trying to take them on. I
really do. At least I am going to try to fight for it, and at least I
am going to try to continue to force this question in the Senate. If I
cannot get an up-or-down vote and keep getting blocked, then I will
just have to figure out ways to block the Senate as we try to do our
business because to me this is the relevant question.
What is relevant to me is that on the present course, we lose a
generation of producers. We can change the course. We can change some
of our policy. We can make some modifications. We can make some
adjustments. We can get the price up. We can give our producers some
protection against these monopolies. We can do something that will make
much more sense on trade policy, and we can make a difference.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on the Africa trade bill, which is now
before the Senate, we are in a parliamentary position in which all the
amendments offered have been offered by the Republican side. Such a
position had to be taken by the majority leader because of failures to
get time agreements and commitments from the other side, meaning the
Democrat side, on a limitation on amendments and time agreements on
those amendments so we could bring this bill to a vote.
I hope our Democrat friends will heed the necessity of this
legislation from President Clinton's State of the Union Address that
this was one of the most important goals of his administration. Since
the Republican majority in the Congress is often criticized by the
President for not working closely with the President--and I think those
charges by the President of the United States are overblown most times,
but those charges are still made. So in the present environment in
which one of the President's prime pieces of legislation is before the
Senate, with a determination by our majority leader to help get this
part of the President's program into law, I would think the Democrat
minority would be embarrassed that they are taking actions that make it
difficult to get one of the President's programs through this Congress
for the President's signature.
I hope, as one Senator--not speaking for the majority leader, just
speaking for myself--they will reach agreement on these very important
amendments so we can bring this bill to finality and get it sent to the
President, not because it is one of the President's major goals, not
that it shows the President's charges against the Republican majority
are many times unfounded, not for any of those reasons, as legitimate
as that might be, but because the substance of this legislation is very
important for the economy of the United States and the economy of the
countries that it applies to--because free trade strengthens economies,
free and fair trade creates jobs, not only in the United States, but
also economies that practice free trade anywhere around the world are
stronger economies because of it. That is the goal we seek in this
legislation.
We have heard we have a lot to fear from free trade. In the last few
months, we have heard from many quarters that free trade is harmful
because it destroys jobs. We have heard free trade is not fair trade
because it causes investments to shift overseas. We have heard that the
Africa trade bill will do both of these things, as well as cause
illegal transshipment that we cannot do anything about.
When you look at the facts, none of these three arguments that are
used against this piece of legislation has any merit. First, let's look
at the claim that free trade destroys jobs. The 50-year history of the
multilateral trade negotiations, first under the General Agreement of
Tariffs and Trade, and now under the World Trade Organization, called
WTO for short, shows the enormous positive effect on the world economy
of liberalizing trade by reducing tariffs and getting rid of nontariff
trade barriers.
We have had eight series, or rounds as they are called, of
multilateral trade negotiations since GATT first started in 1947. We
are about to launch a new round, the ninth one, at the WTO Ministerial
Conference in Seattle in about 5 weeks.
During the first round, the Geneva Round it was called, in 1947, we
negotiated 45,000 tariff concessions affecting one-fifth of world
trade.
In the sixth round, which was called the Kennedy Round, we slashed
custom duties on average of 35 percent.
During the last round, the Uruguay Round, starting in the middle
1980s, ending in 1993, we reduced or eliminated many nontariff trade
barriers.
The results of this trade liberalization have been nothing short of
astounding--creating jobs, expanding the world economic pie, creating
better economies in various countries around the world, enhancing
political opportunities and, most importantly, political stability. The
expansion of free trade that has followed this 50-year period of trade
liberalization has spurred one of the greatest bursts of wealth
creation the world has ever seen.
In 1947, when we started postwar trade liberalization, the total
value of world exports was about $50 billion. Today, the total value of
world exports is $7 trillion, more than 3\1/2\ times the total budget
of the United States.
Free trade has enriched every American family. According to the
President's own 1998 economic report, the added economic benefit to
each American through expanded trade is $1,000 per year or $4,000 per
year for a family of four, as we measure families in America. This is
equivalent to an annual $4,000 per family tax cut. Where can one get a
$4,000 tax cut these days? Even the tax cuts now being debated in the
Congress do not come anywhere close to this amount of money to enhance
family income and disposable income.
The facts that show the benefits of free trade seem to be so
compelling that in explaining them, I don't know where to begin.
Let me mention a recent example that comes from NAFTA. According to a
September 1998 report published by the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service, approximately 191,000 jobs were certified, between
January 1, 1949, and August 12, 1998, as potentially suffering NAFTA-
related loss--affecting 191,000 workers. That is on the negative side.
We have always said that free trade will cause some job dislocation.
That is why we have programs such as trade adjustment assistance--to
ease the transition that is sometimes necessary when we have open
markets.
On the positive side, there has been much more gain. Let's go back to
that Congressional Research Service study I cited. The number, 191,000
workers affected negatively by NAFTA over 4 years, represents less than
the number of jobs created in any single month in 1997. In contrast,
then, on the positive side, more than 1 million new jobs were created
from new exports to Mexico and Canada after NAFTA was enacted into
law--more than 1 million new jobs.
Next let's look at the claim that is made by opponents of this
legislation or free trade generally that it causes investment to shift
overseas. That claim, too, has little or no merit. Section 512 of the
NAFTA Implementation Act required the President to provide a
comprehensive assessment of the operation and effects of NAFTA to
Congress. The President's report shows that the amount of new United
States investment in Mexico is very low.

[[Page 26939]]

Again, the specific facts are compelling. In 1997, direct United States
investment in Mexico was $5.9 billion compared to United States
domestic investment in plant and equipment of $864.9 billion. In other
words, United States investment in Mexico was less than 1 percent of
all United States domestic investment in plant and equipment in 1997.
So much for that giant sucking sound we were supposed to have heard
continuously from south of our border.
Free trade has been so good for our economy. If all these predictions
about economic disaster haven't come true when we have liberalized
trade in the past, it is clear we shouldn't fear tearing down barriers
around the world, as we have for the last 50 years with the good
results we have for the 50 years, without the expectation that those
beneficial impacts would continue. We should, then, embrace such an
opportunity.
Let me get specifically to the Africa trade bill. The fear that the
Africa trade bill will cause a huge influx of illegal textile
transshipments from Asia, as has been stated on the floor of the
Senate, just is not true. I cite the International Trade Commission
study, our own Government. It looked at the transshipment issue. Here
is what our International Trade Commission found:
Assuming we will get illegal transshipments in a worst case scenario,
the ITC study shows that U.S. apparel shipments would drop by one-tenth
of 1 percent and result in the loss of less than 700 jobs. Again, to
put this number in perspective, the U.S. economy has created about
200,000 jobs each month this year.
Remember, the ITC study guesstimate of 700 jobs is based on a worst
case scenario. It is highly unlikely, then, that sub-Saharan Africa
will see this level of export growth in the near term. They don't have
the infrastructure. They don't have the trained workforce. They don't
have good transportation. And the Africa bill has strong anti-
transshipment provisions.
One might say, then, why the big deal about the Africa trade bill?
Because trade is better than foreign aid and because, when you want to
build up the economies of the developing nations, you start someplace.
This is how we can best help them to help themselves.
Participating countries will have to commit to full cooperation with
the United States to address and take any necessary action to prevent
transshipment. The spirit of this legislation is that there not be
transshipment. In addition, the U.S. Customs Service has effective
procedures to thwart illegal transshipments, as Customs jump teams have
proven to be successful in doing in both Hong Kong and Macao. And there
are many other provisions aimed at preventing transshipments. So free
trade works. Free trade creates jobs and prosperity in the United
States, adding $4,000 every year in economic benefits to each American
family at home. Free trade keeps the peace by building interdependence
among nations, and by bringing political stability to nations that
heretofore have relied upon dictators and relied upon a government-
controlled economy. Finally, free trade will help Africa break the
shackles of poverty by bringing economic freedom to the most
economically unfree and also the poorest regions in the world. So I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment,
No. 2335, be temporarily laid aside in order for Senator Reid of Nevada
to offer an amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of that amendment, amendment No. 2335 become the pending
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 2336

(Purpose: To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 with respect to export controls on high performance
computers)

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

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 2336.

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. . ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE
LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

Section 1211(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``180'' and
inserting ``30''; and
(2) by adding at the end, the following new sentence: ``The
30-day reporting requirement shall apply to any changes to
the composite theoretical performance level for purposes of
subsection (a) proposed by the President on or after June 1,
1999.''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was born and raised on the southern tip of
the State of Nevada, in a little mining town called Searchlight. When I
grew up, there wasn't a single telephone anyplace in the town. No one
had a telephone. In the home I was raised in, there was no hot water.
We had no indoor toilets; they were outdoor toilets. It was primitive--
well, I would not say primitive, but we weren't very modern there. That
is the way it was with a lot of people in rural Nevada at that time.
Today, it is hard for me to comprehend what has taken place in the
advancement of science. I can go home at night and see if I have
received any e-mail on my computer. It is easy to do. I open my
computer and it says, ``You've got mail.'' I open that up and find out
who has contacted me by e-mail, and it is like magic. I press a button
and I can reply to that person as quickly as I can type that message
out. That message is sent quicker, of course, than the speed of light.
It is gone. It is amazing. I can check to find out the weather on my
computer. I can communicate and buy a CD, or anything else I want, on
my computer. I can't imagine how that can happen, but it happens.
I rise today in total awe of what is happening in science and
technology in America. The amendment I have offered is an amendment
that is critical to maintaining our Nation's lead in the high-tech
sector. Specifically, this amendment is crucial to the computer
industry, the industry that allows me to communicate, for example, with
all five of my children. It is easy to do. It is easier to do than
seeing if they are home by virtue of a telephone. It is easier to do
because it is very convenient. They can send me a message when I want a
message sent. I can send them a message when I have the time. I can
have a good time with my children over the Internet. I sent one of my
boys, who is the athlete of the family, an e-mail last weekend saying
that I think the Redskins are going to do well if they get a new coach.
He was an athlete at the University of Virginia. It is the first time I
can remember that the University of Virginia soccer team has not been
ranked in the top 10; they are in the top 20. I suggested to my son
that it might not be a bad idea to get a new coach for the soccer team
at Virginia.
This is done so quickly. He will communicate back to me when he has
the time. I am in total awe of what is going on in the high-tech
sector.
This amendment relates to an issue I have been interested in for
quite a long time and, in particular, have done a lot of work on this
session with some of my colleagues. What I am concerned about is
bipartisanship. For once in this legislative session, we are doing
something that is bipartisan. I have to say it appears the underlying
bill is generally bipartisan, even though some disagree with it.
I want to talk about the U.S. computer industry. According to an
article in Computers Today, one of the many computer trade journals,
dated July of last year, American computer technology has led the world
since the first commercial electronic computer was employed at the
University of Pennsylvania in 1946. The advancements that have been
made are unbelievable. I can remember, before I came back to
Washington, going to the Clark County

[[Page 26940]]

Courthouse and being shown around by the person who was in charge of
the computers for the county. It was a whole floor of that large
building. Of course, it had to be really cold because computers needed
constant cool temperatures. Well, today, what was done on the whole
floor of that Clark County Courthouse can be done on a computer the
size of a briefcase.
The industry is constantly changing with new companies and new
products emerging every day. A statistic I find fascinating is that
more than 75 percent of the revenues of computer companies comes from
products that didn't exist 2 years ago. That statistic shows they will
continue to grow and change rapidly.
Through research and development that is largely due to another issue
I have strongly favored, the research and development tax credit--and I
think it should be permanent--the computer industry has been able to
remain competitive for these many years. The challenge we now face is a
challenge that, frankly, we haven't lived up to in the past as a
Congress, and that is to allow our export control policies to change
with the times and not to overly restrict our Nation's computer
companies.
In the free enterprise system, entrepreneurs have never been so in
charge of what is going on than in the computer industry. They have led
this Nation forward economically. We have to give them the freedom that
they can continue, in this free enterprise system, to sell the product.
We need to stop trying to control technology by politics. We have to
start controlling technology by allowing the businesses to go forward.
The technology we are regulating, computers with performance levels of
2,000 to 7,000 millions of theoretical operations per second, or MTOPS,
is readily available from many foreign companies. Companies from
countries such as China and other tier III countries are moving into
this field rapidly.
Not too long ago, I secured funding through Congress for a
supercomputer at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. We were so
proud of that computer. It required its own room. It is now about as
powerful as my laptop computer. The supercomputer is no longer the same
supercomputer it was then, in 1988 or 1989, when it came to UNLV. That
is exactly, though, the kind of computers we are still regulating
politically.
Computers that are now considered supercomputers operate more than 1
million MTOPS, or about 500 times the current level of regulation. Last
month, Apple began producing a computer that exceeds the current
threshold and, as a result, Apple is unable to sell its new G4 computer
systems in over 50 countries.
The bottom line is that by placing artificially low limits on the
level of technology that can be exported, we may be denying market
realities and could very quickly cripple America's global
competitiveness for this vital industry. If Congress doesn't act
quickly, we will substantially disadvantage American companies in an
extremely competitive global market.
On July 23, 1999, at my urging, and the urging of some of my
colleagues, the President proposed changes to the U.S. export controls
on high-performance computers. Since that announcement, the President's
proposal has been floating around Congress for a mandated review period
of 180 days, or 6 months. When the President made his proposal, the new
levels would have been sufficient; however, we are still regulating
under the old levels, and therefore hindering companies such as Apple
from competing in tier III countries with other foreign companies.
The amendment I am offering simply reduces the congressional review
period from 180 days to 30 days to complement the administration's
easing export restrictions by amending the National Defense
Authorization Act of 1998.
I would like to share an example of how outdated today's restrictions
are. I was at a meeting recently where Michael Dell, President of Dell
Computers, stood up and pulled from his hip holster a little pager.
Under current export controls, this little pager, normally smaller than
a computer mouse, can't be exported to tier III countries because it is
considered a supercomputer. That is wrong.
I am going to withdraw my amendment. I am going to do it because I
have had conversations with the chairman of the Banking Committee. I
fortuitously was able to have lunch with the ranking member of the
Banking Committee, and I met also with Senator Enzi, who has worked
very hard on this issue, and also Senator Johnson, who has worked very
hard on this issue. They indicated they are very impressed with the
need to change this time period. They want to do it under the Export
Administration Act. I, frankly, have been convinced by them that their
intentions are well considered. They have thought this out over a long
period of time. I want to work with them and the majority leader and
the minority leader to do whatever we can to, this year, move the
Export Administration Act. It is vitally important that we do that.
We need to allow the entrepreneurs in America who have made this
economy the vibrant, untiring economy that it is the freedom to sell
their products because if we don't allow them to have that freedom to
sell their products, other foreign companies, some of which will be
actually Americans moving over and setting up foreign companies, will
be selling products that we should be selling with American-
manufactured goods.
I am going to withdraw my amendment with the notice that I am going
to work very hard with my friend, the chairman of the Banking Committee
and the members of the Banking Committee to do whatever we can to move
this very important piece of legislation. It is more than just my
amendment. What the Banking Committee wants to move is more important
than my amendment. I am concerned about the material that I have in
this amendment. I think this is very important.
I look forward to working with the chairman of the Banking Committee
and the other members of the Banking Committee to see what we can do to
move the Export Administration Act in this Congress. With all the
turmoil we have had in recent months with the partisanship, I believe
we need to move this legislation in a bipartisan fashion. It can be
done. We need to show the business community of America that we can
move forward.
It is vitally important to everyone. The people who buy these
products don't look to see who manufactures them, whether they are
Democrats or Republicans. The people who work putting these computers
together, no one knows whether they are Democrats or Republicans. But
everyone knows when we have a good economy that we, the Congress,
should get some consideration in a positive fashion for that. If
something goes wrong, we deserve the blame. I think with things going
so well we have to do everything we can to make sure the economy
continues to move forward.
I am going to do what I can to help this piece of legislation that we
hope will come up as early as this week or next week and have it passed
in this Congress and not next Congress. I mean this year of this
Congress and not some subsequent year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Nevada for his
amendment and for withdrawing it, and for joining our effort to try to
pass the Export Administration Act.
As some of our colleagues will be aware, there have been 11 failed
attempts to pass a new Export Administration Act since the last one
expired.
We now find ourselves in a position where despite the Cox report,
despite concerns that have been raised about lost American technology,
and despite the growing obsolescence of the residual permanent law the
administration is forced to operate under, we have not reauthorized the
Export Administration Act. I think it is a terrible indictment of the
Congress that we have not done that.
That is the bad news.
The good news is that under Chairman Enzi we have put together an
excellent bill. Chairman Enzi has done something I am not aware of any
Member of the Senate ever doing. He has

[[Page 26941]]

gone over and sat through meetings of the current bodies of the
executive branch that make decisions related to export licensing. So he
has, through practical experience, come to understand the process. He
has provided leadership whereby we have put together a bill. He has
provided leadership where we literally sat down with everybody who has
any interest in this bill. We have had numerous meetings. We have let
people submit concerns in writing. I believe we are on the verge of
having a bill that is uniformly supported.
What our bill tries to do is simple to say and very difficult to
achieve. We have a conflicting interest. We want to sell things on the
world market which embody new technology because those are items that
we have a comparative advantage in producing, and they are items that
are high-wage items in the production process.
Finally, they represent commodities that will dominate the future of
the world economy. So we want to be the leader in selling these types
of goods.
On the other hand, we have legitimate concerns about technologies. If
they are in the hands of people who may be potential terrorist nations
or potential enemies of the United States, they could end up hurting
our national security.
We have taken those two conflicting concerns, and we have put
together a bill. The two major features of it are the following:
One, we define a brand new concept called mass marketing. It is a
very simple and powerful concept. It says if an item is for sale at
Radio Shack, if you can buy it over the web site of Dell Computers, if
it is generally being marketed in the United States and around the
world--though you might wish that it is possible that all of this could
happen without it falling into the hands of a potential adversary--the
bottom line is there is no practical way at that point that you can
keep anybody from getting the technology.
So we take mass marketed items out of the process and, hopefully,
reduce the number of different items that are under licensing in any
given year from about 10,000 to 1,000 so that we could put the focus of
attention where it belongs.
Second, under current law, if companies are accused and found guilty
of wrongdoing in China, despite numerous accusations, all of which
carry some penalties, the maximum fine under current law would be
$132,000, which for corporate America is a relatively insignificant
amount of money. Under our bill, we have a $10 million fine per
violation. We also have for a conscious, knowing violation where
individuals are involved, prison sentences of up to 10 years, and in
aggravated cases, life in prison.
So there is a dramatic strengthening of current law.
I agree with our colleague from Nevada. This needs to be adopted this
year. I believe we have eliminated opposition to it.
It simply is now our task to provide leadership where we can bring
the bill to the floor later this week, or early next week, and get an
agreement that this is not going to become a vehicle for a bunch of
unrelated amendments.
Having said that, let me stop before I sit down. I want to say a
couple of words about the African trade bill.
First of all, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee
for his leadership on this bill. I endorse the African trade bill. Our
President went to Africa, did an extensive tour, and talked about what
we could do to try to break the bonds of poverty--this crushing,
grinding poverty--that people in sub-Saharan Africa face. I think the
President rightly understood, if we take all the important aid provided
by all the countries in the world and combine them, we have about $40
billion a year. There are 700 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, so
if they get all the foreign aid provided by all the countries in the
world, we will have relatively little impact on them, and there is
relatively little evidence that foreign aid has produced economic
development in areas where no economic development ever existed before.
As a result, the President proposed bringing in the most powerful
tool for economic development ever to evolve in the history of mankind;
that tool is trade. The President proposed we open up a fiber trade
agreement in textiles with sub-Saharan Africa. I remind my colleagues,
under existing agreements internationally, by the year 2005, under the
Multifiber Agreement, we will no longer have quotas on tariffs anywhere
in the world. We are not talking about a permanent advantage for sub-
Saharan Africa; we are talking about giving them a little bit of a head
start.
Let me briefly define the problem. The average per capita GDP of
countries in sub-Saharan Africa is $490 a year; 40 percent of the
people in sub-Saharan Africa earn less than $1 a day. The current
estimates are, we import about .86 percent of textiles and apparel
imported into America from sub-Saharan Africa. The International Trade
Commission has estimated that if they devoted their productive capacity
to textiles, under this agreement, still within 10 years we couldn't
expect more than 2 percent of our textile imports to come from sub-
Saharan Africa. We are talking about expanded trade, and we are talking
about trade with countries that have no significant capacity to impact
American imports of textiles.
I believe this bill is needed. I think it is a step in the right
direction. I remind my colleagues, for any country in sub-Saharan
Africa to take part in this program, they have to do the following
three things: they have to make progress toward a market-based economy,
they have to institute a democratic society, and they have to open
their trading system. These are all actions that will mean stronger
economic growth in Africa, that will mean greater human happiness in
Africa, and that will ultimately mean a greater demand for American
goods and services.
I believe this is an important bill. I believe it should be adopted.
I am hopeful we will adopt it today. I intend to vote for cloture and
for final passage.
There is one provision in this bill in the Senate that is not in the
House bill. That is a provision that requires, for textiles and apparel
to be imported from Africa, they have to be made out of American fabric
and yarn. That same agreement is in the Caribbean Basin Initiative,
which I support. But the problem with Africa is that given the
transportation costs, and given that their ability to market products
is basically based on using longer strand cotton and basically
producing different types of textiles that would be relatively new to
the American market, I believe the provision in the Senate bill for all
practical purposes kills the African trade bill.
I am not going to offer an amendment to strike this provision because
it is not in the House bill. I hope it will be dropped in conference.
We are talking about a relatively small effort to benefit 700 million
human beings. The worst thing that could come out of it is that we
would have greater diversity in the textile goods that would be for
sale in American stores and they would be at lower prices. I can't see
anything but good that can come out of this. Anywhere in the world,
when we can encourage people to move toward a market-based economy,
toward a democratic society, and toward open trade, we are doing things
that benefit them and benefit the world.
These are important bills before the Senate. I am for them. Trade is
vitally important. It is an amazing thing to me that, due to ignorance
and prejudice, we continue to restrict the importation of goods and
services into America. Why we should give government the ability to
impose a tax on working Americans and deny them the ability to
purchase, with the fruit of their own labor, better and cheaper goods
if they are produced abroad, I don't know. That the greatest trading
nation in the world would continue textile laws that cost every working
American family of four $700 a year is an absolute outrage. Something
needs to be done about it. This is not going to solve that problem, but
it is the right thing to do. I hope it will become the law of the land
this year. I am hopeful it will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Nevada, Mr.

[[Page 26942]]

Reid, for helping to raise the consciousness of the Senate and the
consciousness of the Nation to the increases in productivity that we
have gotten through technology and the rate at which it is moving. I
thank him for his recognition that we have a bill that will not only
solve some of the problems of technology but go hand in hand with our
need for national security.
This is a bill that has been before the Banking Committee and, before
that, before the International Trade and Finance Committee, of which
Senator Johnson is the ranking member on that subcommittee. He and I
had an opportunity this year to spend a lot of time pursuing a bill to
increase our world trade while preserving national security, making
sure they run down parallel tracks instead of crossing tracks where the
locomotive might wind up in a train wreck.
I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, the senior Senator
from Texas, for working with me to focus the committee on the need to
reauthorize the Export Administration Act. I appreciate the assistance
that has given in helping to put together a balanced product that we
reported out of the Banking Committee.
I am remiss if I do not mention Senators Sarbanes and Johnson again.
They deserve our thanks for the constructive and thoughtful input they
put into the bill to make it truly bipartisan.
I thank every single member of the Banking Committee. We worked
together for a period of 9 months to be sure all of the concerns of
national security and commerce were covered in this bill on which we
are working. The members not only devoted a lot of time to it; they
assigned staff to it. We had one of my offices--I don't have very many
offices--dedicated to this bill. At any hour of day, and often night,
one could walk into that office and there would be a group of people
meeting to make sure their concerns and their solutions were being
represented. We had some great discourse that led to a solution that I
think can pass both the House and the Senate. We worked with the
members of the Defense Committee, Intelligence Committee, Commerce
Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I think the bill
is better because of everyone's involvement in it.
The first 9 months I was on the job as chairman of the subcommittee I
spent dedicated to this bill. At first, I did not envision I would have
to put in quite as much work on the issue as I did. I now realize there
was a lot to learn about export controls.
It has been mentioned there were attempts to reauthorize the Act,
which expired in 1994. Since 1994, this country has been operating
under Executive orders on something so entirely crucial to the United
States. But during that period of time, we have tried to reauthorize
it. During that time, 11 separate measures have failed; in fact, they
failed to even make it out of committee.
But one of the nice things about the Senate is that there is a lot of
documentation, even on things that fail. We have gone back and looked
at that documentation. We have talked to the people who were involved
in the issues each of those 11 times. We were able to find out what the
pitfalls were before and have worked to come up with a solution.
As mentioned, I visited the Bureau of Export Administration and I
observed some of their activities and processes. I sat in on committee
meetings.
During the time we were working on this, the Cox and Dicks report
also came out, and so did the Deutch Commission report that talked
about problems that have been identified with foreign countries getting
secrets from this country. These commissions and committees looked into
ways to solve that.
As soon as their reports were filed with the Intelligence Committee,
before any public documentation came out on it, I went over to the
Intelligence Committee and I read those reports to see if the efforts
we were making had any parallel with the suggestions that were coming
out from these people who were looking at some very detailed and often
secret situations. I am pleased to say, out of the recommendations of
Congressman Cox and Congressman Dicks there were 17 different areas of
legislative possibility. We covered 15 of those in the act and part of
the other two.
The subcommittee and full committee held a total of 6 hearings that
consisted of 25 witnesses who helped us identify critical areas
relating to export controls as well. We also met with various high-tech
and industry groups. We met with several Members of Congress. I have
mentioned the Departments we met with, and a lot of the other executive
agencies it seems have some involvement in exports and securities or
both, and we met with them as well.
We also had an opportunity to meet with many people in the business
community. It has been my goal to have an open-door policy for
everyone, and we will continue that policy through the time the bill
finally gets passage. Throughout the hearings held this year on the
Export Administration Act, there were many calls to reauthorize the
expired act. Only a few people have questioned the need for us to
reauthorize that act. They asked what problems have been identified
with the current system.
There are several reasons for reauthorizing the Export Administration
Act. The first is the U.S. Government's inability to convince other
countries, even our strongest allies, to improve their export control
regimes. Only if the EAA is reauthorized can the United States exercise
a legitimate leadership role to strengthen the multilateral export
controls that seek to curb dangerous dual-use items. We cannot do it by
ourselves; we have to have help from other countries. Our ability to
convince other countries to impose similar controls on their exports is
compromised by the fact that Congress has allowed the EAA to expire.
In our June 24 hearing, Richard Cupitt, who is the associate director
of the Center for International Trade and Security, agreed with this
assessment by saying:

The inability of the U.S. Government to craft a firm
legislative foundation for its own controls on the export of
dual-use goods, technologies, and services over the last
decade. . .has compromised U.S. leadership initiatives.

Another reason for the reauthorization is the lack of penalties for
violations of export controls under the implementing Executive order--
very strict. If the outdated EAA of 1979 had stiffer penalties than the
Executive order's maximum penalty of $10,000, we would be in better
shape. A reauthorization will also give enforcement officers the
authority to use the tools they need to be effective.
I now have a person on my staff, who has been loaned to us, who has
been working on the export enforcement, so we can make sure enforcement
will be adequate. She has run some numbers for us on some of the
indictments that have been handed down on things that happened during
this period between 1994 and now. You have heard some of those
numbers--16 indictments, potential fine of $132,000 on a contract that
was $5.4 million. A microdot in the budget--less than the advertising
budget spent. Fines need to be increased.
Additionally, it is important we deal with the issue of export
controls in a comprehensive reauthorization instead of allowing some
issues to be addressed by a patchwork of inadequate measures. I suspect
over the next few days and over the next few months, if we do not get
this passed, you will see parts of the bill that solve a particular
problem put on as an amendment to something else to take care of an
immediate critical need. There are a lot of them involved in the bill.
There is a very delicate balance that is maintained through this
bill. All of it needs to go through together. If one person gets
everything he or she wants, there is no reason to participate in the
rest of the bill. All of them have worked together to make sure their
interests were covered as well as being able to live with the other
interests involved here.
We have received great cooperation from the administration because
they understand the need to reauthorize the

[[Page 26943]]

Act. Under Secretary Reinsch has even said:

The EAA is held together right now by duct tape and bailing
wire.

It is also questionable whether export controls are permitted under
the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
The bill before us today represents a compilation of thoughtful
comments gathered from industry, the administration, Members of
Congress, on and off of the committee. However, it is not a hodgepodge
of conflicting ideas and competing interests. The bill is interwoven
with several basic themes throughout: Transparency, accountability,
deterrence, multilateral cooperation, and enforcement. It strikes a
balance by recognizing the need for export controls on very sensitive
items for national security purposes while relaxing those controls on
items that have foreign availability or mass market status and thus are
difficult to control effectively. It allows enforcement to concentrate
on what can be effectively enforced. It gives each of the departments
and agencies an equal stake and a fair shake. The compromise for the
interagency dispute resolution process represents a fair procedure that
defaults to decision. Yet it provides any department's representative
the opportunity to appeal a decision without going through the
bureaucratic hassle of convincing his or her boss of the need to appeal
a decision in a relatively limited amount of time.
Transparency, accountability: The reporting requirements in the EAA
of 1999 instill accountability and transparency in the export control
process and multilateral negotiations. The criteria for foreign policy
control provisions foster an accountable system, very similar to that
in the EAA of 1979.
The bill encourages the administration to strengthen multilateral
export control regimes since multilateral controls are more effective.
It also maintains the sanctions provisions for those who violate
multilateral export control regimes and contribute to the proliferation
of missile, chemical, or biological weapons.
The bill remains tough on terrorism, requiring licenses for the
export of certain items to countries designated as supporting
international terrorism. Additionally, it includes penalties that deter
violations of export control law and the authorities to effectively
enforce the provisions set forth in the bill.
It has been mentioned this is supported in a bipartisan way. This
bill came out of the full Banking Committee unanimously. Our country
needs this bill, and the people on that committee recognize the need.
The more they were involved in it, the more they recognized the need.
I want to mention the patience the House folks have had during this
process. The problem has been more deeply studied in the House,
perhaps, than on the Senate side. The suggestions for what needed to be
done came from the House side, but they have been waiting, watching,
discussing, following, and commenting on the process we have had on
this side. They have spent a lot of time with Senator Johnson and me,
to see if the solutions we came up with met the suggestions they have
given. They have waited, but they are ready to go.
This bill cannot be done piecemeal. It needs to be done immediately
for the security of our country and for the furtherance of our
commerce. I ask for your support.
Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for raising the consciousness
on this level and giving us an opportunity to comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
Mr. President, I want to comment on the legislation pending before
the Senate which is the Caribbean Basin Initiative trade bill along
with the African trade bill.
I remind my colleagues, it came out of the Senate Finance Committee
with a unanimous vote. In essence, we did it on a voice vote. At a time
when this Congress and perhaps this Senate is becoming better known for
what we have not done, we are presented with an opportunity to do
something extremely significant in the area of trade for a large part
of the world with which the United States deals.
When we write about what we did or did not do in this first session
of this Congress, it will be clearly pointed out that we did not do
Social Security reform, as the Presiding Officer well knows, because of
his involvement in an effort to reform that system.
We did not do Medicare reform, as the speaker certainly knows,
following the efforts of the National Commission on Medicare.
We did not do campaign finance reform, and we all remember those
arguments.
We have not done Patients' Bill of Rights legislation because of the
differences of opinion and the politics involved in that legislation.
I do not know of any environmental legislation that has worked its
way through this body with a resounding vote of support, nor do I
remember particularly any major education efforts that have been
successfully navigated through this body this year.
I have a great fear this body is becoming more known for what we have
not done rather than what we have done. I wonder what the American
people think of the distinguished Members of this body with whom I have
the privilege of serving and why we cannot get together and work out
our differences in the interest of the American public. Why do we spend
so much of our time debating whose fault it is that nothing is getting
done as opposed to working together? We can always have the debate over
who did it. At least under those circumstances we would be arguing
about success: Look what we did; no, look what we did, rather than
arguing about failure and whose fault it is that nothing was done.
We have one last opportunity of great significance in this Congress
to pass legislation that is bipartisan in its origination, that is
strongly supported by the administration, which, when it came before
the Senate Finance Committee after the hearings and after the debate,
we reported out by a voice vote.
The question then becomes: What is the problem now? Some will argue
it is the Republicans' fault because they have filled up the tree. That
ought to go over well in my State of Louisiana when I tell people we
did not pass this bill because the Republicans filled up the tree. They
are going to say: What in the world are you talking about?
I daresay some are going to say: We did not complete action on this
bill because we were not able to offer amendments to it in the nature
of other important efforts, such as minimum wage or agricultural
provisions, or other trade legislation that some want to offer. Because
they cannot offer it now, we are not going to continue our progress on
this legislation.
I daresay, the American people would say: What in the world are you
talking about?
Here is a trade bill that affects U.S. jobs, U.S. industry; it helps
people who have been loyal to the United States in other parts of the
world. It clearly helps Central American nations which not too many
years ago were Marxist countries, Communist dictatorships that have
gradually been brought into the family of nations with the assistance
of the United States, and we want to continue having their support on
things that are important for the people of this country.
This legislation is a way of doing that--by working out bilateral
trade agreements with these countries to the south of us that will help
them economically. When we help them economically, they help us. When
countries in Central America can do a little bit better economically,
they buy more of what we produce.
From my own State of Louisiana, they could buy more rice, more
soybeans, more manufactured goods. They would ship it through the Port
of New Orleans, the Port of Baton Rouge, and the Port of Lake Charles
because they have more money and better jobs. They are helped and we
are helped. It is a win-win situation.
The question is: Why don't we do it? What is the problem? The problem
is

[[Page 26944]]

politics. The problem is political posturing about whose fault it is
that it is not getting done. Most of the debate is going to be why we
did not do it and blame each other for failure. Then, again, the
American people are going to say: What in the world are they talking
about?
My State is particularly affected by this. I have heard arguments
that it is bad for American jobs. My State has lost thousands of jobs
in the stitch-and-sew industry. It used to be in Louisiana that
thousands of minimum wage employees, many of them minorities, were
working in the stitch-and-sew industry for many of these large
companies that manufacture items we are talking about today. Many of
them were arbitrarily dismissed, arbitrarily fired. Many of them lost
their jobs right before Christmas a couple of years ago when most of
the companies moved out of my State and went to Central American and
Latin American countries and located down there. That has already
happened. It did not happen because of this bill. This bill was not
being considered then. It happened because of the existing state of the
world.
I have worked with our people. We have helped them find other jobs.
Fortunately, because of the economic conditions of our State and the
economic conditions of the United States, the vast majority of these
people who lost jobs in the so-called stitch-and-sew industry have
found jobs in more sophisticated, if I can use that term, industries in
the United States that represent the future of the United States in
terms of jobs in the high-tech industries as opposed to something like
stitch and sew.
What we have been able to do is use some of the training programs and
retrain these people to get them into other manufacturing segments, to
get them into high technology, to get them into computers, to get them
jobs where they now find they are much better off than they were
sitting behind a sewing machine stitching and sewing underwear.
I argue the future of U.S. employees is not in the stitch-and-sew
industry. If we have to somehow preserve jobs in the stitch-and-sew
business, we are not being very bullish on America. I argue that is not
the future of this country. The future of this country is highly
trained men and women who can do the jobs for the 21st century, and
that is not in the stitch-and-sew industry.
It is interesting. I love my dear friend and colleague from South
Carolina who was reading this article in Time about how these companies
have, in fact, moved out of the United States. He is absolutely right.
One of the things I noticed when I was looking at the article the
distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina was pointing out is
the article had a picture of the State of Kentucky, and the caption
under the article is: ``Fruit of the Loom eliminated more than 7,000
jobs in the past 6 years. Here would-be workers attend a job fair held
by new arrival Amazon.com.''
That is particularly important because it says that while stitch-and-
sew jobs are moving out of this country, high-tech jobs, better jobs,
better paying jobs, more sophisticated jobs, jobs that require more
training and a better educated workforce are moving in.
The people who were leaving the Fruit of the Loom jobs were moving,
on the other hand, into jobs that Amazon.com was providing in that area
using those workers and retraining them for the 21st century.
That, I argue, is the future of the United States. The future workers
of this country are not going to sit behind a sewing machine. If that
is the future of this country, I daresay it is not a very bright
future. The future is highly trained jobs in highly technical
industries which pay well and have a future.
We are not going to be able to compete with the poorest of the poor
in terms of who can pay the lowest wages. We should be concentrating on
educating our workers for the 21st century and then, at the same time,
trying to do what we can in the textile industry.
The reason I believe it is so very important and necessary to pass
this bill is because we say in this trade bill, particularly in the
textile industry: Look, we are not going to have the stitch-and-sew
jobs, but, by God, we are the best manufacturer of textiles and cloth
and fabric.
We have the best technical ability to weave and dye the fabric. And
this bill, for the first time, says: Look, if we are going to give
these countries some advantages, at least we want it to be a two-way
street, to at least say, if you are going to be able to do these
products in your country, with lower paying jobs, at least use fabric
that is manufactured and woven and dyed and assembled in this country.
We will send it to you. We will manufacture the fabric, you will use
those fabrics to manufacture garments, and then you have the ability to
export those products back to this country.
Mexico can do it now. China will be able to do it. Unless we have
something like this, we are not going to get any part of the business.
This legislation, when it talks about the products that are covered,
clearly says: Apparel articles assembled in the Caribbean basin and
sub-Sahara Africa from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United
States from yarns wholly formed in the United States.
What that says to the cotton farmers in my State of Louisiana and
throughout the South is that we are going to use their cotton. Without
this legislation, we are not going to be using their cotton. The fabric
will come from overseas, as well as the finished product. At least this
legislation says we will use their cotton.
This legislation also says it has to be assembled in this country. It
has to be woven in this country. If it is going to have a color to it,
it is going to have to be dyed in this country. So we are getting
something out of this that we do not have now, that in the absence of
this legislation we will not have. Therefore, I think it is very clear
this is something that is important to do. The House thought it was.
You talk about how bad the House is divided. The House passed this
234-163. Now it is before this body. For those who argue they don't
like the process, I don't like the process, either. I would probably
like to offer a Medicare reform bill to this legislation. People are
looking for a wagon to jump on to get something passed they would like
to have passed. I understand that. The problem is that you are
affecting the merits of good legislation that was bipartisan when it
left the Senate Finance Committee, that passed by voice vote in the
Senate Finance Committee, and that merits our support.
So my point is that other countries are going to benefit, but we are
going to benefit. If we do not have this legislation, other countries
will be able to have access to our market with no requirements on using
U.S. fabric at all. I think we owe it to the workers of this country
who are still engaged in some aspect of this industry to come up with a
fair product and fair package like this is.
I intend to support this legislation. I think it is the right thing
to do. I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

IMPACT AID PAYMENTS FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am going to speak a few minutes about an
issue that is very important to me; that is, the condition of school
buildings with the federal impact aid, particularly on the school
buildings on Indian reservations which are in very dire condition. I
hope there is something we can do about it.
As you know, there have been many bills introduced in this Congress
to try to help school districts and make sure school districts have
enough funds for school construction and renovation, modernization, and
so forth. But as you also know, when schools try to raise money,
basically they do so by bonding, which is paid for by local property

[[Page 26945]]

taxes. That is essentially the way schools in our country are financed;
it is a time-honored approach to school construction.
The problem is, in this heated debate, one group of children is
continually left out in the cold; that is, students who live on
federally owned land, usually on an Indian reservation or a military
installation.
In my State of Montana, there are about 12,000 children who fall into
this category; that is, children who live on a military installation or
on an Indian reservation, where there is either none or there is very
little private property to support school funding, particularly school
construction. These schools are located in areas where much of the
local property just cannot be taxed. Why is that? Because it is Federal
property.
In many cases, the local schools have to educate the children of the
families who live on the property, and these are so-called Federal
students who could come from military families, from civilian families,
or could come from Native American families. Some schools are off
reservations, but a lot of the kids live on reservations, and vice
versa. This causes a tremendous problem in financing school
construction.
I believe we have a responsibility. After all, the Federal Government
has a trustee responsibility with respect to Indian reservations. More
than that, more fundamentally, we have a moral obligation to be sure
all children in our country have not only equal access to education but
generally have the same accessibility to good schools and relatively
up-to-date schools. We are not asking for the Taj Mahal but just basic
solid construction.
Congress has recognized its responsibility in many respects for these
schools through payments authorized under title VIII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. That is the impact aid provision. These
districts are supposed to receive impact aid to compensate school
districts for the burden of educating children whose parents do not
have to pay local property taxes due to Federal activities; namely,
because they live on an installation or an Indian reservation.
The bulk of the impact aid payments do help with salaries and
utilities and other day-to-day costs of running the schools, but this
is the catch: When it comes to replacement or renovation of buildings,
these schools still have an additional problem; that is, impact aid
cannot begin to pay both the salaries and utility bills and the day-to-
day costs, and also pay for the modernization of schools because they
just cannot issue the construction bonds to pay for them.
There have been several bills introduced in this body dealing with
school construction, but none of them deal with this problem; that is,
the problem of impact aid on reservations and installations.
I am asking for something that is pretty simple. I am asking for a
slight increase, from the present $7 million that goes to impact aid
school construction to $50 million. That is all. That is not very much
money. Mr. President, $7 million is currently spent on impact aid
school construction, and I am asking that it be raised to $50 million.
Very simple.
I can give lots of stories, lots of examples, of just the dire
conditions these school districts face. For example, I talked to the
superintendent of the Harlem school district. Harlem is in north
central Montana. He says his district is so crowded that his students
are now using a closet. Guess what was in that closet. In that closet
was a snowblower that they hauled out whenever there was a bad
snowstorm.
So that closet is now a classroom. The snowblower is out in the hall.
The students are in the closet. I think this is not right. It is no
place to put kids. There is no place to put kids in the closet of a
school and put the equipment out in the hallway. In addition, if they
try to bring in a portable classroom, then there would be no
playground. That is just not right.
A few days ago, I received a letter from the principal of the
elementary school in Box Elder, MT. His student population is growing
very rapidly because there is new housing on the nearby Rocky Boy
Indian Reservation. In fact, virtually all of the 300 or so students in
his school are Federal students.
He has classrooms in portable buildings and in basement rooms with no
windows and only one exit door. He tells me he would be afraid to send
his own small children to that school, but he has to. This is a
disgrace.
Last year, the Box Elder school received--get this--$13,000 in
Federal impact aid construction funding; $13,000, that is all.
That is about the average for schools in this situation. I might say,
$13,000 is a pittance. That is not even enough for half of a paint job
in the school, let alone for reasonable reconstruction or renovation.
I have some photos I would like to display. These photos are
representative of not only my State but could represent almost any
State in the Nation that has Federal impact aid. This is a picture of
an out-of-code electric installation at Babb Elementary School in
Browning. There are no fire sprinklers in the basement where the
insulation is located. Over in the left corner, we see a socket and
wiring dangling. It is uncovered. It is obviously a fire hazard. This
is all they can do.
Now I have another photograph of a doorway at Babb. This is a doorway
in the school. This photo doesn't begin to represent how bad the
situation is. Sometimes pictures overstate something. In this case, the
photograph understates.
The next photo is that of a lunchroom. This is down in the basement
of the school. Again, it doesn't look all that bad; but I have been
there; it is worse. Then there is a photo taken in the local high
school in the same community. There is a leaky ceiling. Things are
starting to fall apart. Again, this school can't find the money to pay
for it.
Imagine for a moment that we in the Senate met in a facility that
looked like this or our offices were in rooms such as this or we had
electrical equipment so obviously out of code. We would change it. We
would do something very quickly because we wouldn't stand for it.
What kind of message does this send to children throughout our
country--the message that we don't have enough respect for them, enough
respect for their parents, enough respect for education to do something
about this. We have a huge Federal surplus and the biggest, most
wealthy country in the world. Yet we turn our back on a lot of kids in
our country. Obviously, it is to their peril but even more to the peril
of our country.
The bill I will introduce will raise the authorization from $7
million to $50 million--not very much but a first step that is needed.
We also make a change in the eligibility rules. Right now schools with
populations made up of 70, 80, or even 100 percent Federal students
cannot ask for impact aid construction funds if the percentage of the
federally impacted population for the whole district is less than 50
percent. That is, obviously, a standard that is much too high.
The bill introduced by me and Senator Hagel will decrease the
district minimum to 25 percent. That will affect a lot of schools in
this district.
I have a chart that shows how many States would be affected by
changing the eligibility standard from 50 percent to 25 percent. You
can see that virtually every State in the Nation would be affected,
which means every State gets a little bit, if it is enacted at the $43
million increase from the current $7 to $50 million.
This is obviously a problem in our State. It is obviously a problem
in other heavy Federal impact aid States, such as Nebraska, Senator
Hagel's State. But this isn't a parochial problem. This isn't a
partisan problem. This is a national problem.
I ask that we step up to the plate, exercise our responsibility and,
when we take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, make this
change so that a needy portion of our school population gets a modicum
of assistance. Then after that, I hope we can go further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

____________________

[[Page 26946]]

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT--Continued

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the trade
legislation package which constitutes the manager's amendment to H.R.
434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This trade legislation
will provide economic opportunity to millions of people in the United
States and throughout the world.
Under this package, African and Caribbean nations will be able to use
trade as a tool to spur economic development where foreign aid and
other means clearly have not worked. Stronger economies in these two
regions of the world will, in turn, lead to bigger markets for U.S.
exports, and consequently more and better paying jobs for American
workers.
On the issue of open foreign markets for U.S. products, I would like
to express my support for an amendment on carousel retaliation being
offered by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine. If the newly formed
World Trade Organization and the promise of a rules-based system of
international trade is to survive, then we cannot--and should not--
tolerate flagrant disregard for internationally agreed trading rules by
other WTO members such as the European Union. We need to use the tools
that are now available to us to ensure that our trading partners comply
with WTO decisions. And its important to those of us who believe in
free trade that the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of
Commerce use all the tools available to them to guarantee that we have
fair trade. Too often we have amendments like Senator DeWine's
amendment-- which I have co-sponsored--because the U.S. trade
representative has not been as aggressive as they should be and they do
not use the tools they have been given by Congress.
This is very important, because trade is the economic lifeblood of
the United States. Twelve million American jobs depend directly on
exports. And exports are a major reason why our economy continues to do
so well. In fact, one-third of our economic growth since 1992 can be
attributed directly to exports.
Ohio is a textbook example of why international trade is good for
America. When I was Governor, I had four goals in the area of economic
development--agribusiness, science and technology, tourism and
international trade. We pursued each of these aggressively in order to
maximize Ohio's business potential, especially in the trade arena.
For example, Ohio has outperformed the nation in terms of the growth
of exports to our NAFTA trading partners. Since 1993, U.S. exports to
Canada have grown 54 percent and U.S. exports to Mexico have grown 90
percent, while Ohio exports to Canada have grown 64 percent and Ohio
exports to Mexico have grown 101 percent.
Thanks in part to such trade-liberalizing agreements as NAFTA and the
Uruguay Round of GATT, overall Ohio exports have risen 103 percent in
just the last decade.
And because export-related jobs tend to require higher-skilled
workers and provide higher-paying salaries, when America's exports of
goods and services increase, so do the number and quality of American
jobs. Just in Ohio, the increase in exports has created 182,000 jobs
over the past ten years. And these export-related jobs tend to pay, on
average, 15% more than a typical private sector job.
Eliminating trade barriers has not only helped Ohio companies sell
more overseas, but it has also allowed more foreign companies to invest
in Ohio, creating more, good paying jobs for Ohioans. According to Site
Selection magazine, from 1991-1997, Ohio had more growth in non-U.S.
owned firms than any other state--some 300 new manufacturing facilities
and plant expansions took place during that time.
In addition to creating more, better-paying jobs, trade openness has
an enormous impact on the earnings for average Americans who invest in
companies that increase their international trade presence. These
earnings help increase the amount of money people have to reinvest in
the growth of our economy or to invest in their savings, retirement and
education funds.
This chart lists 35 of the biggest U.S. corporations as measured in
market value. None of these companies is majority-owned by a family or
individual. In other words, they are all in the stock market. For 25 of
these 35 companies, trade makes up more than one-third of their global
operations, and for 12 of these companies, international trade accounts
for more than half of global sales or revenues--including Cincinnati-
based Procter and Gamble, which can attribute about 51 percent of its
global sales to international operations. Thus, in the case of Procter
and Gamble, there is a genuine interest on the part of thousands of
employees, and even more thousands of individual shareholders, in the
ability to expand internationally.
In my State of Ohio, there are many more companies that understand
that robust two-way trade is the key to creating more jobs and
increased investment. These are companies like--Cincinnati Milacron,
Federated, American Electric Power, The Limited, Inc. and Intimate
Brands, TRW Inc., Chiquita Brands, The Andersons, Battelle,
ElectraForm, General Electric Jet Engines, Lincoln Electric, NCR, R.G.
Barry Corporation and hundreds of other small businesses, many of which
traveled with me when I was governor, on nine trade missions around the
world.
In Ohio and across America, the future of companies like these is a
crucial link to the vitality of our communities because of the jobs
they support and their contribution to the local tax base. In addition,
these companies provide philanthropic support to local hospitals,
schools and colleges and universities as well as countless charities
and institutions.
The support these companies provide is linked directly to the overall
quality of life in many of our communities. For example, Atlanta would
be a much different city without the civic and charitable contributions
of a company like Coca-Cola. Companies like Coca Cola--their workers,
their stockholders--know that 95% of their potential customers for
their products live outside the United States, and that's why trade
expansion is so fundamental to the economic future of all Americans.
Many of my colleagues may ask why the average American should care
about the importance of trade and the expansion of markets overseas.
The reason they should care is because it's average Americans who are
the stakeholders--the millions upon millions of individual investors.
Indeed, according to a survey in this past Sunday's Washington Post,
nearly half of all Americans are invested in the stock market. Twenty-
two million American households, or roughly 22%, are invested in
corporate America through employer-sponsored retirement plans. And
those Americans referred to as ``Generation X''--individuals in their
20s--reportedly hold 80 percent of their assets in stocks. Baby
boomers, who own about half of all outstanding stock, have about 57
percent of their assets in equities.
As these figures show, international trade does matter to the average
American. The economic stimulus sparked through increased international
trade and investment allows millions of Americans to plan for their
children's college education, for retirement nest eggs and for long-
term financial security.
While the passage of this legislation is important to the economic
future of America's workers and citizen stock-holders, it will also
provide a lasting impact on the economic and political development of
our African and Central American trading partners--an impact that is
sure to fulfill our hopes for world peace and prosperity.
With respect to increased U.S. trade and investment in the nations of
Africa and the Caribbean, it is far better to stimulate the economies
of the nations of these two regions than to simply offer these nations
foreign aid year after year. Increasing investment and trade
opportunities in these regions means that more people can work and
raise their own standard of living.
It's like the old adage ``give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a

[[Page 26947]]

man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.''
International trade not only allows nations to become productive
members of the world community, but it is probably the best way to
ensure international stability.
In fact, back in 1994, U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali
visited Columbus, Ohio and I said to him that ``nations that trade
together, stay together and help sustain world peace.''
Promoting peace and prosperity through trade was one of the aspects I
pursued on each of my nine foreign trade missions when I was Governor
of Ohio, including trips to India, Thailand, Chile, Hungary and China.
Unfortunately, that particular aspect of international trade is too
often ignored. We ignore the impact of international trade on stability
and peace in the world.
What amazes me, Mr. President, is that so many so called
protectionists lament about deplorable conditions in the world's poor
nations, and this Nation, the United States of America, doesn't respond
to the needs of people in Africa and other parts of the world. Yet it
is these protectionists who are content to criticize free trade
proponents for wanting to take down trade barriers, invest in poorer
nations, and provide the tools for economic growth, jobs, and self-
reliance in those countries. There is no way the U.S. Government can
provide the billions of dollars needed for these countries to develop
and raise the standard of living for their people. It can only be done
through private investment. The leaders of 47 African nations know this
fact, and that is why they want us to support this trade measure.
As Senator Breaux pointed out earlier today, international trade also
contributes to the political stability of the countries in the world.
Think about what has happened in South America since we opened up our
economic relationships with them over the last number of years.
This trade legislation will help drive an economic expansion in
Africa, as well as for our neighbors in the Caribbean and Central
America. In addition, it will provide for the future of an energetic,
export-driven American economy. It will sustain and create good-paying,
high-quality jobs in Ohio and across America and allow millions of
Americans to save and invest for their children's education and their
retirement security. This legislative package stands on its own merits.
It was unanimously reported out of the committee, and I really believe
it deserves the support of our colleagues.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I came momentarily to the floor to hear
my distinguished colleague from Louisiana try to justify that Bill
Farley article in Time magazine, which I referred to earlier. His
justification, of course, was not the matter of campaign finance
reform, which is the major thrust of the article; interestingly, the
thrust that, look, we ought to be getting rid of these jobs, says that
these textile workers now can go to the high-skilled, better-paying
jobs, and that is the future of America.
Let me go right to the other comment made by my distinguished
colleague from New York, who joined with it, about trade adjustment
assistance, and what a wonderful program it is. Thirty-seven years ago,
as he said, as Dean Acheson would say, he was at the table. He is
right. He had a distinguished career of service there as the Assistant
Secretary of Labor negotiating the trade adjustment assistance
agreement. Everybody will agree with that.
But 38 years ago, I was at the table, and I was at the table for the
seven-point textile program of President Kennedy. It was a very
interesting exercise because what we had found out was that they were
really about to do away with the industry, we thought, when it included
some 10-percent import penetration. I had come up to testify before the
old International Trade Commission, and testifying before that
International Trade Commission, we thought we had made a good
impression.
At that particular time, 38 years ago, we were confronted with Tom
Dewey, who was then representing the Japanese. He chased me all around
the hearing room, and my friend, Charlie Daniel, at that time an
outstanding contractor/builder/civic leader, says: Now, Governor, let's
go by and see the chief. That was President Eisenhower. We called on
Wilton B. Parsons, and Jerry Parsons ushered us in and President
Eisenhower said: Don't worry, you will win that case.
In June, the International Trade Commission ruled against us. At that
particular time, we realized we were totally lost unless we could get
involved in the campaign, which wasn't too difficult because then-
Senator John F. Kennedy from Massachusetts understood very clearly the
importance of the textile jobs.
I am going right back to the Senator from Louisiana saying the future
of the country is to get rid of these jobs. I am laying the groundwork
of the historical record about the importance and the significance of
these jobs.
The case was in talking to then-Senator Kennedy. We met with him. And
my friend, Mr. Feldman, was his legislative assistant. We obtained a
letter on August 30, 1960. You can imagine, this was in the heat of the
1960 campaign between Kennedy and Nixon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, August 30, 1960.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Governor of the State of South Carolina, State Capitol
Building, Columbia, SC.
Dear Governor Hollings: I would, of course, be delighted to
discuss with you and with textile industry leaders the
problems of the textile industry and the development of
constructive methods for showing the growth and prosperity of
the industry in the future. The critical import situation
that confronts the textile industry which you so eloquently
describe in your letter is one with which I am familiar. My
own State of Massachusetts has suffered and is suffering from
the same conditions. The past few years have been
particularly difficult for this industry. There seems to have
been a basic unwillingness to meet the problem and deal
constructively with it. During the first six months of this
year imports of cotton cloth are twice what they were during
the same period in 1959, the highest year on record.
Similarly alarming increases are occurring on other textile
and apparel products. Since 1958 imports have exceeded
exports by constantly increasing margins. There are now
400,000 less jobs in the industry than there were 10 years
ago. It is no longer possible to depend upon makeshift
policies and piecemeal remedies to solve the problems which
the industry faces.
As you know, I supported the establishment of the Special
Senate Sub-committee for the Textile Industry, under the
chairmanship of Senator Pastore, of which Senator Strom
Thurmond is a member. In an effort to help develop
suggestions to improve the competitive position of the
industry in the United States and world markets, this
Subcommittee for the first time undertook a broad
investigation of the problems of the United States textile
industry and offered a number of constructive
recommendations. With only minor exceptions, the Eisenhower
Administration has failed to implement these recommendations.
I agree with the conclusions of the Pastore Committee that
sweeping changes in our foreign trade policies are not
necessary. Nevertheless, we must recognize that the textile
and apparel industries are of international scope and are
peculiarly susceptible to competitive pressure from imports.
Clearly the problems of the industry will not disappear by
neglect nor can we wait for large scale unemployment and
shutdown of the industry to inspire us to action. A
comprehensive industry-wide remedy is necessary.
The outline of such a remedy can be found in the Report of
the Pastore Committee. Imports of textile products, including
apparel, should be within limits which will not endanger our
own existing textile capacity and employment, and which will
permit growth of the industry in reasonable relationship to
the expansion of our over-all economy.
We are pledged in the Democratic Platform to combat sub-
standard wages abroad through the development of
international fair labor standards. Effort along this line is
of special importance to the United States textile industry.
The office of the Presidency carries with it the authority
and influence to explore and work out solutions within the
framework of

[[Page 26948]]

our foreign trade policies for the problems peculiar to our
textile and apparel industry. Because of the broad
ramifications of any action and because of the necessity of
approaching a solution in terms of total needs of the textile
industry, this is a responsibility which only the President
can adequately discharge. I can assure you that the next
Democratic Administration will regard this as a high priority
objective.
Additionally, we shall make vigorous use of the procedures
provided by Congress such as Section 22 of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act and the Escape Clause in accordance with the
intention of Congress in enacting these laws.
Lastly, I assure you that should further authority be
necessary to enable the President to carry out these
objectives, I shall request such authorization from the
Congress.
I hope that these thoughts are helpful to you in your own
deliberations and I reaffirm my interest in discussing
problems of mutual concern with you.
With all good wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
John F. Kennedy.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the letter he said he supported the
special Senate subcommittee of the textile industry under the
chairmanship of Senator Pastore. He said he agreed with the conclusions
of the Pastore committee that sweeping changes in our Federal trade
policy were not necessary:

Nevertheless, we must recognize that the textile and
apparel industries are international in scope and peculiarly
susceptible to competitive pressure from imports. The
problems of the industry will not disappear by neglect, nor
can we wait for a large-scale unemployment and shutdown to
inspire us to action. So a comprehensive industrywide remedy
is necessary.

They had a national security provision in the law at that particular
time. Before then-Senator Kennedy and later-President Kennedy could
actually implement any kind of comprehensive industrywide remedy, he
had to have a finding that the industry was important to our national
security.
We brought the witnesses. It was a Cabinet committee that was formed
for the witnesses to attest to. It was Secretary Dean Rusk of the
Department of State, Secretary McNamara with the Department of Defense,
Secretary of Commerce Hodges, Secretary of Labor Goldberg, Secretary of
the Treasury Dillon, and Secretary of Agriculture Freeman, with whom I
served as Governor.
They had the hearings, and they concluded at the close of those
hearings that next to steel, textiles was the second most important to
our national security. In a line, you needed steel in order to make the
weapons of war and the tools of agriculture. Therein lies the steel
problem, because that is the World Bank singsong. They run the world
around telling these emerging Third World countries that they cannot
become a nation state until at first they obtain a strong manufacturing
sector, particularly in steel.
That is why, incidentally, you have the dumping. We have an
overproduction in the world of steel. They are dumping here in the
United States at less than cost. We have had the hearings, and they
voted on the House side. We tried to get a vote on this side and get
the bill passed for action by the White House itself.
But back to the second most important industry that I would like the
Senator from Louisiana to remember, because I remember when he had a
substantial investment by Fruit of the Loom down there in Louisiana
before it left, and now it looks as if it has all gone to the Cayman
Islands. But you couldn't send them to war in a Japanese uniform. This
is back in 1960. Today, you might say a Chinese uniform, because the
Chinese have gone just 8 years ago from a $5 billion deficit in the
balance of trade to a $55 billion deficit in the balance of trade,
mostly in textiles and clothing.
So we have to go to conflict with our friends in the People's
Republic. We have to call up Beijing and say: Wait a minute. Before we
have this standoff, please send us some uniforms because we have to be
prepared in order to go to battle. We can't go in Chinese uniforms. We
have to be able to distinguish the troops.
As a result of that finding, then-President Kennedy, on April 24,
1961, promulgated his seven-point program.
He did all of the things that dealt with that and followed on into
the Kennedy Round, as the distinguished Senator from New York has
pointed out, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, one-price cotton, and
reciprocity, which stabilized the industry for several years ongoing
until really the 1970s, and then, of course, the 1980s and early 1990s
with all the vetoes by President Reagan and President Bush. There has
just been a deluge. With President Clinton, the deluge turned into a
waterfall more or less with NAFTA.
For those who say that these things, as the distinguished Senator
from Ohio said, are going to create millions of jobs in the United
States and the world around, let us be accurate. It will create
millions of jobs in the world around. It is going to create millions of
``jobless.'' We have lost over 1 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA
here in the United States. There are 420,000 textile jobs lost all over
the country, 31,700 in the State of South Carolina alone.
There is no education in the second kick of a mule.
What we have on foot is another NAFTA without the advantages. At
least in NAFTA, we had the side agreements on labor rights. At least in
NAFTA, we had the side agreements on the environment. At least in
NAFTA, we had reciprocity.
Now this one-way street down to the Caribbean and over to the Sahara
is totally out of the whole cloth. It will start a deluge. We know
about the Chinese and their influence in the sub-Sahara.
I will never forget, 5 years ago we had a resolution brought up about
human rights. They had voted in the assembly to have hearings on human
rights in the People's Republic of China. The Chinese representatives
went down into Africa where they have some influence. I was there 25
years ago. They were building the railroad from inner Zaire, the old-
time Belgian Congo, out to the coast. They had their work crews all
over, their minions all over. They have influence, and it was proved at
that time because they changed the vote. They never had that hearing
that the United Nations wanted to have on human rights in the People's
Republic.
We know, looking at Matsui, the shirts coming through at this moment
from Matsui. There is not a shirt factory there. They have been
inundating the American market.
We go to Customs. They say: Senator, they have been inundating the
market, but we restrict it. Customs agents ask if we want to stop drugs
or stop textiles. Of course, the obvious answer is, heavens, stop the
drugs. They say: Until you get the other agents, that is about all we
can try to keep up with.
The Customs Department has estimated $5 billion already in
transshipments, illegal entry of textile goods in the United States, as
we speak. We know the sub-Sahara is not going to benefit by it at all
with respect to the jobs. It is going to be similar to our minority
business enterprise section in the Department of Commerce. They
immediately got minority, a black front; then they got the white money
and the folks behind it. And with the front, they make a lot of money
and get the set-aside contracts through hard experience in Mexico.
I refer particularly to the fabric manufacturers down there. The
Senator from Louisiana says we ought to be getting rid of the industry.
We ought to remember we are going to get something we didn't have
before; namely, with all the cotton goods and everything else we are
sending, our fabric and the apparel, shirts for example, will come back
with American-made fabric. That is what can come back free of duty,
free of restriction. But so can the Chinese-made fabrics. So can the
Taiwanese. So can the Korean.
All one needs to do is cross the border at Tijuana in lower
California into Mexico and one will think they are in Seoul, Korea.
They are not at all bashful about investing there.
The Fabric Resource List of Mexico, appearing in Davison's blue book,
I refer to pages 345 to 358 under Fabric Resource List.
Mr. President, we can see the opportunity and to whom it is being
given.

[[Page 26949]]

Very interestingly, the commitment when we passed NAFTA, from the
individuals at the time that the ATMI came in, they say they are not
going to take their plants down there.
I refer to an article in the Capital City's Media, back in 1993. The
lead article and lead sentence of the article entitled ``Hell No, We
Won't Go'':

That was the battle cry Monday by the directors of the
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, who in a last-ditch
effort to solidify congressional support for NAFTA, pledged
not to move any jobs to Mexico if the act was passed. The
ATMI board, made up of firms representing every facet of the
textile industry, voted 37-6 in favor of the resolution which
said companies would not move jobs, plants or facilities from
the United States to Mexico as a result of the North American
Free Trade Agreement.

Just in the past year Dan River built an integrated apparel
manufacturing plant in Mexico. Another U.S. corporation, Tarrant
Apparel purchased a denim mill in Pueblo, Mexico; DuPont and Alpek
built a plant in Altimira, Mexico, and formed a joint venture with
Teijin; Guilford and Cone Mills created a Mexican industrial park known
as Textile City; and Burlington Industries is to build a new Mexican
plan to produce wool products.
It reminds me of John Mitchell, the former Attorney General. He said:
Watch what we do, not what we say.
Now we know what they do. They go down into Mexico and they invest
very heavily. Our friend from Louisiana says the jobs are not important
and they moved to higher skilled jobs. I know we have restrictions on
the importation of cotton because he says: Look at the cotton. They
have quota programs and they have payments they receive for the use of
U.S. cotton. That goes back to the One Price Cotton Program we got way
back under President Kennedy.
The statement made by the Senator from Louisiana is that we are going
to get something that we didn't have. The Caribbean and sub-Sahara are
going to get something they didn't have. We are going to lose. Yes, we
have protection for American cotton producers and they are buying from
American cotton producers. But if you go down into Mexico and the
plants all go down there, they don't have to worry about coming back in
with respect to American-made fabric because they can go ahead and
produce it and bring it back in any way. We are going to be losing that
business. Last fall, they had section 807 and 809 and everything else
the companies themselves approved. That is not productive at all
because they are moving down there. That is why they are moving the
fabric plants. And there are no restrictions on those under the NAFTA
agreement.
With respect to the export nature of the job, there is a book written
by our friend, Eamonn Fingleton. He wrote the book some 10 years ago
entitled ``Blind Side.'' He pointed out at that particular time that
the little country of 125 million Japanese was outproducing the 260
million productive Americans. In manufacturing today, Japan still
outproduces us. They were talking about the growth of the economy
because they know how to build up an economy.
Who predicted by the year 2000 the GNP, or gross domestic product, of
Japan would exceed that of the richest United States of America? They
still could reach it in spite of the turndown of the banking industry
and otherwise. They haven't yielded one bit on market share this past
year in spite of the turndown in the Japanese economy, the automobile
industry. The Japanese automobile industry has taken over again a
larger share of the American market. They continue to do so and they
continue to invest here, as we know, because we have the Japanese
plants in my State of South Carolina.
We continue to weaken what President Kennedy and others knew was
necessary to build a strong economy, as if resting on a three-legged
stool. One leg is our values; that is unquestioned. The second leg is
the military strength, which is unquestioned--the remaining superpower.
The third leg, economics, having been fractured in the last 10 years.
We have gone from 26 percent of our workforce and manufacturing is down
to 13 percent. We are losing and hollowing out the industrial center,
the middle class of America. I do not have the ratings of the
particular jobs they have at Amazon, but I have a good idea of it. I do
not believe they are paying as much at Amazon and these other
industries as they are in textiles. The average textile wage in the
United States is around $8.37 an hour. The needle trades, Senator
Breaux pointed out, in Kentucky, Fruit of the Loom eliminated more than
7,000 jobs in the past 6 years. Here, ``Would-be workers attend a job
fair held by the new arrival, Amazon.''
You do not stand in line to get a job at Microsoft. They have 22,000.
You stand at the bank or you stand at the country club. You have to not
only have the high intellect, but you have to have the connections.
Anybody who is lucky enough to get a job at Microsoft, they ought to go
say their prayers at night and thank heavens because it is wonderful.
Every one of those 22,000 are millionaires.
That is not the jobs we are talking about, those superduper jobs. We
are talking about the 250,000 working at General Motors. We are talking
about the 1.6 million still left, maybe 2 million--I can't get the
exact figure--of textile jobs left in America. These jobs are important
to our national economy. They not only have a national security portion
of being able to produce the garments and the uniforms but more
particularly to maintain middle America. That is where it is so
important. I am going to get the exact pay scale there. I know PSC
Corporation, in my own capital city of Columbia, SC, has already
shipped out some 500 jobs to India. I forget the exact name of the
town. But they can start up the computers in India and get the
information back there, and they tell me my light bill is being
processed over in India for me right now. That is the trend, the global
competition. That is the global development. That is the reality. How
do we confront it? Do we maintain a strong manufacturing sector and
strengthen that economic leg to our national security?
Go right back to Alexander Hamilton in the earliest days. In the
earliest days, you had that doctrine of market forces, comparative
advantage, and David Ricardo. That is what they said, Adam Smith--you
go ahead, the little fledgling colony that now had won its
independence, you produce best what you can and ship it back to the
mother country and the mother country in turn will produce and ship
back what we can produce best--the doctrine of comparative advantage.
Alexander Hamilton said, ``No way.'' He wrote the book, ``Reports On
Manufactures.'' In that particular book he told the Brits to bug off.
He said: We are not going to remain your colony.
As a result, the second bill that ever passed this national Congress,
in which we stand this afternoon--the first being the U.S. seal--the
second bill on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill, protectionism of a 50-
percent tariff on 60 different articles, including our iron and
textiles and other things we were beginning to build up--our
manufacturing capacity.
Now we hear, to my amazement, the cry on the floor of the Senate: Get
rid of it. We are going to become a service economy. We are going to
have nothing but software. We are going to have millionaires and
country clubs and bread lines and that is going to be America. They had
that right after World War II. They told the Brits: Don't worry.
Instead of a nation of brawn, we are going to be a nation of brains.
Instead of producing products, we will provide services. Instead of
creating wealth, we are going to handle it, become a financial center.
The mother country has gone to hell in an economic handbasket. London
is nothing more than an amusement park. They do have the two levels of
society and they put it on every night on educational TV, public
television: ``Upstairs Downstairs.'' Everybody grins and smiles and
says: Oh, those were wonderful days. We can all be maids and servants
in the kitchen or we can be plantation owners. That is where we are
headed. That is where we are headed with this cry of ``free trade, free
trade,'' that is enunciated by everybody who does not have an interest
in the future of the United States.

[[Page 26950]]

That ``everybody'' includes the banks. They first financed these
companies, these multinationals, under the Marshall Plan that we sent
overseas. Then the think tanks and consultants, then the lawyers, then
the retailers. ``You can get a cheaper product,'' and everything else
of that kind. Then the consumer groups and what have you. So they all
come in and say ``free trade, free trade,'' until you get to
intellectual property and ``Oh, no, wait a minute. We have to have
trademarks; we have to have copyright; we have to have protectionism.''
They are for protectionism. Jack Valenti in the movies, he will run
over here and knock down the desks and everything else. Wait a minute,
Hollywood is the biggest protectionist center in the world;
protectionism, as they spew out their violence. They killed our TV
violence bill momentarily. We keep coming back and we will bring it
back again. But I can tell you here and now they want protectionism for
the banks, for the insurance companies, for the rich, for the software
people but nothing for the sweat of the brow. That is what gets me,
when the Senator from Louisiana says now what we need to do is go get a
high-skilled, better paying job. That is the future of America.
There is a different future. I hate to disabuse his mind on that
particular score. There is a book written about this. As Fingleton
points out now in his more recent book, ``In Praise of Hard
Industries,'' he takes down, chapter and verse: With respect to
exports, there is no contribution whatsoever. It is almost negligible.
The idea of the software and the high-tech industry --in fact, it was
going broke itself in semiconductors until, what did we do? We gave
them aid. We put in Sematech and we put in voluntary restraint
agreements--give President Reagan credit for that--to save that
particular industry, or you would not be seeing any Intel on that stock
market, going up yesterday. The Government gave it a chance to survive.
That is all the textile industry is asking this afternoon is for a
chance to survive.
Two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at is imported. Do we want to
send the rest of it down there? We have shown all the fabric plants
they can manufacture if they go down there, and they will go. Do they
want to do that for the sub-Sahara, not having any side agreements or
understanding about labor rules, not having an understanding about the
environment, not having any reciprocity?
Let me get to the restrictions. This industry is terribly restricted.
They should understand it right now. That is, I hold in my hand
``Foreign Regulations Affecting U.S. Textile and Apparel Exports.''
That was, a few years ago, in one book. Now they put it out in
different, separate items with respect just to the United States, and
they do not put it in a book because they think we were the only ones
who had any restrictions whatsoever. But can't we do away with the
restrictions, not only on the textile industry but the restrictions
that they have with respect to the Caribbean Basin Initiative? I have
the various products.
Mr. President, knit fabrics, Rwanda. Of course, 100 percent on knit
fabrics, 100 percent on apparel. Mali, we have restrictions there. You
can turn to the restrictions with the other countries: Gabon, 30
percent on apparel compared to our 10 percent in the United States;
Ethiopia, 80 percent compared to our 10 percent. We have already given
them the advantage by far.
My hangup is, we have given the advantage to the Koreans, the
People's Republic of China, the Taiwanese, the Japanese, the
Malaysians. They have the investments in these countries, and they will
have a few jobs to give out, but they will literally take the remaining
one-third of the American market and put out of business a wonderful
basic industry important to our national security.
I say ``a wonderful'' because I watched in the early days when they
got the dust and lint in their faces and hair. That is why they called
them lint heads. That is not the case anymore. There is no one in the
card room. It is mechanically, electronically controlled. In the weave
room, where they had 125 people, there are fewer than 15 now. They have
modern machinery.
The main point is it has afforded jobs for minorities and for women.
You hardly found women in the fabric or textile plants; you found them
in sewing. Now they represent over 50 percent of employees. It is a
good paying job. If the husband has a job and if a woman can make $8.30
an hour, that can help put the boys through Clemson University. That is
what they are doing in my backyard in South Carolina.
They have invested, on average, $2 billion a year for some 15 years.
But now they look at this measure--which is really foreign aid, a
giveaway to make a record to build a library for the President and for
the idle rich over on the other side of the aisle who believe in money
and market and not the country itself. They will give anything away.
All they want now, like their software crowd after we started the
Internet, after we gave them the education at Stanford, after all the
other protections, now they want to do away with the estate tax, do
away with the capital gains tax, do away with the immigration laws; let
them all come in so we can get them even cheaper labor; let's do away
with State tort laws, Y2K; let's just do away with the Government. That
is the crowd over on the other side of the aisle. I take the floor
because that is where we are headed. This industry is watching closely
because they do not want to be in a position of not getting their money
back.
We have these wonderful textile shows--the machinery boys come from
all over the world--in Greenville, SC, at the center. They want to stay
ahead of the curve, and they want to be productive, and they are
productive, and they do compete. I categorically claim the U.S. textile
industry is the most productive in the entire world, bar none. But they
cannot afford to remain productive with this initiative because they
will not get their money back.
They know the transshipments. They know how the Chinese built these
parks in Vietnam. That is why you find the Burlingtons and the Cone
Mills and the Guilfords all going down there because they want to stay
in business and they have to make money. So they have to break their
pledge not to move plants, not to move jobs, and they all are headed
down there.
I do not know who is going to be able to hold on in the United States
if this measure passes. The ATMI--that crowd is defunct, I can tell you
that. I can say that advisedly because I have gotten every award they
give. Otherwise, the AAMA, the American Apparel Manufacturers
Association--and a man by the name of Larry Martin, a wonderful
individual, with whom I have worked for the enactment of textile bills
over the last 30 years --ought to be renamed the Central American
Apparel Manufacturers. They do not have U.S. apparel manufacturers.
It is just like our friend from the Cayman Islands. It is gone. Fruit
of the Loom, Sara Lee, Limited--``The fruit of its labor, the politics
of underwear.'' That is the particular article that came out. They are
ready to go. They are now in the Cayman Islands. And I will ask Janet
Reno to look into this: I say to the Senator from North Dakota--they
are talking about Chinese contributions. I am wondering about these
Cayman Islands contributions. I don't think George W. knows, but he
already has $400,000 from Bill Farley and Fruit of the Loom, according
to this article. They are down in the Caymans.
Don't give me this cheese board they have up here, how wonderful this
is and everybody but Hollings is for the measure. Why do you think they
could not get the black caucus over there or why couldn't they get
Jesse Jackson, Jr., for this bill? Why not go for the Jackson bill?
That is what he was for, not for this particular measure. Why did the
black ministers in Boston march on the industries? Because they are not
taken over with the bum's rush of that corporate business banking crowd
that wants to make an even bigger profit.
Former Secretary of Labor, little Bobby Reich, put out a book. I wish
you all would read that book. On page 179, you will find out the
Fortune 500

[[Page 26951]]

has not created a new job in the United States of America in the last
10 years. That book is about 6 or 7 years old, but is still on point,
and will be for sometime to come. They are not creating the jobs. They
are firing everybody. The companies I am referring to are all listed on
the charts. They are getting rid of the jobs and getting rid of the
industry. That is what we have in the balance this afternoon.
I emphasize that it is one way, and it is not NAFTA and the nice plea
that it has worked so well down in Mexico so let's extend it to sub-
Sahara, let's extend it to Central America. We are not, if I have
anything to do with it, going to pass this Kathie Lee sweatshop
measure. It has not worked in El Salvador.
The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, wanted to put a child labor
amendment on this measure. Of course, now that they have filled up the
tree and have given fast track to this measure, we cannot offer an
amendment for labor rights, for the environment, for reciprocity. We
are going the way of Mexico.
Let me momentarily hold up with one observation about NAFTA because
the claim was made at that time in the debate that they would create
200,000 jobs. It has not created new jobs. We have lost 420,000 textile
jobs. They said we are going to have better wage rates. Actually, the
take-home wage of the country we were trying to help, Mexico, is less
in 1999 than in 1994 and 1995 when we passed NAFTA.
Then they said it was going to help the immigration problem because
they are going to have so many jobs. The immigration problem has
worsened.
I know better than any. I handle the immigration appropriation. We
have a school for the Border Patrol agents. We have literally graduated
thousands of Border Patrol Spanish-speaking agents for the Border
Patrol down in my hometown. And the immigration problem is, again, even
worse. Ask the Senators from California, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Boxer.
And then drugs. Oh, yeah, we were going to solve the drug problem.
That has gotten worse.
So NAFTA is not a good example of a positive experience with a trade
agreement. It is like they keep talking about deregulation of the
airlines. I could go on for 2 or 3 hours about that one. We are in an
FAA authorization bill now.
We used to come specifically with the town, the mayor, the tax base,
build the airport, get the facilities, go out and get Captain
Rickenbacker and Eastern Airlines, and come to the CAB and get the
rights; and it was a working deal. You got good service. The community
controlled the so-called slots, and everything else of that kind. It
worked.
But they got this urge to deregulate, deregulate, and we have now
come full swing, full circle. The regulated are buying up the
deregulated. You don't get the service. You have all kinds of costs.
I bought a ticket a few weeks ago for my wife. The day before we did
not think the plane was going to fly on account of Hurricane Floyd. We
found out it was, so we bought the ticket. It was $748, round trip,
from Washington, DC, to Charleston, SC, and back--$748 dollars. I will
show you the ticket.
So don't talk about the improvements, and everything else like that,
with either deregulation or this singsong the money crowd puts on with
respect to NAFTA and how well it has worked and how everybody is for
it.
Everybody is not for this. Those who are looking and have studied and
worked in the trade field realize we are going the way of England and
that we just can't afford it any longer. I almost say we, more or less,
have given away the store, as they say, in the community chest. As they
said to me back in those Governor days: Governor, what do you expect
them to make? The airplanes and the computers? Let them make the shoes.
Let them make the clothing. And we will make the airplanes and the
computers.
My problem is they are making the shoes, they are making the
clothing, they are making the airplanes, they are making the computers.
That Boeing crowd from Washington is beginning to sober up because
their bus is being dumped. Ask these airlines whether they are buying
Boeing or Lockheed. No, no, no. They are being dumped on account of the
price and financing, and everything else of that kind. And the
competition is government; and the policy is set by that government.
Senators say look before you open up Conrad Manufacturing. You have
to have a minimum wage, clean air, clean water, Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, safe working place, safe machinery, plant closing
notice, parental leave--I could keep going on and on. They can go down
to Mexico now for 58 cents an hour, and there is none of that.
So what is happening in the job policy where you can save as much as
20 percent on your manufacturing cost, which is 30 percent of volume?
If you move your manufacturing to a low-wage country, and just keep
your executive office and your sales force, and you have $500 million
in sales, saving 20 percent moving to that low-wage country, before
taxes you can make $100 million. Or you know what, you can continue to
work your own people and go bankrupt.
That is the job policy of the national Congress. That is the job
policy we are discussing this afternoon on the floor of the Senate.
That is what we are talking about: How can we say this is for the
people, how we say this is going to create jobs, knowing full well it
is going to result in a loss of jobs.
That is why the labor people, and that is why so many African
Americans, that is why all are beginning to get stirred. That is what
makes Pat Buchanan make sense until lately when he began to talk that
nonsense about Hitler. That is the worse thing that ever happened to
this particular debate because he was talking sense at the time before
he wrote his silly book about Hitler and all these other things. But he
is talking about the passing army. That is labor in America. They
realize they are hearing all this pretty talk from Washington and how
we are going to do this and how we got to go do that--global economy,
global competition, and everything else of that kind--and they keep
losing out.
They are wondering what is happening when the Republicans and
Democrats say the same thing. And so Buchanan comes out, and was the
best voice we had in a national sense. I have been talking trade while
that boy was in Gonzaga. Is that the name of the high school around
here, Gonzaga High School? Gonzaga High School--I was working on this
when he was at Gonzaga High School beating up everybody. I know him and
like him. I get along with him very well. But he has poisoned the well
on this particular score because he loses credibility on the most
important issue next to the budget. The second most important is the
economy and trying to maintain middle America.
And they tell me--the Senator from Louisiana--all they have to do is
get in line and go to Amazon. The fact is that those jobs are not
paying as much. These retail jobs just do not provide the same pay. In
fact, they make them independent contractors to avoid paying their
health costs and everything else.
In fact, take the example--and I will sit down and yield to my
colleagues because I have plenty more to cover--with respect to Oneida
knitting mills down in Andrews, SC, they had to close the first of the
year. We bought them less than 35 years ago, a fine little plant. They
had 487 employees, with the average age of 47 years old.
Tell them to get retrained and get skilled tomorrow morning--
Washington's approach and the approach of the Senator from Louisiana--
get that skill as a computer operator and go apply to Amazon as a 47-
year-old. Do you think Amazon is going to employ the 47-year-old or the
21-year-old computer operator? They are sidelined, deadlined. They are
out.
This is the issue they ought to be debating in this Presidential
race. But since the pollsters are all on education, education,
education, and the Governors, education, education, the size of the
class, more this, more that, reeducate, reteach, everything else like

[[Page 26952]]

that, they are not talking about the real problem that we at the
Washington level are talking about.
On education, the federal government only spends 7 cents on the
dollar; the other 93 cents comes from the local level. So we are not
going to do much on that. But here, when we can do something, we are
doing the wrong thing and going in the wrong direction.
They put up these cheese boards around how the Citicorp and that rich
crowd is all for it. All they are doing is trying to make money. They
are not trying to create jobs.
Read Bobby Reich's book. He's right, the Fortune 500 are not creating
jobs at all. We supposedly are trying to, but at the same time we are
canceling out these efforts with this job policy.
We have to phase out right now the Multifiber Arrangement. We are
going into the fifth year of it. The real hard part is going to be
hitting. I can tell you right now, after this election in November
2000, the next President who is going to come on is going to have some
real problems. And, Senator, you and I, hopefully, if the Lord is
willing, will be here. And we ought to be doing something about it now.
We certainly ought not to be taking this bum's rush that comes out of
the Finance Committee. Because that is what they do to me every time.
That is what they did on NAFTA. That is what they did on GATT. They
wait until the last 10 days of a particular session. Then they come out
and they grease it and they give it fast track. They file it. They put
in two amendments. They fill up the tree. They file cloture. And say:
Ha, ha, ha, we are going off to the party. Struggle as you will. But we
have it fast tracked. And this is going to pass whether you like it or
not.
We have to get out here and get at least some amendments with respect
to the labor and environmental rights, with respect to the reciprocity.
I hope we will look closely at what has happened here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the 1998 Ratios of Imports to Consumption from the International Trade
Commission, this two-sheet listing.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

1998 ratios of imports to consumption

[In percent]

Certain industrial thermal-processing equipment and certain furnace48.9
Textile machinery and parts........................................67.0
Metal rolling mills and parts thereof..............................46.6
Machine tools for cutting metal and parts..........................48.1
Machine tools for metal forming and parts thereof..................55.3
Semiconductor manufacturing equipment and robotics.................51.9
Boilers, turbines, and related machinery...........................44.4
Electrical transformers, static converters, and inductors..........43.2
Molds and molding machinery........................................44.8
Aircraft engines and gas turbines..................................70.3
Automobiles, trucks, buses, and bodies and chassis of the foregoing40.6
Motorcycles, mopeds, and parts.....................................48.5
Aircraft, spacecraft, and related equipment........................45.7
Office machines....................................................47.2
Microphones, loudspeakers, audio amplifiers, and combinations there77.9
Tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, turntables, and
compact disc players............................................100.0
Radio transmission and reception apparatus, and combinations thereo57.9
Television apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, and cable
apparatus........................................................68.5
Electric sound and visual signaling apparatus......................49.9
Electrical capacitors and resistors................................69.5
Diodes, transistors, integrated circuits, and similar semiconductor
solid-state devices..............................................45.2
Electrical and electronic articles, apparatus, and parts not elsewhere
provided for.....................................................49.1
Automatic data processing machines.................................51.6
Optical goods, including ophthalmic goods..........................51.5
Photographic cameras and equipment.................................63.8
Watches...........................................................100.0
Clocks and timing devices..........................................62.2
Drawing and mathematical calculating and measuring instruments.....71.4
Luggage, handbags, and flat goods..................................79.7
Musical instruments and accessories................................57.2
Umbrellas, whips, riding crops, and canes..........................81.1
Silverware and certain other articles of precious metal............59.9
Precious jewelry and related articles..............................55.8
Men's and boys' suits and sportcoats...............................47.5
Men's and boys' coats and jackets..................................62.5
Men's and boys' trousers...........................................50.4
Women's and girls' trousers........................................56.4
Shirts and blouses.................................................62.9
Sweaters...........................................................76.4
Women's and girls' suits, skirts, and coats........................59.0
Robes, nightwear, and underwear....................................68.8
Body-supporting garments...........................................42.8
Neckwear, handkerchiefs, and scarves...............................46.7
Gloves, including gloves for sports................................76.1
Headwear...........................................................54.1
Leather apparel and accessories....................................67.2
Fur apparel and other fur articles.................................81.7
Footwear and footwear parts........................................84.2

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can go down this list: textile
machinery and parts, 67 percent; certain industrial thermal processing
equipment, 48, 49, 50 percent; machine tools, 55.3 percent;
semiconductor manufacturing, 51 percent; aircraft engines, gas
turbines, 70 percent; microphones, loud speakers, audio amplifiers,
77.9 percent; tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders,
turntables, compact disk players, 100 percent; radio transmission and
reception apparatus and combinations, 57.9 percent; television
apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, cable apparatus, 68.5
percent; electric sound and visual signaling apparatus, 49.9 percent;
electrical capacitors and resisters, 69.5 percent; diodes, transistors,
integrated circuits, 45.2 percent; electrical and electronic articles,
apparatus and parts not elsewhere provided, 49.1 percent; automatic
data processing machines, 51.6 percent; optical goods, including
opthalmic goods, 51.5 percent; photographic cameras and equipment, 63.8
percent; watches, 100 percent--I don't know about Timex; I guess they
just repair them--100 percent for watches--they have gone to Korea--
clocks and timing devices, 62.2 percent; drawing and mathematical
calculating and measuring instruments, 71.4 percent; luggage and
handbags, flat goods, 79.7 percent; musical instruments and
accessories, 57.2 percent; umbrellas, whips, riding crops, canes, 81.1
percent; silverware, certain other articles of precious metals, 59.9
percent; precious jewelry, related articles, 55.8 percent; men's and
boys' suits and sport coats, 47.5 percent; men's and boys' coats and
jackets, 62.5 percent; men's and boys' trousers, 50.4 percent; women's
and girls' trousers, 62,9 percent; shirts and blouses, 76.4 percent;
sweaters, another 76 percent; women's and girls' suits, skirts, coats,
59 percent; robes, nightwear, underwear, 68.8 percent; body supporting
garments, 42.8 percent; neckwear, handkerchiefs, scarves, 46.7 percent;
gloves, including gloves for sports, 76.1 percent; headwear, 54.1
percent; leather apparel and accessories, 67.2 percent; fur apparel and
other fur articles, 81.7 percent; footwear and footwear parts, 84.2
percent, on down the list.
I was listening to my distinguished friend from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich. He was talking about exports and how he got Ohio, as
Governor, prepared for exports. As a Governor, I have done the same
thing. For both Ohio and South Carolina, there isn't going to be
anything left to export. This was last year's statistics. I can tell
you the trend is overwhelming in the wrong direction.
Look at the deficit in the balance of trade. It is going to
approximate this year $300 billion. We are not talking about exports as
a wonderful thing. Let's look, as they used to say when my children
were growing up, Big John and Sparky, all the way through life, make
this your goal; keep your eye on the doughnut and not the hole. We have
the eye on the hole.
Export, export, that is the singsong. Citibank, Citicorp, and all
those other financial institutions listed up there, that banker board
and what have you; export, export. What we have to watch is the
imports. That is the doughnut. That is the problem we have.
When you are spending over $100 billion more than you are taking in,
you're going to create a huge economic problem. We should know: the
fiscal year just ended, September 30, less than 30 days ago, and we
have spent $103 billion more than we took in, we

[[Page 26953]]

are still running over $100 billion deficits, deficits, deficits. All
right. We finally got on to that at least to save Social Security. Now
they are talking exports, when they ought to be talking imports because
with this particular trend, we don't have anything to export.
Exporting movies, exporting software, exporting insurance policies,
exporting bank accounts--come on--where is the work there? All you have
is this computerization and everything else. You will have your country
terribly enfeebled. It is all a bum's rush to let us help the sub-
Sahara foreign aid, let us help the Caribbean Basin nations. But they
won't have reciprocity down there. They will all move in on those poor
little islands, like we called up that little Felicia in Antigua after
the poor airmen got killed in the barracks. Don't you remember, at
Lebanon? The marines, I should say, got killed in the barracks at
Lebanon. After we lost some 278 marines, they ran down and got suits
off the Gulf coast and said: We are invading Granada because Antigua
asked us to.
We know what is going to happen. Look at the sheet: Kathie Lee
sweatshop in El Salvador. If you try to get a union there, they will
kill you. They will kill you. I can tell you right now. Workers fired
and blacklisted if they tried to defend their rights. Workers paid 15
cents for every $16.96 pair of Kathie Lee pants they sold; starvation
wages, locked bathrooms, forced overtime; pregnancy tests; workers
illegally fired and intimidated; death threats. To have the audacity to
stand on the floor of the Senate and call this a win-win bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I've already stated my opposition to
this Africa trade bill. At best, it does virtually nothing for Africa,
and at worst it actually harms African economies while doing little for
the United States.
Instead, the Senate should support legislation that works with the
countries of Sub-Saharan Africa to diversify and strengthen African
economies and fight the real enemies of economic progress on the
continent: the overwhelming debt burden and the devastating AIDS
epidemic.
There are many sound policy reasons for opposing this bill, which
carries the slightly Orwellian title, the Africa Growth and Opportunity
Act or AGOA. These reasons have been well articulated during this
debate.
But today I come to the floor to talk about who supports AGOA--a long
list of wealthy corporations who will reap huge benefits if AGOA
becomes law.
I don't think my colleagues will be surprised to learn that many of
these corporate interests are also powerful political donors who know
how to use the current campaign finance system to lobby Congress when
their interests are at stake.
Many supporters of AGOA can be found among the members of Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act Coalition, Inc. I'm not making this up Mr.
President. This corporation was established, according to its website,
to ``demonstrate to the United States Senate that there is significant
public support behind enacting the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act
(H.R. 434).''
I argue that the support this coalition really demonstrates is not
broad-based support from the American public, but the very narrow
support of the few but powerful members of the coalition themselves--
Amoco, Chevron, Mobil, The Gap, Limited Inc., Enron, General Electric,
SBC Communications, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caterpillar and Motorola, to
name just a few.
Our campaign finance system allows these companies to be heard on the
issue of Africa trade not only because of their business concerns, but
because of the legal loophole they have at their disposal to influence
this policy debate--unregulated, unlimited soft money contributions.
This coalition has the weight of millions of dollars of soft money
behind it, Mr. President.
We know these corporations have the wealth and clout to be heard in
Congress on this bill, so the only question is--what does AGOA offer
them?
AGOA provides millions in benefits to help corporations invest in
Africa--corporations that are often already investing there in the
first place, and many corporations that, not coincidentally, comprise
the AGOA coalition.
AGOA is a huge windfall for many American corporations, but it does
little or nothing for African nations or African people or working
Americans.
It doesn't make an effort to stimulate African economies by helping
small businesses in Africa, or adequately guard against transhipment of
goods through Africa, which will rob Africans of the benefits AGOA is
supposed to intend.
Essentially it offers the status quo, plus a multi-million dollar
bonus in tariff reductions for American corporations that already do
business on the continent.
Mr. President, just to give an idea of the soft money donations that
give the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Coalition, Inc., so much
clout, I'd like to Call the Bankroll on this industry coalition, as I
do from time to time on this floor, for the benefit of the public and
my colleagues.
First the total numbers. The companies that are members of this
coalition gave a total of $5,108,735 in soft money to the political
parties in the `98 election cycle. Over $5 million in one cycle, Mr.
President. That is an extraordinary figure. Our parties have received
over $5 million in financial support from this industry coalition that
was organized to lobby for this bill. Are we really comfortable with
that? Does that not give us just a little pause?
Two major U.S. retailers and coalition members, Gap Inc. and The
Limited Inc., have a particularly strong interest in passing AGOA,
since they can benefit from importing cheap textiles. Let's look at
their soft money contributions specifically.
During the 1997-1998 election cycle, Limited, Inc. gave the political
parties $553,000 in soft money donations, and in just the first six
months of 1999, Limited Inc. gave the parties more than $160,000 via
the soft money loophole.
The Gap also played the soft money game during this period, with more
than $185,000 in the 1998 election cycle and nearly $54,000 already
during the current election cycle.
And that's not all, Mr. President, not by a long shot.
I'd also like to turn my colleagues attention to the wealthy donors
who would like to secure enactment of the Caribbean Basin Initiative or
``CBI'', which was combined with the AGOA in the managers' amendment.
The soft money donations from one donor with a huge stake in seeing
CBI passed are particularly interesting, and bear mention during this
debate.
Fruit of the Loom stands to gain $25 to $50 million from so-called
CBI-NAFTA parity, which essentially removes tariffs on the goods Fruit
of the Loom imports from its places of production in the Caribbean
basin.
Fruit of the Loom stands to gain at least $25 million, Mr. President,
and the loss from eliminating duties on apparel from the Caribbean will
run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost revenue over five years,
according to an article from this week's Time Magazine.
Mr. President, this article, entitled ``The Fruit of Its Labor,'' has
already been printed in the Record. I ask my colleagues to read it.
What might a corporation do to lobby for this kind of major change in
our trade laws, Mr. President?
Under today's campaign finance rules, they might consider making some
hefty soft money contributions, and in fact that's just what Fruit of
the Loom did.
Fruit of the Loom gave nearly $440,000 in soft money during the last
election cycle.
The company has been an active donor in the current election cycle as
well, especially surrounding key moments in the life of CBI
legislation.
On June 14 of this year, just over a month before CBI/NAFTA parity
legislation was introduced in the Senate on July 16, Fruit of the Loom
gave $20,000 to the Republican Senate-House Dinner Committee.

[[Page 26954]]

On July 30, 1999, two weeks after the bill was introduced, the
company gave the National Republican Senatorial Committee $50,000.
I state these facts for those who might wonder whether political
contributions are ever intended to effect what we do here on this
floor, and for those who question whether there is an appearance of
corruption caused by the soft money system.
I offer up the facts, and I ask my colleagues and the public to be
the judge of a system that allows these unlimited soft money
contributions to occur--contributions that would appear to any logical
observer to have a potentially corrupting effect on this vitally
important trade debate.
Now, one might think, Mr. President, that the business community
would be solidly behind this soft money system that allows it so much
access and opportunity to influence the legislation that comes out of
this body. The amount of money that businesses spend on political
donations is a small investment indeed for the kind of return that
legislation like the AGOA and the CBI offers.
But recently we have seen some very significant cracks in business
community support for this system. Perhaps most notable, was the
emergence this year of the prestigious business and academic think
tank, the Committee for Economic Development, as a supporter of reform.
The CED came out in March with a strongly worded report that
denounced our current system and proposed a series of reforms. Its
comprehensive report and recommendations reached the following
conclusion: ``No reform is more urgently needed than a ban on national
party `soft money' financing.''
When we debated the McCain-Feingold soft money ban recently, the
Senator from Kentucky dismissed the CED report. He called CED and I'm
quoting here, a ``little known business group'' and ``a business group
which until a few months ago no one had ever heard of.''
Let me tell the Chair and my colleagues a little about the CED, this
``little-known'' group.
CED was founded in 1942. It's trustees are chairmen, presidents, and
senior executives of major American corporations, along with University
Presidents. CED's early work was influential in shaping the Bretton
Woods Agreement, which established the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. CED Trustees were prime movers behind establishing the
Marshall Plan, the President's Council of Economic Advisors, and the
Joint Economic Committee.
With respect to the Marshall Plan, the Senator from Kentucky might be
interested in knowing that the President's Committee on Foreign Aid,
established by President Harry Truman and led by Averell Harriman,
included five CED Trustees. Among these was Paul G. Hoffman, chairman
and President of The Studebaker Company who happened to be the founder
of CED. Hoffman was ultimately selected by President Truman as the
first administrator of the Marshall Plan.
Interestingly, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, a prime mover of the
Marshall Plan in Congress, rejected President Truman's first choice of
Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson as the plan's first administrator.
He argued that the person in that post needed ``particularly persuasive
economic credentials'' and that Congress wanted an administrator from
``the outside business world . . . and not via the State Department.''
In the end, Senator Vandenberg himself selected Paul Hoffman to run the
Marshall Plan, noting that he was to be the ``business head of a
business operation.''
According to SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, ``CED has played a leading
role in fostering public sector policies and private sector policies
that have helped make America's economy the strongest in the world and
its companies the most competitive.''
Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record letters praising CED's work from Presidents Eisenhower,
Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Gettysburg, PA,

October 1, 1963.
Hon. Sigurd S. Larmon,
Chairman, Information Committee, Committee for Economic
Development, New York, NY.
Dear Sig: I am delighted to respond to your query. The
Committee for Economic Development provides a means by which
many able and public spirited men in American business can
join their talent and experience to advance the economic
welfare of the country. For 20 years the business leadership
represented by C.E.D. has sought out the best experts it can
find on each given problem to help them develop the best ways
to promote a growing and stable economy and rising living
standards. I thought its contributions to the nation
invaluable when I was in the White House, today I believe
they are equally so.
With warm regard,
As ever,
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
____

The White House,

Washington, December 10, 1964.
Mr. Alfred C. Neal,
President, Committee for Economic Development, New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Neal: Thank you for your kind letter of November
25. I have enjoyed and profited from my contacts with the
Committee for Economic Development, and I am pleased to know
that this feeling is shared by you.
Whenever the CED feels that it can be helpful to the
country and the Administration, I hope that you will not
hesitate to communicate your views.
Sincerely,
Lyndon B. Johnson.
____

The White House,

Washington, November 8, 1978.
Mr. Robert C. Holland,
President, Committee for Economic Development, Washington,
DC.
To Robert C. Holland: The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
which I signed into law earlier this month, will make
possible the first overhaul of the Federal personnel system
in 95 years.
This historic step would not have been possible without
broad public support. The statement by the Committee for
Economic Development on ``Revitalizing the Federal Personnel
System'' was an especially timely and thoughtful contribution
to the national debate on civil service reform. The trustees
of CED can be justly proud of their accomplishment.
I wish you and your fine organization continued success in
bringing a responsible perspective to the public dialogue.

Jimmy Carter.
____

The White House,

Washington, May 14, 1982.
I welcome the opportunity to extend my congratulations to
members of the Committee for Economic Development as you
commemorate your fortieth anniversary.
These four decades since your organization's founding
encompass a period of economic growth unequalled in our
country or anywhere else in the world, and the value of the
free enterprise system as a system which can spread its
benefits across our entire society has been demonstrated.
One of the reasons for our achievements is the opportunity
we have in this nation to examine and discuss economic issues
freely. In the public forum, we accept ideas from all sides,
and we share, sift, propose, and criticize, thereby unlocking
the ingenuity and initiative of our best minds.
I applaud the timely focus of the Committee for Economic
Development on the issue of productivity as the key to the
economic future of the United States. My Administration's
economic recovery program includes strong incentives for
business investment to modernize plant and equipment. Our aim
is higher productivity, more jobs, and increased
competitiveness for American industry in markets at home and
abroad.
One of the great glories of America is the willingness of
busy citizens to take time from their important personal
interests to devote their energies and abilities to the
public welfare.
The CED is a prime embodiment of this spirit of
voluntarism. Your members bring priceless knowledge and
experience from corporate and academic life to our public
policy forums.
I share your pride in forty years of valuable service to
the nation and know that you will use this celebration to
renew your dedication to the progress of our country.

Ronald Reagan.
____

The White House,

Washington, May 21, 1992.
Greetings to all those who are gathered in New York to
celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Committee for Economic
Development. I am pleased to join with America's former
Secretary of State, George Shultz, in welcoming our visitors
from abroad.
From its inception in 1942 through the recent end of the
Cold War, the CED and its trustees have made significant
contributions toward the social and economic development of
the United States and other nations around the globe. After
World War II, your

[[Page 26955]]

recommendation proved valuable in assessing the needs of
postwar Europe and in formulating the Marshall Plan. Today,
your support of both current and prospective international
agreements on trade is helping to promote greater economic
opportunities for peoples in both hemispheres. Because
America's productivity, prosperity, and strength depend on a
well-educated and highly skilled work force--one that will be
able to compete in the expanding global market-place--I
especially applaud your support of education programs such as
Head Start and America 2000.
As with the end of other epic struggles, new opportunities
and challenges lie ahead now that America and its allies have
won the Cold War. Indeed, your work remains very important as
we chart a new course for ourselves in an increasingly
interdependent world.
Barbara joins me in congratulating the Committee on its
anniversary and in sending best wishes for the future.

George Bush.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me quote from President Bush's
letter, sent on the occasion of CED's 50th anniversary in 1992. He
said: ``From its inception in 1942 through the recent end of the Cold
War, the CED and its trustees have made significant contributions
toward the social and economic development of the United States around
the globe.''
So, far from being little known and obscure, CED has been a leading
voice of the business community in its interaction with government for
over 50 years. It is a nonpartisan group that has had a significant
role in government policy in education, job training and employment,
international economics, and budget and fiscal issues. CED Trustees
have held numerous high level government posts, and come from both
political parties. The current Chairman of CED, Frank Doyle, is the
retired Executive Vice President of General Electric, who has served as
a U.S. Representative to the OECD and the European Community.
It's also fascinating, Mr. President, that the Senator from Kentucky
implied during our campaign finance debate that CED's endorsement of
campaign finance reform was insignificant because he has gone to great
lengths to try to dissuade it from its view. Indeed, this summer, the
Senator from Kentucky wrote to up to 20 business executives to urge
them to resign from CED because of its position on campaign finance
reform. The Senator from Kentucky charged that CED's position was part
of a campaign to ``eviscerate private sector participation in
politics,'' and ``ban corporate political activism.'' He criticized CED
for aligning itself with groups like the Sierra Club on this issue.
The chairs of the subcommittee that developed the CED report, which
by the way was adopted without dissent either from the subcommittee or
from the 56 member Research and Policy Committee that gave it CED's
official imprimatur, replied to the Senator from Kentucky that they
thought it ``entirely appropriate for groups with diverse interests to
speak out jointly on an issue that they believe threatens the vitality
of our participatory democracy.'' And they flatly rejected the charge
that they want to silence the private sector.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator
McConnell's letter, along with the response from the CED's leaders, as
printed in the New York Times, be reprinted in the Record along with a
New York Times news story and editorial about this exchange. I also ask
unanimous consent that a New York Times story concerning the president
of CED, Charles Kolb, who was a lawyer in the Office of Management and
Budget and in the Department of Education under President Bush, also be
printed in the Record.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 1, 1999]

A Letter and Its Response

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chairman of the
National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote to 10
business executives on July 28 suggesting that they resign
from a group promoting overhaul of campaign finance laws,
which prompted a reply on Aug. 23 by three leaders of that
group. Following is a letter sent to an executive, with the
recipient's name deleted by the advocacy group, the Committee
for Economic Development, and the group's reply:

mr. mcconnell's letter

I was astonished to learn that . . . has lent its name,
prestige and presumably financial backing to the Committee
for Economic Development in its all-out campaign to
eviscerate private sector participation in politics, through
so-called ``campaign reform.''
This week, the Committee for Economic Development joined
hands with Ralph Nader and the Sierra Club in taking out a
full-page ad in The Hill, demanding new campaign finance laws
that would ban corporate political activism and render the
Republican Party powerless to defend probusiness candidates
from negative TV attacks by labor unions, trial lawyers and
radical environmentalists.
To legitimize its claim to represent the corporate
community in advocating anti-business speech controls, the
Web site of the Committee for Economic Development
prominently lists . . . as one of the trustees that is
``engaged in implement[ing] their policy recommendations.''
If you disagree with the radical campaign finance agenda of
the Committee for Economic Development and resent its abuse
of your company's reputation, I would think that public
withdrawal from this organization would be a reasonable
response.
Thank you for considering my great concern over these
developments.

the committee's letter

We are responding to your letter of July 28 to several
trustees of the Committee for Economic Development (C.E.D.)
urging them ``to resign from C.E.D.'' because of our recent
policy statement on campaign finance reform.
Your letter refers to a full-page ad that C.E.D. and other
organizations sponsored urging the Senate to work toward
meaningful campaign finance reform. We make no apologies for
expressing our views and associating with groups such as
AARP, the League of Women Voters, and the Sierra Club. In our
view, it is entirely appropriate for groups with diverse
interests to speak out jointly on an issue that they believe
threatens the vitality of our participatory democracy. In
fact, we find it ironic that you are such a fervent defender
of First Amendment freedoms but seem intent to stifle our
efforts to express publicly our concerns about a campaign
finance system that many feel is out of control. Efforts to
secure funding for the Republican Party should not be based
on silencing other organizations.
You also accuse C.E.D. of an ``all-out campaign to
eviscerate private sector participation in politics.'' We
respectfully submit that you have misread our report. First,
it is disingenuous to imply that a business organization such
as C.E.D. wants to silence the private sector or is anti-
business. Second, if C.E.D.'s recommendations were enacted
tomorrow, there would be more, not less, money available to
finance elections. These funds would come primarily from
individual contributions--either directly or through
political action commitees--not through loopholes in existing
laws that have created today's unregulated, apparently
limitless, flood of soft money. Our proposal would restore
the principle that campaign contributions should be made by
individuals not corporations or unions.
We know that a majority of the House and the Senate
supports campaign finance reform. That sentiment is also
shared by a growing number of business community leaders. We
hope that you will reconsider your opposition and enable the
issue to be discussed and voted on this fall in the Senate.
Those of us at C.E.D. applaud your many years of public
service. We respect and share your commitment to the First
Amendment. However, many of our trustees happen to disagree
with you on this issue.
____

[From the New York Times, Sept. 1, 1999]

Defying Senator, Executives Press Donation Rules Change

(By Don Van Natta, Jr.)

Washington, Aug. 31.--Leaders of a committee of business
executives who have endorsed a ban on unlimited campaign
contributions said today that their members would not be
intimidated by an aggressive letter-writing campaign led by
Senator Mitch McConnell, one of the Senate's most ardent
opponents of a bill that would overhaul the campaign finance
system.
In the letters, Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican,
accused the group of trying to ``eviscerate private sector
participation in politics'' by imposing ``anti-business
speech controls.''
``I hope you will resign from C.E.D.,'' Mr. McConnell
scribbled near the bottom of one letter sent to an
unidentified senior executive of a telecommunications
corporation.
Leaders of the organization attacked by Mr. McConnell, the
Committee for Economic Development, which includes executives
of General Motors, Xerox, Merck and the Sara Lee Corporation,
refused to identify the executive or the corporation in the
letter. But they did say that Mr. McConnell wrote letters to
executives who work for companies that have significant
issues pending before Congress.
None of nearly 20 members of the Committee for Economic
Development planned to resign from the committee, as Mr.
McConnell urged in the letters sent late last month,
committee leaders said.
Edward A. Kangas, a co-chairman of the C.E.D. committee
that studied the campaign

[[Page 26956]]

finance system, said today that Mr. McConnell's letter
confirmed for him that the organization, which has enlisted
more than 100 current and retired executives to endorse new
campaign finance rules, was beginning to shape the
contentious debate on the subject on Capitol Hill. The letter
was first reported on Sunday on the editorial page of The New
York Times.
``What we've been doing as a group of business leaders is
obviously beginning to have an impact,'' said Mr. Kangas, the
chairman and chief executive of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, the
accounting and consulting firm. ``If we weren't having an
impact, he would not be communicating with us.''
In his public statements, Mr. McConnell argues that current
campaign-finance legislation would infringe on free speech
protections of the First Amendment. Critics of the Republican
Party's position on the issue, however, say that Republicans
are motivated by the knowledge that they hold a commanding
advantage in raising campaign money from the private sector.
In the letter, Mr. McConnell also wrote that he was
``astonished'' that the corporation of the recipient had
``lent its name, prestige and presumably financial backing''
to the Committee for Economic Development, which he said was
lobbying on behalf of a ``radical campaign-finance agenda.''
Mr. McConnell argued that the executive's alliance with such
a group had consequently damaged the reputation of the
executive's employer.
Mr. McConnell wrote the letters in his role as chairman of
the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party's
major fund-raising group for Senate candidates. His
spokesman, Robert Steurer, said that Mr. McConnell was
unavailable for comment, and referred questions to the
National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Steven Law, executive director of the National Republican
Senatorial Committee, issued a brief statement tonight, in
which he said: ``Nearly all the companies we contacted had no
idea that C.E.D. was throwing their name around in connection
with campaign-finance reform and they were outraged that
C.E.D. had hijacked their corporate identity to sell a
position with which they sharply disagreed.''
The executives on the C.E.D. committee are speaking for
themselves, and not necessarily on behalf of their companies.
Most of their corporations still continue to give large sums
to political parties and candidates.
Mr. Kangas and other committee leaders said they had
recruited more executives in the past several days. They said
their goal was to have 300 executives endorse their campaign
finance proposals by late autumn.
``I think most of the people at C.E.D. have figured out
just how corrupt the campaign finance system is, and this
letter is just an example of what they already knew,'' Mr.
Kangas said, ``Actually, we are broadening the constituency
of business leaders who recognize that the campaign finance
system is a real problem. Senator McConnell's letter has not
had much impact.''
The letter was seen by some as an attempt to intimidate the
members with the implied message: Resign and keep quiet or
don't count on doing business with Congress. ``The reaction
was interesting,'' Mr. Kangas said. ``These guys are running
big enterprises of their own. They are not easily
intimidated. They looked at the letter and most of them just
chuckled and filed it away.''
The committee is a 60-year-old business-led public policy
and research association based in Manhattan. Its leaders
pride themselves that it is fiercely non-partisan.
The executives on the committee are urging Congress to
prohibit soft money, the unlimited donations that
corporations give to political parties. The committee also
advocates increasing the limit on individual contributions to
$3,000 from the current limit of $1,000.
``The business community, by an large, has been the
provider of soft money, said Charles Kolb, the committee's
president. ``These people are saying: We're tired of being
hit up and shaken down. Politics ought to be about something
besides hitting up companies for more and more money.''
The committee's members studied the campaign finance system
for two years. Committee members said they were horrified at
the public perception that big donors receive special favors
in Washington. In a report released in March, the committee
wrote: ``The suspicion of corruption deepens public cynicism
and diminishes public confidence in Government. More
important, these activities raise the likelihood of actual
corruption.''
In a response sent to Mr. McConnell last week, leaders of
the committee wrote: ``We know that a majority of the House
and the Senate supports campaign finance reform. That
sentiment is also shared by a growing number of business
community leaders.''
Both Warren E. Buffett, the acclaimed value investor and
chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, and Jerome Kohlberg, a
founder of the leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
& Company, have tried on their own to persuade chief
executives of businesses to embrace campaign finance reform
measures. But many, though sympathetic, refused to speak out
because they do not want to rankle the legislators on whom
they depend.
Mr. Kangas said he disagreed with Mr. McConnell's position
that campaign contributions were protected by the First
Amendment. ``I was a little disappointed that he would
suggest that freedom of speech does not apply to us, but it
applies to the people who agree with him,'' Mr. Kangas said.
____

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Oct. 17, 1999]

Soft Money's Multifaceted Foe

(By Don Van Natta, Jr.)

Washington.--Charles Kolb may be this city's most unlikely
champion of campaign finance reform. A conservative lawyer
who worked on domestic policy in the Bush White House, Kolb
acknowledges that he never expected to be doing what he is
doing now.
As president of the Committee for Economic Development, a
group of chief executives and academic leaders committed to
public policy changes, Kolb leads its fight against soft
money, those unlimited contributions to political parties
that have come to exemplify the capital's cash-flush
influence industry.
``I personally came at this with a deregulatory
viewpoint,'' explained Kolb, who is 48, ``But the more I
studied it, the more concerned I became about the appearance
of influence-peddling, the quid pro quos. There should be
access to politicians, but I don't think you need to pay a
toll to get it.''
He paused to catch his breath. ``I have become something of
a radical on this subject,'' he said.
Trim and energetic, Kolb may look like just one more sharp-
dressed politician or lobbyist--until he opens his mouth. He
speaks in eloquent, perfectly formed paragraphs about the
need to change a federal election system that some analysts
say may cost $3 billion in 2000.
As the leader of a fiercely nonpartisan group, Kolb says
the organization does not reflect his biases. ``If it did, I
wouldn't be doing my job,'' he said. Still, his friends are
not surprised that, as a champion of noble causes, he has
embraced its position on campaign finance reform.
Upon leaving the Bush administration, where he was deputy
assistant to the president for domestic policy, Kolb wrote a
book whose title communicated its author's intense
disappointment: ``The White House Daze: The Unmaking of
Domestic Policy in the Bush Years'' (Free Press, 1993). The
path that led Kolb to his current post also wound through law
and charity.
``I've never worried about answering the question, `What do
you want to do with your life?' '' Kolb said. He has a one-
word explanation for his good fortune: serendipity.
Business executives consider it serendipitous that Kolb
took the post at the Committee for Economic Development in
September 1997. He is its fourth president in 57 years, and
his predecessor held the job for 31 years. Several trustees
credited Kolb with invigorating the organization.
The committee is an independent research organization that
recommends economic and social policies. Its board includes
executives of General Motors, Xerox, Merck and Sara Lee.
Despite the organization's growing momentum, Kolb has
occasionally found it difficult to persuade executives to
publicly endorse a soft-money ban. They worry that their
endorsement will hurt their corporations on Capitol Hill.
``When Charlie talks with most CEOs, they are very
sympathetic, very supportive,'' said Michael J. Petro, the
committee's director of business and government policy. ``But
then they say, `Let me put you in touch with our Washington
guys,' '' who often try to kill the idea.
Kolb blamed what he calls the capital's cottage industry of
money and influence. ``The people who favor the status quo
are the people who hand out the checks and the people who
cash the checks,'' he said.
Kolb always wanted to practice law. It was what other men
in his family had done. He went to Princeton, then to Balliol
College at Oxford University, where he received a master's
degree in philosophy, politics and economics.
At Oxford, he met the academic who had the most influence
on his life, Sir Isaiah Berlin, the renowned historian who
died in 1997 at 88. ``What he taught me is there is no excuse
for arrogance,'' Kolb said. He once invited Berlin to tea in
Kolb's dormitory room. ``And for four hours, the leading
philosopher of this century sat on my bed and sipped his tea
and talked with me.''
Kolb earned a law degree at the University of Virginia, and
after practicing at two Washington law firms, joined the
Office of Management and Budget. He then moved to the
Education Department, where he met his wife, Ingrid. (They
now have a 2-year-old daughter, Charlotte.) In 1990, he
joined the White House, working on domestic economic,
education, legal and regulatory issues. After that, he spent
five years as general counsel of the United Way.
On his desk, Kolb displays evidence of his freedom from
partisanship: a canceled check for $250 that Kolb wrote on
Nov. 1, 1996, to

[[Page 26957]]

the re-election campaign of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., an
ardent opponent of changes in the campaign finance laws.
Last summer, McConnell took on Kolb's organization, writing
a blistering letter to as many as 20 executives who had
endorsed a soft-money ban. McConnell accused the group of
trying to ``eviscerate private sector participation in
politics'' by imposing ``anti-business speech controls.''
At the bottom of most letters, McConnell scribbled a
message that some executives regarded as a threat: ``I hope
you will resign from CED.''
Kolb responded sharply. ``I think it was an abuse of
senatorial authority,'' he said. ``It did a lot to convey to
the public what this fight is all about.''
In the end, McConnell's smash-mouth tactics backfired.
Publicity about the letter helped the organization recruit
more executives, doubling its ranks. Now, 212 executives have
endorsed the soft-money ban. And not one executive resigned.
With a smile, Kolb said, ``It is far better to be attacked
than to be ignored.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, far from having its intended effect, the
Senator from Kentucky's letter, which many believe smacks of
intimidation, seems to have emboldened CED and its membership. At last
count, 212 business and civic leaders have endorsed the CED report, and
not a single member of CED has resigned in response to the Senator from
Kentucky's tactics. Not a single one.
It was amazing to me, Mr. President, that we heard Senators on the
floor during the campaign finance debate questioning whether our
current system is corrupting. But the Senate has heard me talk about
the corruption of the system a lot. It's no surprise that I think this
system has a corrupting influence on the Congress. But for those who
are skeptical of this view, perhaps the words of the CED trustee who
chaired the subcommittee that developed CED's recommendations on
campaign finance, will carry more weight. Listen to the words of Mr.
Edward Kangas, who is the Chairman of Global Board of Directors of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, in an opinion piece in the New York Times
that appeared after the first days of our campaign finance debate here
in the Senate.
``You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms and
executive suites all over the country when Senate opponents of
campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that anyone could think big
political contributions are corrupting elections and government.'' Mr.
Kangas continues: ``For a growing number of executives, there's no
question that the unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure
political contributions amounts to influence peddling and a corrupting
influence. What has been called legalized bribery looks like extortion
to us.''

Mr. Kangas doesn't mince words on how the system appears to someone
who has been part of it. He says:

I know from personal experience and from other executives
that it's not easy saying no to appeals for cash from
powerful members of Congress or their operatives. Congress
can have a major impact on businesses. The solicitors know
it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the message
is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must
weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your
shareholders better by investing the money in the company or
by sending it to Washington.

This is an incredible indictment of the system that a minority of
this Senate is preserving through a filibuster. These words from a
business leader plainly and powerfully answer the arguments from the
Senator from Kentucky and others that there is nothing corrupt or
corrupting about soft money. This is not some liberal ``do-gooder''
speaking here. This is a respected business person, chairman of the
Board of Directors of an international accounting firm, a participant
in this system.
He says, ``The threat may be veiled but the message is clear. Failing
to donate could hurt your company.''
I ask unanimous consent that the full op-ed by Mr. Kangas appear in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms
and executive suites all over the country when Senate
opponents of campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that
anyone could think big political contributions are corrupting
elections and government. On Tuesday, those opponents
prevailed, blocking a final vote this year on banning soft-
money contributions. But the innocent and benign system
described by the Senators arguing against reform hardly
passed the laugh test for those of us on the receiving end of
the soft-money shakedown.
For a growing number of executives, there's no question
that the unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure
political contributions amounts to influence peddling and a
corrupting influence. What has been called legalized bribery
looks like extortion to us. The Senators who oppose reform
would be far more credible and receive a sympathetic ear if
they admitted the high cost of campaign force them to focus
on large contributors, rather than defending the system.
Congress passed laws that would put corporate executives in
jail for offering money to a foreign official in the course
of commerce. Now some of its members express bewilderment
when people note that there is something unseemly about
making large payments to the campaign committees of American
elected officials.
I know from personal experience and from other executives
that it's not easy saying no to appeals for cash from
powerful members of Congress or their operatives. Congress
can have a major impact on businesses. The solicitors know
it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the message
is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must
weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your
shareholders better by investing the money in the company or
by sending it to Washington.
Increasingly, fund-raisers also make sure you know that
your competitors have contributed, implying that you should
pay a toll in Washington to stay competitive.
Unlike individual donations, most large corporate
contributions aren't made as gestures of good will or for
ideological reasons. Corporations are thinking of the bottom
line. Will the contribution help or hurt the company? Despite
the protestations of some Senators, everyone knows big checks
get noticed.
Like most Americans, corporate executives also now know the
issue isn't really free speech. (You'll notice that the First
Amendment argument is more often made by the listeners, the
politicians, then by the speakers.) Companies don't question
their ability to speak forcefully. We have lobbyists and
trade associations, and we provide many jobs--all of which
help us to be heard. And, as salesmen, we resent the ideas
that the only way we can get a chance to make an effective
pitch about legislation is to pay a large fee.
One clear sign of the growing dissatisfaction of corporate
leaders with this pressure is the endorsement by more than
200 business and civic leaders of a campaign finance reform
plan made by the Committee for Economic Development, a group
of chief executives and academic leaders. This group, of
which I am a member, is not saying that all political
contributions are bad or corrupting. We know campaigns cost
money.
But we see what should be obvious to everyone. There's a
big difference between a $1,000 contribution--the current
limit on individuals' donations to a campaign--and a $50,000
or $1 million check filtered through a party as ``soft
money.'' The potential for corruption is minimal at $1,000,
or even at the $3,000 level to which our reform plan would
raise individual contribution limits. But the unlimited
amounts that pour through the soft-money loophole are
dangerous.
Americans understand the influence of money. It's time to
give elections back to democracy's shareholders--the voters.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, CED is not the only business
organization that supports campaign finance reform. The Campaign for
America is an organization founded by Jerome Kohlberg, former founding
partner of the firm of Kohlberg, Kravitz. That organization sent us a
letter during the recent campaign finance debate, signed by, among
others, Warren Buffet, Arjay Miller, who is the former President of
Ford Motor Company and Dean Emeritus of Stanford Business School, and
Bob Stuart, former Chair of Quaker Oats. These prestigious business
leaders write: ``We believe the current soft money system works against
the public interest and against the interests of business. . . .
[B]usiness and industry must have access and say in policy-making. But
soft money distorts the process.''
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Campaign for America and
these business leaders appear in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page 26958]]

Campaign for America,

Washington, DC, October 18, 1999.
Hon. Russ Feingold,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feingold: As the Senate debates reforming the
way federal officials finance their campaigns, we hope you
will consider what the appropriate relationship between
government and business should be. We believe the soft money
loophole creates an improper conduit for corporate and union
money to flow in unlimited amounts through increasingly murky
channels into the political system. Speaking as business
people and as citizens, we urge you to support the McCain-
Feingold bill.
We believe meaningful reform will require fuller and more
timely disclosure of contributions and expenditures. It will
require all organizations trying to influence the outcome of
elections to play by the same rules as candidates. Above all,
meaningful reform will close the soft money loophole. Does
McCain-Feingold cure all the ills of our current system? No,
but it is a crucial first step.
We believe the current soft money system works against the
public interest and against the interests of business.
Congress must have input from business or it risks
legislating in a vacuum; business and industry must have
access and say in policy-making. But soft money distorts the
process.
American business traditionally places its faith in the
market. And while it is naive to think that the government
won't play a role in shaping the market, the soft money
system encourages companies to seek government intervention
in the market in an arbitrary and unfair way.
Congress enacted a law in 1907 to prevent corporations from
using corporate money to exert an undue influence on the
political process. In 1947 the Congress passed a similar
restriction on unions. The soft money loophole subverts these
laws. If soft money contributions are capped rather than
banned, the subversion of the principles behind these laws
will continue.
Some opponents of reform would have you believe the parties
will wither and die if the flow of soft money contributions
is cut off. But the soft money loophole can be closed without
starving candidates or parties of needed resources by
adjusting the hard money limits.
The Senate has an opportunity to find a consensus on the
appropriate process for financing federal campaigns. We urge
you to return to our citizens a system that is fair and
equitable. We urge you to oppose a filibuster and allow the
Senate an opportunity to vote for the McCain-Feingold bill.
Respectfully,
George T. Brophy, Chairman, President & CEO, ABT Building
Products Corporation; Warren Buffet, Chairman & CEO,
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.; William Coblentz, Attorney at
Law, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, and Bass; William H.
Davidow, General Partner, Mohr, Davidow Ventures; E.C.
Fiedorek, Managing Director (Retired), Encap
Investments L.C.; Alan G. Hassenfeld, Chairman & CEO,
Hasbro, Inc.; Ivan J. Houston, CEO (Retired), Golden
State Mutual Life Insurance Co.; Robert J. Kiley,
President, New York City Partnership; Jerome Kohlberg,
Jr., Kohlberg & Company; Robert B. Menschel, Senior
Director, Goldman, Sachs Group; Arjay Miller, Former
President, Ford Motor Company, Dean Emeritus, Graduate
School of Business, Stanford University; Thomas S.
Murphy, Chairman & CEO (Retired), Capital Cities/ABC,
Inc.
Raymond Plank, Chairman & CEO, Apache Corporation, Sol
Price, Price Entities; Arthur Rock, Arthur Rock &
Company; David Rockefeller; Ian M. Rolland, Chairman &
CEO (Retired), Lincoln National Corporation; Richard
Rosenberg, Chairman & CEO (Retired), Bank of America;
Jim Sinegal, President & CEO, Costco Companies, Inc.;
Bernard Susman, Bernard M. Susman & Co.; Donald Stone,
Former Chairman & CEO, MLSI, Former Vice-Chairman, New
York Stock Exchange; Robert D. Stuart, Jr., Chairman
Emeritus, The Quaker Oats Company; Dr. P. Roy Vagelos,
Chairman & CEO (Retired), Merck & Co., Inc.; A.C.
Viebranz, Former Senior Vice President for External
Affairs, GTE Corporation; Paul Volcker, Former
Chairman, Federal Reserve.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, business support for campaign finance
reform is real and it is growing. Businessmen are tired of being the
fall guys of American politics. They are tired of seeing politicians
with their hands out for money. They are tired of the ever increasing
demand for ever larger checks. They are tired of the feeling like they
are being shaken-down for their contributions, like political donations
are a form of protection money.
They are tired of the public's perception that when business wins an
argument in Congress it wasn't because its position was right but
because they gave big soft money donations to the political parties.
That is certainly a risk with this particular Africa trade bill, as my
Calling of the Bankroll at the beginning of this presentation showed.
I want to commend the leaders of the business community for joining
this cause, and standing up to the pressure from those who want to
preserve this corrupt system. In the end, they are on the right side of
the issue, not only for business, but for the American people.
I have to ask my colleagues, Mr. President, how can this body
continue to allow soft money contributions to flow to the political
parties' warchests--unregulated, unchecked, and doing untold damage to
the public perception of the way we do business in this Chamber?
How long can we expect the public to put up with a U.S. Senate that
refuses to shut down such an egregious loophole, and chooses instead to
perpetuate a soft money system that taints everything we do on this
floor?
That's right. I'll say it again. Everything we do on this floor is
called into question by the soft money system. And that includes this
Africa and Caribbean trade bill. The $5 million in soft money
contributions by the industry coalition created supposedly to show
public support for this bill casts a shadow on this debate. It's the
800 pound gorilla, as I've said before, that is sitting over there on
the floor and that we all ignore.
Until we close the soft money loophole, the shadow will get darker
and darker, and the gorilla bigger and bigger. Until we close that
loophole, our constituents have every right to be skeptical of whether
we work for them, or for the big contributors. Until we close that
loophole, the concept of one person, one vote--a basic and fundamental
tenet of our democracy--is in serious jeopardy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment No. 2335 be temporarily laid aside in order for Senator
Ashcroft of Missouri to offer an amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
Mr. ROTH. I would say, if I might, to my distinguished colleague that
while it takes unanimous consent for me to ask this, the leader of
course could come down and accomplish the same result. So I hope the
distinguished Senator will not object.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I regret that objection because I think it
is important that we be able to proceed with this most important
legislation.
This is legislation that has the support of both the Republican and
Democratic leadership. It has the support of the White House and the
President. I am disappointed that we are unable to reach agreement to
begin the amendment process so that this most important legislation can
be acted upon in the remaining days.
I point out to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina that
this legislation was reported out by the Finance Committee in June of
this year. We had hoped action could be taken earlier, but the schedule
did not permit that.
Does the Senator from Missouri wish to speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership,
and I thank him for making the attempt to increase our capacity to
serve America by allowing me to offer an amendment.
The measure that I am offering today is a measure that Democratic
minority leader Senator Daschle, 31 cosponsors, and I had introduced as
free-standing legislation earlier this year. All of the cosponsors of
the measure have been strong advocates on behalf of American
agriculture. We are addressing the ability of American agriculture to
be represented effectively in trade negotiations.
Currently, there is a temporary American Ambassador for agriculture
in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative so that America's
farmers

[[Page 26959]]

and ranchers always have a representative at the table when the United
States enters large trade negotiations. If we are worried about the
United States' balance of payments, we ought to elevate and try to
increase our number of exports.
Our farm community outproduces and outworks any farm producers around
the world. When trade agreements are negotiated, we need our farmers to
be represented there by a consistent, strong voice for agriculture.
The Senate Democratic minority leader, Senator Daschle, and I and 31
cosponsors introduced this free-standing bill, S. 185, because we
thought it is essential to U.S. farm and trade policy. It is a bill,
which as an amendment to this measure, ensures that our Nation's
farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador in the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative. Let me express that once more to be very
clear: We want to have a permanent agricultural trade ambassador in the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative so whenever our Trade
Representatives are making considerations about the kinds of agreements
that will govern the relationships between the United States and other
nations as they relate to trade with agricultural products, an expert,
clearly focused on, committed to, trained in, and abreast of the
circumstances in the agricultural community, will be right there at the
table advancing our interests.
This is very important, especially as we understand that our
agricultural productivity far exceeds our ability to consume. In my
home State, between a quarter and a third of all the agricultural
products produced must go into the international marketplace. I heard
the Senator from Illinois the other day talk about how that in his
State over half of all the products are grown for shipment overseas.
For some commodities, such as soybeans, over half of those commodities
must be exported.
This is a simple concept. The placement in the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative of a permanent trade ambassador for agriculture
has broad bipartisan support in the Congress. It is supported by more
than 80 national farm organizations. And the administration supports
it.
I talked recently with U.S. Trade Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky in a
meeting with the congressional ``WTO Caucus for Farmers and Ranchers.''
Let me explain. Senators Larry Craig and Byron Dorgan have assembled
people in the Congress who are concerned about agriculture's capacity
to trade effectively and to get our products overseas. We have
organized with their leadership this caucus, consisting of both Senate
and House Members, to address agricultural issues in the upcoming World
Trade Organization Seattle Round.
This fall in Seattle we are going to launch a new round of trade
negotiations. We have been seeking as a caucus of Members of the
Congress to work with our trade ambassador, Ambassador Barshefsky, to
say we want to make sure we in the Congress cooperate so that when any
trade agreements are finally reached, the Senate is in a better
position not only to understand them but also to approve them if at all
possible.
I was delighted that when we discussed this need for a permanent
agricultural trade ambassador within the Office of the Trade
Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky endorsed the program
fully. She said this initiative is very important.
I described the fact we have the WTO round of trade talks starting in
late November in Seattle. I want to communicate the urgency to get this
provision we are offering today enacted into law before the Seattle
Round kicks off. I think Senator Daschle understands, the other 31
cosponsors understand, the members of the WTO trade caucus understand,
and the White House understands the urgency of having agricultural
issues fully represented at the table. That is why the administration
supports this. That is why I am pleased to have been an original
cosponsor with the minority leader, Tom Daschle, on this proposal in
February because we all understand the importance of this proposal.
Ambassador Barshefsky went on to say:

Ensuring that the United States has a permanent trade
ambassador will put U.S. farmers in a stronger position in
the Seattle round of the WTO negotiations that will begin
late this fall.

Ambassador Barshefsky pointed out that when she assumed the position
of the U.S. Trade Representative, she appointed Peter Scher as a
special trade negotiator for agriculture. He has been the voice for
America's farmers and ranchers at the negotiating table, and he has
been doing a wonderful job advocating positions that will advance the
strength of their interests internationally. However, his position was
an administration decision and an appointment as opposed to being a
permanent position in the law.
The bill we introduced and the amendment I am offering today makes
his position permanent, subject to Senate approval, of course. Our
farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative who will focus solely on opening foreign markets,
ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and
services, and representing the interests of American farmers, the most
productive of all of our sectors of our economy. The opportunity to do
that is not only ripe and ready, it is necessary now because we are
looking the WTO round in the face. We need to achieve this objective.
In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first ever
monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United
States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds an alarm for
States such as my home State of Missouri. We receive over one-fourth of
our farm income from agricultural exports. Already this year the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has reported the value of agricultural
exports has dropped by over $5 billion since this time last year. We
need to be promoting and developing ways of exporting more of the food
and fiber we grow in this country. At best, the total agricultural
exports will be $49 billion in 1999. This is a reduction from total
agricultural exports of $60 billion 3 years ago. We cannot afford to be
in a situation where we are vastly increasing productivity and
production and curtailing our farmers' amount of exports opportunities.
We desperately need to enhance the level of exports for our farmers. We
need to make permanent the position of agricultural trade ambassador
within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Also, our agricultural trade surplus totaled $26.8 billion just 3
years ago. By last year, that amount had dropped by almost 50 percent.
This year, our annual agricultural trade surplus will have dwindled to
about $12 billion.
The bottom line is we need more attention focused on farmers'
competitiveness overseas. We need to make this a policy priority. Our
priorities need to be reflected in the level of the resources we deploy
to do this job of opening markets for farmers and ranchers.
When I am thinking about the Nation's trade policy, especially about
agriculture, I ask myself what is good for the State of Missouri. In
some significant measure, Missouri happens to be a leader in farming.
We are the State with the second highest number of farms--second only
to Texas. We have just about every crop imaginable. Missouri is among
the Nation's top producers in almost all crops. We are second in terms
of beef cows. We are second in hay production. Missouri is one of the
top five pork-producing States. Missouri is also among the top 10
States for the production of cotton, rice, corn, winter wheat, milk,
and watermelon. With 26 percent of the income in our State coming from
exports, our Missouri farmers, like farmers from sea to shining sea,
need to know that their ability to export will expand over time rather
than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them
out of their market share.
During the 1996 farm bill debate, in exchange for decreased
Government payments, our farmers were promised more export
opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on that promise.
America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent agriculture
ambassador

[[Page 26960]]

who will represent their interests worldwide, especially as we face
more negotiations in the World Trade Organization, and also as we have
regional negotiations with both Central and South America progressing.
There are a lot of opportunities that could be opened up to our farmers
and ranchers in the coming years. We need to have someone at the door,
always pressing for those opportunities.
Under the legislation which the minority leader and I and 31 others
introduced this year, the agricultural ambassador would be responsible
for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade agreements
relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also under the
legislation, the ambassador must be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
U.S. agricultural interests.
It is imperative, in my judgment, that U.S. interests always have a
strong, clear voice at the table in international negotiations. Foreign
countries will always have agriculture trade barriers. We need to send
the message to foreign governments we are serious about breaking down
barriers to their markets, so that our farmers and ranchers will be put
on more of a level playing field.
Canada and Mexico have already concluded free trade agreements with
Chile, for example. Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural
products to Chile, and in most instances Canadian farmers face a zero
tariff level. Our farmers, on the other hand, are confronted with an
11-percent tariff. That makes it very difficult for us to be
competitive. The E.U. is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile,
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will
give European farmers more access to their markets at the expense of
U.S. farmers and ranchers. We can not afford to wait. America must
lead, not follow, especially in our own backyard in the Western
Hemisphere, but certainly even around the world.
The agricultural ambassador amendment we are offering today is
supported by more than 80 agricultural trade associations.
Additionally, State branches of these national associations such as the
Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers Council
are weighing in with their strong support.
We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and
ranchers in America. Making permanent the position of U.S. Trade
Representative for agriculture, we are guaranteed the interests of
American farmers and ranchers will always have a prominent status and
will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced.
It is with this in mind, and because of what I believe is the
overwhelming consensus on this measure, the bipartisan nature of it,
and the pressing need for it for this year's WTO round, which will
begin in Seattle later this fall, that I wanted to bring this amendment
to the floor and offer it. I believe this Senate will overwhelmingly
endorse this commonsense proposal which has such strong bipartisan
support, which is supported by the Administration, and which would
render such great service to the farmers and ranchers of the United
States of America who lead America in productivity and who can lead
America in terms of our balance of trade and exports.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter detailing the list of the national organizations, American
farmers, and ranchers supporting the amendment, and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

October 19, 1999.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: Thank you for introducing S. 185
which establishes a permanent Chief Agricultural Negotiator
in the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR). Agriculture plays a significant and positive role in
the balance of U.S. trade. As we prepare for the next round
of negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) it is
important that the interests of U.S. agriculture be given
special emphasis.
Agricultural trade will be a primary focus in the next WTO
round. U.S. farmers and ranchers are dependent upon the
continued expansion of agricultural exports and opening of
foreign markets. The issue of foreign agricultural trade
barriers continues to grow and is often unique and difficult
to resolve. The result of the next round of negotiations will
have a major effect on the future of U.S. agriculture. The
enactment of this legislation will send a message to the
member countries of the WTO that the U.S. is serious about
agriculture. It will place a permanent advocate and
specialist at the negotiating table on behalf of U.S.
agricultural interests and establish a position that will be
responsible for enforcing trade agreements relating to U.S.
agriculture.
We pledge our support for S. 185 and look forward to
working with you to ensure its passage.
Sincerely,
American Cotton Shippers Association, American Farm Bureau
Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American Meat
Institute, American Soybean Association, Animal Health
Institute, Cenex Harvest States, CF Industries, Chicago Board
of Trade, Corn Refiners Association, Inc., Farmland
Industries, Inc., Florida Phosphate Council.
Idaho Barley Commission, International Dairy Foods
Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National
Association of Animal Breeders, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers
Association, National Cotton Council, National Farmers Union,
National Grain Sorghum producers, National Grange, National
Milk Producers Federation.
National Pork Producers Council, National Sunflower
Association, Nestle USA, Northwest Horticultural Council,
Novartis Corporation, The Fertilizer Institute, United Fresh
Fruit & Vegetable Association, US Apple Association, US
Canola Association, US Dairy Export Council, US Rice
Producers Association, US Wheat Associates, US Rice
Federation, Wheat Export Trade Education Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, let me commend the
distinguished Senator from Missouri for his leadership on agricultural
trade issues. I congratulate him for his knowledge, for his leadership
on these issues, and the effectiveness with which he deals with them. I
want him to know I rise in strong support of his amendment.
The USTR has had an agricultural ambassador at USTR. In my judgment,
it has been a most effective tool for furthering our agricultural trade
interests. It is my position that making this a permanent position
would be good policy, well deserved by the agricultural sector which,
of course, has consistently fought for trade liberalization.
Again, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Missouri and say
I look forward to working with him on this critical issue.
Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to address some of the
arguments that have been raised during the debate today and earlier.
They were worthy arguments that merit our attention. But I do believe
the proponents of this legislation have a more than adequate response.
One of the questions that has been raised is, Why take this bill up
now? Some of my colleagues have questioned why we are. Let me help them
by putting this in context.
Section 134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which passed the
Congress in 1994, just 5 years ago, directed the President to develop a
comprehensive trade and development policy for the countries of Africa.
That provision originated with Senator Daschle, now the distinguished
minority leader. In the statement of administrative action that
accompanied the act, the President made it very clear the first
measures he intended to consider in complying with that congressional
mandate were measures to:

. . . remove impediments to U.S. trade with and investment
in Africa, including enhancements in the GSP program, for the
least developed countries.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished leader here. I am happy to
yield to the distinguished leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Amendment No. 2335 Withdrawn

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw the pending amendment, No.
2335.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
withdrawn.

[[Page 26961]]

Amendment No. 2340 to Amendment No. 2334

(Purpose: To establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of
the United States Trade Representative)

Mr. Lott. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator Ashcroft and others and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] for Mr. Ashcroft,
for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Robb,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Helms, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thomas, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Grams, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Crapo, proposes an
amendment numbered 2340 to amendment No. 2334.

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

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. . CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

(a) Establishment of a Position.--There is established the
position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of
the United States Trade Representative. The Chief
Agricultural Negotiator shall be appointed by the President,
with the rank of Ambassador, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(b) Functions.--The primary function of the Chief
Agricultural Negotiator shall be to conduct trade
negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S.
agricultural products and services. The Chief Agricultural
Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S.
agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator
shall perform such other functions as the United States Trade
Representative may direct.
(c) Compensation.--The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall
be paid at the highest rate of basic pay payable to a member
of the Senior Executive Service.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I yield the floor for discussion of
this amendment, let me reiterate to my colleagues my hope we can
continue to consider trade-related amendments to this important African
trade CBI legislation.
I know earlier Senator Reid offered and debated a trade-related
amendment. I think that was the right approach. I thank him for doing
that. I encourage all Members who have amendments relating to the
pending subject to work with the managers who are here, ready to work,
have their amendments offered and disposed of.
Again, this amendment has, I believe, very broad support across the
aisle. I think it is the right thing to do, and I am still anxious for
us to find a way to get to cloture so we can have the final amending
process and debate on this bill and pass it.
This would be a major step for the Senate. Of course, then we still
have to go to conference with the House, which has a very different
approach from ours to this legislation. It will be a tough conference.
But this legislation is supported by the managers on both sides of the
aisle, by myself, by Senator Daschle, I believe, and by the President.
I hope we can continue to look to find a way to move this legislation
to a conclusion.
We can get cloture on Friday, and then I believe by Tuesday or
Wednesday of next week, we could be completed with this legislation. We
will continue to work to seek a way to achieve that. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the majority leader's desire to
finish this legislation. I have indicated publicly I want to work with
him to find a way to resolve the matters that are outstanding so we can
get to final passage. It is regrettable that the tree was filled before
a single amendment could be debated and disposed. The majority leader
and I have had conversations in the past, and he is, I am sure,
sensitive to the knowledge that this tactic compels Democrats to oppose
cloture in order to protect the right of Members to offer an amendment.
Filling the tree actually frustrates the majority leader's stated
intention of speedy passage. We could have had a number of amendments
today. That has been precluded now because we are in this situation
where Senators are prohibited from offering amendments. It is pointless
to fill the tree now. We could have allowed amendments for at least 2
days while cloture ripened. If amendments and a good debate and votes
were allowed, I think we could have built support for cloture. Under
the circumstances, however, there will continue to be a pent-up
frustration due to the inability on the part of Senators on both sides
of the aisle to offer amendments.
In a sense, filling the tree plays into the hands of the opponents of
the legislation. Democrats can never support preemptive filling of the
tree or preemptive filing of cloture because I think, in large measure,
it is a real affront to the rights of every Senator who wishes to play
a part in any debate in this body. While I oppose many of the
amendments that could be contemplated and could be offered, I support a
Senator's right to offer them.
The majority leader said today he believed he only filled the tree
once before in 1999. In fact, this is the seventh time this year he has
resorted to this approach. There were six previous occasions: March 8,
1999, S. 280, the Education Flexibility Act; April 22, 1999, Social
Security lockbox; April 27, 1999, the Y2K Act; April 30, 1999, S. 557,
Social Security lockbox; June 15, 1999, Social Security lockbox; and
July 16, 1999, Social Security lockbox.
In addition, of course, the majority leader has twice preemptively
filed cloture on measures immediately after calling them up and then
moved to other business in order to prevent amendments or debate. That
occurred on June 16, 1999, on H.R. 1259, the Social Security and
Medicare Safe Deposit Act, and on September 21, 1999, on S. 625, the
Bankruptcy Reform Act.
After using these coercive tactics on all of these occasions, I would
hope we might learn that they do not work. We do not operate under the
rules of the House. We must insist on Senators' rights to offer
amendments, even if we ultimately will reject those amendments.
That is not to say that dilatory tactics that go on and on are
something that I will support. I will support cloture at some point.
But I also support strongly the right of a Senator on the other side of
the aisle or a Senator on this side of the aisle to offer an amendment,
relevant or not relevant, at least initially.
I respect the Senator's decisions as I always do. I just differ with
him in this case. It seems to me if we want to kill this bill, this is
the way to do it. If we want to pass the bill, then it seems to me the
majority of Democrats will join with the majority of Republicans in
finding a way with which to deal with these amendments and ultimately
pass this legislation. We can do it, but if we are going to do it, we
have to take down this tree. It has to happen sooner rather than later
so we do not waste any more time than we have already.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can respond for a moment further, this
is a trade bill. This is a bill the Senate would like to pass, I
believe. We tried to do fast-track legislation. I believe that was last
year or maybe the year before. We did not quite get that done.
This is a major opportunity for us to do something that will be good
for America, good for our individual States and constituents, I
believe, and good for the Central American countries, the Caribbean
area, and Africa.
It is a trade bill. The idea that Senators on both sides of the aisle
would bring up issues which would clearly deadlock the Senate and make
it highly unlikely that we could get to a reasonable conclusion at a
time when we are approaching the end of the session--I have already
been told of Senators' desires to offer an amendment dealing with
sanctions and their support for a sanctions bill on this side. I
understand Senators on the other side said: If you don't offer it, we
will offer it.
Clearly, that is an issue we do need to get into. The question of how
we

[[Page 26962]]

deal with sanctions, particularly agricultural sanctions, needs to be
thought through carefully. The relevant committees would get into that,
have hearings, give thought to it, and have a bill reported out which
we could take up, in and of itself, separately in the next session of
this Congress next year.
I had a Senator indicate he wants to offer fast track to this bill
which, by the way, I support. At least it is a free trade amendment. It
clearly is one that will cause a great deal of consternation on the
Democratic side of the aisle, perhaps on both sides of the aisle.
Plus, I was told by Senator Wellstone he wanted an agricultural
amendment. I have been told there is a gun amendment pending, even
though we spent 2 weeks debating juvenile justice and gun amendments
earlier this year. I was told three Senators might be looking at
campaign finance reform again.
Basically to empty our out basket on issues we have already voted on
this year causes tremendous problems and delays in completing this very
important trade legislation.
I will be glad, once again, to enter a unanimous consent agreement
that we go forward and consider first-degree amendments, relevant
amendments, on the trade bill. There are a lot of amendments that
Senators want to offer that relate to the bill before us.
To the American people, do you understand me? The complaint is: We
cannot debate gun amendments, agricultural sanctions, and farm
amendments on a trade bill, on a bill that has bipartisan support and
Presidential urging. I realize it may be within the rules, but I do not
think it is a way to get this bill done.
I hope we can keep looking for a way to move it forward. I do not
want to be in a position of trying to give aid and comfort to the
opposition to this legislation. Obviously, that is not my preference,
but Senator Hollings is going to avail himself of the rules and he will
be very willing to help other Senators who want to offer extraneous
amendments if that will be helpful to his cause.
He is smiling and I am smiling because I know exactly what he is up
to. He is doing an excellent job in trying to stop this legislation he
has made clear he is opposed to. That is the way the Senate works. If
one feels strongly and one Senator is willing to spend the time and use
the rules, he can cause problems and delay a bill.
As far as using the tree, I did not invent the process. I must
confess, I was surprised it has been used as much as it has this year.
It has been a longer year than I thought, perhaps, or maybe it is a
better tool than I had remembered.
Still, I will work with the managers of the bill and Senator Daschle,
and if there is a key to unlock this bill to get it to its conclusion,
I am willing to look for it. I hope we will not, though, as I said,
empty out our baskets on both sides of the aisle and come up with
everything we have been harboring in our heart of hearts over the past
weeks or months.
Let's keep our eye on the bill. This is a big, important bill. There
are countries all over the world looking at us saying: Will they keep
their word? The President has gone to Central America, I believe,
twice--I know for sure once--and said he wants this; we want to help
the Caribbean Basin countries and the Central American countries.
I know he wants to do that, and so do I. I have been there. I have
met with the Presidents. I have met with the Ambassadors. They are
desperate for help. The good thing about it is this is a way we can
help them and help ourselves.
In my State, we are going to produce the cotton. We are going to put
the fabric together and ship it to Central America through a port. They
are going to finish off the product, send it back to the port, and it
is going to be available to the American people at a reasonable price.
Everybody wins: American product, American workers, American dock
workers, Central American jobs, then back to America where American
consumers will get a fair price for this material. That is just one
example. And there are many others.
So I certainly understand what Senator Daschle is saying. I know
there is a pent-up demand to offer these various and sundry amendments.
I understand that, but I do not feel I have any particular obligation
to go out of my way to accommodate that.
Sooner or later, the time will come when these things are going to
come up, one way or the other. I indicated to Senator Wellstone, I
would like to know the details of what his amendment is to see if maybe
it could be brought up freestanding. I am not so sure we would not want
to just say, OK, bring it up. Let's have some limited debate and vote
on it. But if you open that door, where and when does it end?
To spend a week on this bill, I was prepared to do that. To spend 2
weeks on it, I am not sure we want to do that. We have to be able to
bring an end to this by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
That enables and strengthens the hand of the Senator from South
Carolina. He knows that we are not willing to run this train endlessly.
If we had 2 or 3 weeks, we could grind it down. But I hope that we
would not have to do that because we do have some other issues that
people on both sides of the aisle do want to do. We need to try to see
if we can work out a way to do it.
Well, I am repeating myself. I understand what Senator Daschle is
saying, and I understand the frustration. But the way to get this done
is to continue to see if we can work out an agreement, and then get
cloture Friday. Sixty votes; we are going to get probably 52, 53
Republicans who will vote for cloture to go on to the substance of the
bill. If we can get 6 or 8 or 10 Democrats--just 6 or 8 or 10--that is
all it would take, and we would be on this bill, and we would be done
with it by next Wednesday. That is a worthy goal. I hope we can achieve
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Let me make the majority leader an offer.
He says, if there is a way to work this out, we can do it. I think he
could get 30 Democratic votes, maybe even 40, on cloture on Friday if
we tear down the tree and allow amendments to be offered.
We are talking about two things. We are talking about a Member's
right to offer amendments, but we are also talking about the worthiness
of the amendment on this particular issue, as the majority leader has
stated now on several occasions, rightfully so.
I would be willing to join with the majority leader in doing one of
two things. Our predecessors came up with some ingenious ways with
which leadership can deal with amendments they don't want to see
added--tabling motions and second degree amendments.
I would be willing to work with the majority leader on tabling
motions and on second degrees in order to deal with amendments that he
and I do not believe are meritorious. And I can already see the wheels
turning. He is thinking: Well, there's going to be a difference between
what he thinks and I think. But I believe we can work that out. I think
we could have an understanding, even ahead of time, about what that
means. But it would give Senator Hollings, it would give Senator
Wellstone, it would give Senator Ashcroft, it would give everyone who
has an amendment the opportunity to offer amendments. The relevant
ones, the pertinent ones, we ought to support. The ones that are not in
keeping with the spirit of this legislation, we might choose to oppose.
I am prepared to work with the majority leader to see if we might
find a way to accommodate that. I want to see this bill pass. The
President has insisted that we do all that we can to pass it. Our
ranking member and the chairman have done all that they can to get us
to this point. It passed by voice vote out of the Finance Committee.
There ought to be a way we can get this done, if not in the timeframe
that the majority leader has suggested, certainly in not too long a
period after that.
But I have to oppose cloture under these circumstances. And there
will not be, I would hope, a Democratic defection on cloture because we
are not

[[Page 26963]]

talking now about CBI; we are talking about a Member's right to offer
an amendment. And I hope there isn't a Democrat who will say that that
right isn't worth protecting under any circumstances.
So that is my offer. I am prepared to sit down this afternoon. We can
find a way to do this. This isn't it.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 2340

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the pending amendment
put forward by Senator Ashcroft.
Both leaders were previously up and talking on the floor about moving
the bill forward. I think the underlying Ashcroft amendment is actually
a pretty good way to move things forward.
It is something about which most of the parties agree. It is about an
ambassador position at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. I think
that is an important and worthy goal. I do not know of anybody here who
actually opposes it. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee has
spoken already in favor of it. Here is a way maybe we can start to move
this train forward.
I want to address it from a couple of perspectives, if I could,
because I think this is an important aspect for my colleagues to listen
and learn a little bit about.
This is at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, which is our lead
trade negotiator. We are going into the Seattle Round, which the United
States will be hosting, of the World Trade Organization. This is the
premier set of trade talks.
Agriculture is the lead issue that is going to be discussed during
this round of trade talks. We do not have a permanent ag negotiator at
the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. So we are going into trade
negotiations, which the United States is hosting, where the lead issue
is agriculture and we do not have an ambassador with permanent status.
That amendment is something I think most people in this body would
actually support, perhaps unanimously. I hope we can move this bill
forward.
I am glad that we are having some discussions about how we might be
able to move this bill forward.
Here is a pretty simple, commonsense amendment. Most of our States
have some agriculture in them. Here would be a representative who could
help us make that trade go forward.
This position within the U.S. Trade Representative's Office has been
established on an interim basis. It was not put in on a permanent
basis. It was thought: Let's try this for a little period of time. It
has proven to be effective.
My State of Kansas is a major agricultural exporting State. I think
we are sixth in the country as far as agricultural exports. It is a key
part of our economy. Being able to export food products is an important
part of what we do, as well. So to be able to have somebody with an
ambassador status to be able to address these sorts of trade
negotiating issues at the USTR is important to my State. It is very
important.
It is particularly important now when we are having so much
difficulty with farm prices. Almost all of that is due to our inability
to crack into markets around the world. Whether it is dealing with
China and some of their trade barriers, whether it is dealing with the
Europeans and their trade subsidies, their export subsidies, whether it
is dealing with tariffs globally, the United States faces high
agricultural tariffs around the world.
The United States has some of the lowest agricultural tariffs. This
trade ambassador would make this a central focus. It would be her or
his job to make sure we keep focused on that particular issue. That is
an important one. It is vitally important in this body. It is important
across this country, and it is certainly important to my State.
I think it would be an important signal for us to send to the other
countries around the world that will be convening in Seattle the latter
part of November, the first part of December; that the United States
values agriculture; that the signal we are sending is: We are going to
beef up the status of the people who we have negotiating agricultural
issues. We are going to do so on a permanent basis.
I think, to date, a lot of times other countries have doubted our
resolve on some issues, maybe questioned our willingness to hang in
there. And here is the signal to send: No. This is important. We are
going to stay in there. We are going to stick with this particular
issue.
This is another way we can send that signal. This amendment makes
this a clear priority for the United States; that we establish this on
a permanent basis.
Agriculture is a lead export industry for the United States. Some
have different figures, but either the top or the second leading export
of the United States is agriculture and food products. One would think
you would have somebody of an ambassadorial status who would be our
lead negotiator and could speak with some authority and have not only
the title but the status to be able to do so. This amendment is
straightforward. This person will exist at the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office and have a permanent ambassadorial rank.
It sends an important signal, not only to our trade opponents
agriculturally around the world; it sends an important signal to our
agricultural producers in this country. My parents, my brother who
farms full time, we say to them, it is important we have somebody of
status dealing with agricultural trade upon which you are so dependent
for your livelihood.
I think many times farmers in this country, particularly after the
passage of the Freedom to Farm Act, said Freedom to Farm won't work
unless you have freedom to aggressively market. Freedom to market means
we have to pound open doors around the world to let our farmers and
producers have a fair shot. This helps send a signal to our farmers
that we meant it.
We meant it when we said freedom to farm also means we are also going
to push freedom to market. Freedom to market means you have to be able
to get your foot in the door. Right now they can't get their foot in
the door in a lot of places. We have sanctions on a number of countries
around the world. We also have high tariffs on a number of places
around the world. This sends a signal to our farmers, the agricultural
industry, to our agricultural processors, and our agricultural
exporters that we deem this to be an important topic as well. I think
it is altogether appropriate for us to want that.
We do have people at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office who are
very supportive of agriculture, but there are thousands of different
issues to deal with of an export nature. They go across many different
industries. It is impossible for the U.S. Trade Representative to
constantly keep a strong focus on the lead export industry in the
country. They have a lot of other matters with which to deal. This will
help keep that focus there within the U.S. Trade Representative's
Office as well and do so on a permanent basis.
I rise to speak on behalf of this particular industry, on behalf of
this particular position. I think it sends the right signal to our
opponents who are against us in agricultural trade. I think it sends
the right signal to our allies who want to open up agricultural trade
opportunities that we think it is important. I think it sends a good
signal to our agricultural producers that we deem this as important and
that freedom to farm, to work, has to have freedom to market on top of
that. I think that works well.
Clearly, a majority of the body wants to pass this bill. A
supermajority of this body wants to pass this bill. This is an
important trade initiative the chairman and ranking member have put
forward. This amendment could help us move forward because it is an
amendment which is probably unanimously supported. So as a facilitating
effort, to try to move the total package forward, I think this one is a
good start. I submit to my colleagues and to the leadership it is a
good possibility.
I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for the excellent

[[Page 26964]]

work he has done on agricultural trade issues, which is important to
his State as well, supporting this particular amendment and putting
together a very important trade bill. I hope to be a part of the
process to make sure it moves forward. I hope those who seek to stop it
can be heard, but let us have a clear vote on this particular issue so
we can have the will of the body be done.
I congratulate the chairman and thank him for his efforts and work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished leader came to the
floor to withdraw his amendment and substitute the amendment of the
Senator from Missouri. He remarked, in the first instance, that we have
to hasten it along. We would like to have had the bill up. We would
like to have had fast track.
Then he insists on fast track on this particular bill. He filled the
tree right back up again; namely, we cannot offer amendments. So in one
breath he says he would like to have fast track and he is instituting
fast track on this particular trade measure. He is an outstandingly
talented individual, a fine looking gentleman, and so he stands there
with that smile, so reasonable and says: I would like to be sure to
check these amendments; we have to make sure they are relevant; I will
go along with the Ashcroft agricultural amendment, but I haven't gone
along with the Wellstone agricultural amendment.
We heard earlier this morning, of course, that the Wellstone
agricultural amendment is not relevant. You can look at this bill. You
can go right on down the list. You can find out that it is trade
benefits for the Caribbean Basin Initiative. They have cover over of
tax on distilled spirits, Generalized System of Preferences, trade
adjustment assistance affecting the welfare of America's workforce.
Nothing in here on agriculture for the CBI and the sub-Sahara.
Senator Wellstone, who has been trying since January to get up an
agricultural amendment, has been put down. He tried all day yesterday
and was put down this morning.
But if you want to take one of my friend's agricultural amendments--
namely, the distinguished Senator from Missouri, who is running for
reelection--well, wait a minute now, let's withdraw that last amendment
I had and let's put up the irrelevant agricultural amendment of the
Senator from Missouri. Irrelevant absolutely.
Anybody knows a measure of this kind would go before government ops
about an agriculture negotiator in the trade office.
And then the argument: We have the President and the leaders and
otherwise and so many cosponsors. Well, I have the minimum wage
amendment the President has been trying to get up all year long. I have
the minimum wage amendment the minority leader would like to have a
vote upon. I have a minimum wage amendment that doesn't have 31 but has
27 cosponsors.
It sort of fits the pattern, is my point, of the reasoned argument of
the distinguished majority leader. But no, not that Wellstone
agricultural amendment. That is irrelevant, and we don't want to waste
the time because we would be here 2 weeks. We would be here 2 months.
We are not going to stand for that, but let us have the agricultural
amendment of the Senator from Missouri.
Well, that is why I was smiling at my distinguished leader. I was
smiling at his duplicity. There it is. You can see it for yourself. I
hate to use the word ``arrogant,'' but there is an element of that in
this particular procedure. What it insists upon is: I want my way. I am
going to control it. You can't put up your amendment.
And then they act dismayed when we don't vote cloture. Well, we just
won't vote on the agricultural amendment now. We can keep on debating,
if that is the procedure they want to continue and insist upon.
There isn't any question in my mind about agriculture. I will never
forget, some years back we had $21--it got up to $23 billion--the best
plus balance we have ever had of any commodity is America's
agriculture. We have soybeans. I put in a grain elevator when I was
Governor so I know about farmers. I know about soybeans. I know about
cotton.
I know about exports, and everyone is for America's agriculture,
except we oppose that Freedom to Farm thing that wrecked American
agriculture--free market forces, free market forces. So they grabbed it
up, and all the farmers took the money and ran 3 years ago. Now, the
price has gone down and they are broke and they need assistance. That
is why the Senator from Minnesota has been on the floor, to try to get
some help for America's agriculture, not that bureaucracy over in the
office of the Trade Representative for the purpose of adding another
payroll over there. That is the typical Washington political solution:
Give another title, add another payroll; just move another little bit
on the special trade representative.
And everybody knows that when we come to agriculture, we go to the
Secretary of Agriculture, and he is there at every table every time we
debate because he is steeped in the agricultural needs of the United
States of America, and that is why we made good agricultural
agreements. I want them to point out a bad agricultural agreement,
other than, of course, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement,
which has the Senators from North Dakota on durum wheat all over the
floor here. They are trying to keep them from dumping on the North
Dakota wheat farmers. We all know that. It hasn't worked, and
everything else like that, but that is exactly what they want--like
they are dumping my textiles, killing 420,000 textile jobs since NAFTA.
And there it goes.
Then they come around, and let me say that I am glad they removed
that sandwich bowl. I will yield in a second. I know there are
important statements to be made, and I need help in trying to stop this
freight train, stop this steamroller. I have been up here 33 years, and
I am still the junior Senator, and I have been trying to get a point of
importance with respect to the budget, and nobody listens to me on
that. I keep calling it a deficit. The Congressional Budget Office
keeps reporting it as a deficit.
The law--section 13.301 of the Budget Act--says that the President
and the Congress cannot report a budget with the Social Security moneys
in it that would cause it to be a surplus. They violate that, and
nobody pays attention to us. Of course, they come up and say the
interest payments, which exceed the defense budget and the Social
Security budget, and all other budgets--a billion dollars a day. When
President Johnson balanced the budget, it was only $16 billion for the
entire year. In 200 years of history, the cost of all the wars, from
the Revolution right up to World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam,
we still had less than a trillion-dollar debt, and the interest cost
was only $16 billion.
Now, without the cost of a war since that time--the gulf war
incidently was taken care of by the Saudis and others--what has it
soared to? To almost $5 trillion or $6 trillion, or something--a
trillion-dollar debt and an interest cost the CBO reports as $356
billion. But with interest rates and Mr. Greenspan, it is bound to go
up. We are seeing all the signs about consumer confidence. We know it
is going to be over a billion a day.
So we have fiscal cancer. So we go down this morning at 8 o'clock and
borrow a billion and add it to the debt. Tomorrow morning, Friday
morning, Saturday morning, Sunday morning, every day for this fiscal
year 1999, I will make a bet with anybody, and let them pick out the
odds, that they will see a billion dollars a day. Why? Because we are
not willing to pay for the Government we are getting. We were willing
to, again, add another $100 billion to the deficit just as the year
ended, not even a month ago, September 30 of this year--$103 billion
more. They won't call that bill the Balanced Budget Act or the Social
Security lockbox. I will put it in a lockbox. I got together with the
Administrator of Social Security and I said: Write me a bill that will
be a true lockbox. I

[[Page 26965]]

have it. It is hidden in the Budget Committee. They know how to hide
it. They don't even want to talk about it. I can't get a hearing on it.
I have asked for a hearing. They totally ignore you.
But this one says you take that money and immediately redeem it to
the credit of Social Security. And don't put in an IOU the first of the
month every month. Put the money back into the Social Security trust
fund, just as corporate America is required.
Now I am back to my friend, Denny McLain. We passed the 1994 Pension
Reform Act and we said: Look, these fast takeover artists come in and
pay off the company debt with the pension fund and then take the rest
of the money and run. People who have been working 30, 40, even 50
years, are left high and dry with no pensions. So we put in the Pension
Reform Act of 1994 making it a felony to pay off the company debt with
the pension moneys.
Unfortunately, one of the all-time great pitchers--which is
significant during this World Series fever--Denny McLain of the Detroit
Tigers, became head of a corporation and paid off the debt with the
company fund. He was sentenced to a prison term for a felony. If you
can find little Denny in whatever cell he is in, tell him next time to
run for the Senate. You get the good government award when you take the
pension money of the people's Social Security fund and pay off your
debt, so that you can talk about surplus, surplus, surplus, surplus
when you are spending $100 billion more than you are taking in and you
have got deficits, deficits, deficits as far as the eye can see.
That is why I told the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee
I would jump off the Capitol dome when he put up that plan called the
Balanced Budget Act. They use that jargon and those titles, and the
silly press picks up the language and headlines it.
So what do we do? We find out, Heavens above, that we are like
Tennessee Ernie Ford, ``another day older and deeper in debt.'' And
now, instead of 356, if we only paid out $16 billion on a pay-as-you-go
basis, since President Lyndon Johnson's day, we would have $340 billion
to spend. For what? For agriculture. For what? For the research at the
National Institutes of Health. For what? For Kosovo expenses. For what?
For all the housing the Secretary of Housing has promulgated, and
everything else like that.
We could go down and provide for all the programs you could possibly
think of. You can double WIC, Head Start, any education programs, just
double the education budget. And we can still have what? A tax cut. And
still have what? Pay down the debt. With $340 billion--we are spending
$340 billion. We are forced to spend it. It is a tax--a tax. What you
are doing is raising taxes. You don't want to say it, but you have to
pay it, you have to borrow it every day, a billion dollars a day. It is
a tax on the American people. With a sales tax, I can get a school;
with a gas tax, I can get a highway; with this tax, I get nothing. I
served on the Grace Commission on waste, fraud, and abuse. This is the
biggest waste ever created in the history of any government. They don't
want to talk about that. They want to talk about the sub-Sahara.
We are building libraries down in Little Rock now. We are headed for
the last roundup. So if we can show that we did something in Africa,
and we did something in the CBI, oh isn't it wonderful? The President
wants the minimum wage. Leaders want the minimum wage. I have 27
cosponsors who want the minimum wage. It is relevant. Trade adjustment
assistance is relevant to the workforce of America and minimum wage is
just as relevant to the workforce of America.
If the majority leader would come out here and say, all right, I will
let you have the agricultural amendment, or rather we should say we
will have this agricultural amendment, and the distinguished Senator
from Missouri, if he just calls up our minimum wage, and we will agree
to 5 minutes to a side, and 10 minutes, and vote. They don't want to
vote. They want the political cover of parliamentary maneuver, acting
as if it is serious here, and we could work this out, and this is a big
responsibility on my leader, but we have to listen to both sides, and
we have to be able to move legislation.
We are not going to move any minimum wage. We are not going to move
any campaign finance reform. Even though they are relevant?
Time magazine came out day before yesterday and said it is relevant.
They wrote a whole article. I refer again to pages 50 and 51. Everybody
can read it.
Campaign finance reform is relevant. There isn't any question on this
particular bill. The magazines are writing it, but the Senators can't
see it. The Parliamentarians can't understand it. They couldn't call
that relevant because why? Because the majority leader says you don't
call that relevant. You don't call that agricultural amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota relevant, but call mine: Look I have come all
the way back to the floor and withdrawn my part of the tree, and put up
immediately my friend's amendment on agriculture, and yes, it's
relevant. We are going to be represented in agriculture. I can tell you
now, but they are going to have some bureaucracy. And that could be a
good speaking point when I run for reelection myself. I hate to have to
explain why I have to oppose this to my farmer friends because that is
going to cause the farm problem in America, as if we didn't have a
special Trade Representative with the title of ambassador.
I thank the distinguished chairman of our Finance Committee for
finally removing that sandwich bowl. I didn't get over there and see it
in the debate. But I see they have, these folks who are interested in
textile jobs: the Bank of America, Bechtel, City Group, Daimler-
Chrysler, Enro, Exxon, Fleur, and Gap that we have on the list of the
Time magazine which is going overseas. They have gone over. Sara Lee
and Fruit of the Loom. Actually Fruit of the Loom is already organized
in the Cayman Islands as a foreign corporation. McDonalds just sells
hamburgers. They wouldn't care if you came naked to buy a hamburger.
Modern Africa Fund Managers, Philip Morris, Amoco, Bally's Lakeshore
Resort--come on--Mobile, Occidental, Texaco. Where is anybody? The
African Growth and Opportunity Act is not clear.
I could keep on talking down and down the list.
I don't know who is going to protect the jobs and the manufacturing
capacity of the United States of America. I don't believe in
obstructionism. I believe in moving forward. I don't believe there is,
other than budget, a more important issue than the matter of
manufacturing capacity here in the United States of America, on which I
have gone down before and will go again. But there is no doubt we will
have the opportunity to point out how we are losing out. We don't have
anything to export. We have hollowed out the industrial might of the
United States.
The reason they don't listen, I take it now, is they have a candidate
for the President who is mixing that in with Hitler and World War II
and everything else and all kinds of nonsense. So we lose credibility.
Anybody can talk free trade, free trade, dignified, credible,
respected, and anybody who talks about protection of the industrial
strength of America is some kind of kook. I think they said, ``Unite,
we nutcakes.'' Michael Kelly in his column this morning: ``Unite, we
nutcakes.''
So here comes another nutcake who is trying to protect American jobs,
and is looked upon now by the leadership as getting in the way. Why
don't I be more reasonable, and everything else of that kind? Why don't
they be more reasonable?
Why don't they allow me to put up Shays-Meehan, which passed
overwhelmingly, and for which we have a tremendous need? Why don't they
let me put up the minimum wage, which is relevant to the trade
adjustment assistance and welfare of the workers? They need it in
America.
Why don't we agree to a time? We are not delaying--5 minutes to a
side. We can vote this evening on both of those bills, and they can go
to all of their appropriations bills that they want so we can get away
from this so-called fill up the tree and fast track on this trade bill.
They have fast track. They know

[[Page 26966]]

it. Don't come out and complain and say: We would like to have gotten
fast track. Parliamentarily, they have instituted fast tack. That is
the position they put the Senator from South Carolina in, and those in
international trade.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to
proceed as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

privilege of the floor

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tony
Martinez, a legislative assistant in my office, be allowed floor
privileges during the pendency of this introduction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S.
1806 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
(The remarks of Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Craig
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1814 are located in today's Record
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I was taking the
opportunity to address some of the arguments that have been raised
during the debate on this bill these past several days. Some of my
colleagues have questioned why we are taking this bill up now. Let me
help them by putting this in context.
Section 134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which passed the
Congress in 1994, directed the President to develop a comprehensive
trade and development policy for the countries of Africa. That
provision originated with Senator Daschle, now the distinguished
minority leader.
In the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Act,
the President made clear that the first measures he intended to
consider in complying with that congressional mandate, were measures
to:

Remove impediments to U.S. trade with and investment in
Africa, including enhancements in the GSP program for least-
developed countries.

Section 134 of the URAA recognized that, as a continent, Africa had
been left behind in trade terms. New approaches were needed to
integrate Africa fully into the world economy, to allow Africa to take
full advantage of the world trading system, and to ensure that Africans
themselves had the opportunity to guide their own economic destiny.
Now, 5 years after the Congress originally endorsed the idea, this
legislation responds directly to that mandate. The legislation offers a
down payment on a new and more constructive relationship with the
African continent--one as partners with similar interests in expanding
economic opportunity and raising living standards in all our countries.
The President has for the past 2 years indicated in his State of the
Union Address his intent to press ahead with this legislation. He
identified this legislation as one of his top trade and foreign policy
initiatives. In his trip to Africa this past year, he committed to move
the bill as part of a new initiative for Africa.
That led to the consideration of this legislation in the 105th
Congress. The House passed its counterpart legislation in the spring of
this past year, the Finance Committee reported out a bill in all
respects the same as that we now have before us, but time ran out
before the Senate could act on the bill.
This year the House once again acted, this time in June. By that
point, the Finance Committee had already reported out the legislation
now on the Senate floor. The Africa bill is timely--indeed, it is past
time we acted on this important measure.
The same holds true for the CBI. A proposal for establishing parity
between the preferences granted Mexico under the NAFTA and those
granted the Caribbean and Central America has been before Congress in
one form or another almost since the NAFTA was implemented in late
1993.
In the 105th Congress, there was considerable effort invested by both
the Ways and Means and Finance Committees in moving counterpart bills.
That work was renewed in the 106th Congress with hearings and markups
before both committees.
The CBI title enjoys the same bipartisan support as does the Africa
title. Indeed, the President's CBI bill, introduced in this session at
his request, is virtually identical to the bill reported from the
Finance Committee bill in both the 105th and 106th Congresses.
The Finance Committee bill enjoys the backing of the leadership and
members on both sides of the aisle. It is, in fact, a testament to the
bipartisan support for this legislation and the considerable push by
the White House that we have been given time to debate this bill now.
It is time to reject the isolationist label, the instinct to ignore
the broader world around us, and the tendency for focus exclusively
inward. It is time to affirm the constructive role that the United
States can play in the wider world and fulfill the leadership the world
expects from the United States. It is time to act.
It is time to act because it is time we made good on the unfulfilled
promises made to both Africa and the Caribbean. An October, 1998,
report of the International Trade Commission makes clear, Africa faces
daunting economic challenges. The ITC report highlights the economic
and structural problems Africa faces in attracting productive
investment.
For all that, the ITC report also reflects the positive changes under
way in Africa. The region's GDP rose by 4.8 percent from 1995 to 1997.
Since 1990, the region has reached a number of agreements eliminating
trade and investment barriers and harmonizing economic policies.
Most of the governments of the region have ``introduced economic
reforms to control budget deficits, and inflation, and to stabilize
currencies.'' They have liberalized ``regulations on trade and
investment,'' reduced tariffs and other import charges and abolished
most price controls.
In addition, many of the governments have begun significant programs
of privatization. In fact, the governments of sub-Saharan Africa raised
``an estimated $5.8 billion from privatization, primarily through
divestitures of utilities and telecommunication firms.''
What this legislation tries to do is meet those governments half way.
It is an effort to open our markets to their products as a way of
reinforcing their own efforts to encourage productive investment and
economic growth.
The legislation is designed to reinforce a growing, the growing
interest in Africa among U.S. businesses. Direct investment by U.S.
firms more than quadrupled in 1997 alone to $3.8 billion, according to
the ITC. We want to encourage that positive trend.
Some may argue that, because this is a grant of unilateral
preferences, it is one-sided--that there will be no benefits to the
United States. What that ignores is the track record of the last
several decades.
Where U.S. investment goes, U.S. trade follows. Significantly, while
U.S. investment was increasing in 1996 and 1997 in sub-Saharan Africa,
our exports to the region experienced a corresponding growth in capital
goods, particularly exports of machinery for use in agriculture and
infrastructure projects.
Africa represents an important opportunity to our farmers as well.
While agricultural exports fell in dollar terms, largely because of the
lower prices available on world markets for all commodities, Africa
represents an important potential market for U.S. food exports as the
continent increasingly looks offshore to meet its needs.
The real issue is whether or not the region will have the wherewithal
to buy what it needs to offset the steady decline in per capita caloric
intake that has accelerated in the last 2 to 3 years. The legislation
before us would help address that problem. By opening our markets to
their products, sub-Saharan African countries can earn the

[[Page 26967]]

foreign exchange needed to purchase food on world markets, including
from U.S. exporters.
Will that be enough? Will this legislation alone be the answer to
Africa's problems? Plainly not. As Senator Grassley indicated in his
eloquent statement opening the debate on this bill last Thursday, this
legislation is no panacea. It is instead a small, but significant step
toward a new economic relationship between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa.
Should this legislation be supplemented by other initiatives? It
should and it must if it is going to work. But, the fact that it is not
the whole answer to Africa's problems or does not reflect all that the
United States might do to help Africans secure their own economic
destiny is no argument against action. It is time to move ahead and
engage constructively with our African partners in the transition they
themselves have begun.
The same holds true for the Caribbean and Central America. Through
the original CBI program, the United States and U.S. private businesses
have played a significant role in the economic progress the region has
made over the past 15 years.
This past year, however, natural disasters eliminated much of the
progress made in the Caribbean and Central America in recent years. The
devastation began with the eruption of a long-dormant volcano that
nearly depopulated the island of Montserrat and nearly erased its
economy in the summer of 1998.
In September of that year, Hurricane Georges severely damaged both
the Dominican Republic and Haiti. An even more devastating hurricane--
Hurricane Mitch--struck Central America in late October and early
November late in the hurricane season.
Honduras and Nicaragua were particularly hard hit, but the hurricane
also did considerable damage to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize.
Hurricane Mitch left 11,000 dead and an even greater number homeless.
Much of the resulting damage was long-term--massive property damage and
soil erosion, the devastation of crop lands and manufacturing sites,
putting thousands out of work. The region will take years to recover.
Those devastating circumstances have given renewed impetus to an idea
that surfaced almost immediately after the implementation of the
NAFTA--the expansion of tariff preferences under the CBI to match those
offered under the NAFTA to Mexico.
Will it work? I am confident it will because the legislation is
modeled on existing production-sharing arrangements in textiles and
apparel and other industries that already account for nearly half of
all imports from the CBI beneficiary countries.
In other words, the program has a proven track record. Indeed,
bilateral trade in textiles and apparel under existing production-
sharing partnerships between U.S. and Caribbean or Central American
firms already accounts for 36 percent of current two-way trade between
the United States and the CBI region.
For all those reasons, the legislation merits our support.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am aware there are other Senators who wish to speak.
I will only take a moment to thank our chairman, our revered chairman,
for his comments, with which I wholly agree, with which the Finance
Committee entirely agrees. This bill comes to you, as he has said, from
a near unanimous committee. Ninety Senators voted, just yesterday, to
move forward.
I would just say, sir, I wish we could have all been present this
afternoon when the Congressional Gold Medal was presented to President
Ford and Mrs. Ford in the Rotunda. The President gave a wonderful
speech, describing the Congress he came into, just as the Cold War
commenced; the extraordinary efforts that the 80th Congress made to
pass the Marshall Plan, for which they were not entirely rewarded by
President Truman, who kept talking about the ``do-nothing'' 80th
Congress. But there you are. Then came President Eisenhower and the
movement to establish NATO and to fund NATO, in which Speaker Rayburn,
Majority Leader Johnson, and great Republicans joined in that matter.
Of his life in politics, in government, he said: I came in and I
remained a moderate on social issues, a fiscal conservative on fiscal
issues, and a convinced internationalist.
That is the America that fought in the dark, that long struggle about
which John F. Kennedy talked. And we prevailed.
The totalitarian 20th century is behind us. Freedoms open up. Are we
now to close down at just the moment when everything we have stood for
as a nation, from the time of Cordell Hull and the Reciprocal Trade
Agreements Act of 1934--every measure we are talking about in this
bill, no, it is not the final end-all effort; it is a part of a
continuing effort that goes back to Trade Adjustment Assistance. It was
established in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. I was involved in
writing that legislation. It said, if you have trade, there will be
winners, there will be losers. We will look after the people who are
temporarily, as it turns out, disrupted, as economic patterns, trade
patterns change.
In 48 hours, or 52 hours, the appropriation for the program,
supported by every President since President Kennedy, expires. The
authorization in fact ended on June 30. Can we let that happen? Can we
believe that we would do this? Surely not.
But unless we are urgently attentive to the matters before us, and
work out what are technical differences, it will go down; and we will
be remembered for ending an era of enormous expansion and example to
the rest of the world, which the Western World is just beginning to
follow on. It is hard to believe.
But listen to what the chairman said and hope in the next 24 hours we
can do this, because we can. And, sir, we must.
Under the rules, President Ford, I believe, has free access to the
floor. I wish he would come on here and talk to each of us one on one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. First of all, let me thank the distinguished ranking member
of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his eloquent remarks.
All I can say is, we must not let that happen. And with the kind of
bipartisan spirit we had in the Finance Committee, it will not happen.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a
period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted
to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I would like to be recognized to conduct morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be
granted to Rebecca Morley of my staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.

____________________

NATIONAL CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION WEEK

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak with respect to
National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. Because of the
efforts of my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Torricelli, and
myself, this Senate passed a bipartisan resolution a last week to
commemorate, during the week of October 24 to 30, National Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention Week.
I think it is appropriate to recognize this problem that is taking
place throughout this country and also recognize what we are trying to
do to alleviate this great problem.

[[Page 26968]]

As a preliminary point, let me commend my colleague, Senator Collins,
for her great efforts in this regard. She has been a true leader in
this issue. She has been someone who has fought the good fight with
respect to this problem. She has participated legislatively. I was very
pleased and honored a few weeks ago to have her join me in Providence,
RI, for a hearing on this issue. I look forward to joining her in a few
weeks in Maine so we can examine the experience in her home State.
I also want to commend my colleague, Senator Torricelli, who also is
very active as a leader in this effort. Indeed, Senator Torricelli and
I have introduced legislation, the Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999,
which is critically important to the future of our children in the
United States.
This importance has been underscored and highlighted by two recent
reports--one earlier this year in January of 1999 by the General
Accounting Office, and another report that has been released recently
under the auspices of the Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning and
the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing.
Both of these reports underscore the need for additional efforts to
eliminate childhood exposure to lead and also to provide additional
support for screening and treatment of children who are exposed to
environmental lead.
Regrettably, there are too many children in this country who are
exposed to lead, typically through old lead paint that may be in their
home. It is particularly critical and crucial to children who are at a
very young age, under the age of 6, because their body is much more
likely to absorb this environmental hazard, and also because those are
exactly the times in which brain nervous systems are developing, where
cognitive skills are being developed. We know lead is the most
pernicious enemy of cognitive development in children.
In the United States, too many children are poisoned through this
constant exposure to low-levels of lead in their atmosphere. This
exposure leads to reduced IQ, problems with attention span,
hyperactivity, impaired growth, reading and learning disabilities,
hearing loss, and a range of other effects.
Lead poisoning is entirely avoidable, if we have the knowledge and
the resources and the effort to prevent young children from being
exposed to lead.
In January of this year, as I indicated, the General Accounting
Office highlighted the problems in the Federal health care system with
respect to lead screening and followup services for children.
We have policies that require all Medicaid children to be screened
for lead. Sadly, we have not achieved that level of 100 percent
screening. We want to reach that goal. Then after screening all of the
children in the United States who may be vulnerable to lead poisoning,
we want to ensure these children have access to followup care.
Identifying poisoned children is only the first step and is only
effective when coupled with proper follow-up care.
Most recently, we received information about that follow-up care from
a report, the title of which is: ``Another Link in the Chain: State
Policies and Practices for Case Management and Environmental
Investigation for Lead-Poisoned Children.'' As I indicated, this report
was sponsored by the Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the
National Center for Lead-Safe Housing.
This report presents a State-by-State analysis of data which
suggests, first, there have been some innovative steps taken by the
States, but unfortunately there are disappointing gaps in the screening
and treatment of children who are exposed to lead throughout the United
States.
There is also a great range among the States in their response to
this problem of childhood lead poisoning. In my own State of Rhode
Island, we have taken some very aggressive steps. Last week, we
dedicated a lead center in Providence, RI, which provides comprehensive
services for lead-poisoned children, including parent education,
medical followup for children who have been exposed, and transitional
housing. Many times the source of the pollution is in the home of these
children, and because of their low income, there is no place for them
to go unless there is this transitional housing. This is an innovative
step forward. I am very pleased and proud to say it has taken place in
my home State.
If you look across the Nation, you find much less progress. Nearly
half of the States have no standards for case management and, thus, the
quality of care lead poisoned children receive is often not consistent
with public health recommendations. There is no real way to ensure
these children are getting the type of care they need because there are
no case management policies. Only 35 States have implemented policies
that address when an environmental investigation should be performed to
determine the source of a child's lead poisoning. There are many States
where there is no way to determine where the source of the pollution is
coming from that is harming the child.
In addition, the report points out that despite the availability of
Medicaid reimbursement for environmental investigation and case
management, more than half the States have not taken advantage of this
Medicaid reimbursement. In addition, despite the emphasis we have in
Medicaid on screening children, only one-third of the States could
report on how many of their lead poisoned children were enrolled in
Medicaid, suggesting that screening data are not being coordinated, and
there really is not comprehensive, coherent screening policy in all too
many States.
Senator Torricelli and I have proposed legislation that would address
these deficiencies. The legislation will improve the management
information systems so States know how many children are screened and
how many children have been exposed. We also encourage them to
integrate all the different agencies and institutions and programs that
serve children so we can have a comprehensive approach. This would
include involving the WIC program in the screening, early Head Start,
maternal and child health care block grant programs, so we have a
comprehensive approach to identifying, treating, following up and
educating with respect to lead exposure.
We are committed to doing that. We are committed to ensuring that
every child in this country, particularly those children who are
beneficiaries of the Medicaid system, have this kind of screening and
followup.
Unfortunately, we have found too many States that are not following
through on their obligations. Of the 38 States that have enrolled
Medicaid children to managed care plans, only 24 reported that their
State's contract with the managed care organization contained any
language about lead screening or treatment services. So, many States
are leaving it up to the managed care company or merely leaving it up
to chance whether or not there are good protocols to follow up on lead
exposure.
In addition to that, more than 40 percent of States reported that no
funding is available to help pay for even a portion of the hazard
control necessary to make a home lead safe for a lead-poisoned child.
There are not the resources to help these families cope with the
reality of homes that are literally poisoning and harming their
children. That is one reason why I joined my colleague, Senator
Torricelli, to address this problem with respect to the Children's Lead
SAFE Act of 1999. We would like to see clear and consistent standards
for screening and treatment to ensure that no child falls through the
cracks. We would to help communities, parents and physicians take
advantage of every opportunity they have to detect and treat lead
poisoning.
This bill is just one element in a comprehensive, coherent approach
to eliminate this preventable disease that afflicts too many children
in this country today.
I was pleased that during the appropriations process, the Senate
supported the President's request for full funding of the lead hazard
control grants program--indeed, particularly pleased when the conferees
agreed with the Senate and maintained this funding. It is absolutely
critical. We will continue

[[Page 26969]]

to press forward in terms of screening and treatment, in terms of
reducing lead hazards in the homes of children, and in terms of
education, so there is no place in this country that fails to recognize
the gravity of this situation where children are poisoned by exposure
to lead.
Indeed, that is why we are here today. This week is National
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. We hope by reserving 1 week a
year to emphasize the challenges we face, to emphasize the steps which
must be taken in the future, we can galvanize additional support so
there is no child in this country who is poisoned by lead, whose
development--physical, mental, social development--is harmed by such
exposure.
At the heart of this effort is the work of many people, but, once
again, I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Susan Collins, who has
taken it upon herself to charge forward to make this hope of a lead-
safe environment for all our children a reality. I am pleased to be
with her sponsoring this resolution, sponsoring this week of
commemoration and also, in the days ahead, working to ensure that all
the children are as free as we can make them from the harm and the
danger of lead exposure.
I ask unanimous consent that the Presidential message recognizing
National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week and the executive
summary of ``Another Link in the Chain,'' be printed in the Record,
following my statement.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington, October 20, 1999.
Warm greetings to everyone observing National Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention Week.
As America's children begin their exciting journey into the
21st century, one of the greatest gifts we can give them is a
healthy start. Sadly, however, many children face needless
obstacles to healthy development in their own homes. Among
the most devastating of these obstacles is lead poisoning.
Today nearly 5 percent of children between the ages of 1 and
5 suffer from this condition. While any child can be
susceptible to lead poisoning and its effects, low-income
children are at a significantly higher risk, since most
children are poisoned by lead-based paint and lead-
contaminated dust and soil that are found in older,
dilapidated housing. For African-American children living in
these conditions, the rate of those who suffer from lead
poisoning is a staggering 22 percent.
The effects of lead poisoning can be serious and
irrevocable. Even low levels of exposure to lead can hinder
children's ability to learn and thrive, reducing their IQ and
attention span and contributing to learning disabilities,
hearing loss, impaired growth, and many other developmental
difficulties. My Administration, through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental
Protection Agency, has taken important steps to eliminate the
threat of lead poisoning. We have provided funding for such
efforts as removing lead-based paint from housing built prior
to 1978, when such paint was outlawed. We have also promoted
increased blood testing of young children to determine the
levels of lead in their blood.
However, when our children's well-being is at stake, we
must do more. I commend the concerned citizens and
organizations participating in this year's observance for
raising awareness of the dangers of lead poisoning and for
teaching families and communities how to prevent it. I urge
all Americans to take this occasion to learn more about lead
poisoning and to take part in local, state, and national
efforts to create a healthier environment for our children.
Best wishes for a successful week.
Bill Clinton.
____

Chapter 1--Executive Summary

The first line of defense in protecting children from lead
poisoning is primary prevention, which means controlling lead
hazards before children are ever exposed to lead. However,
the broad distribution of lead in the U.S. housing stock has
made achieving primary prevention for all children an elusive
goal. As a result, secondary prevention strategies continue
to play a vital role in protecting children from lead
poisoning. Secondary prevention entails identifying the lead-
poisoned child, providing medical care and case management,
identifying the source of the child's lead exposure
(environmental investigation), and then ensuring that any
lead hazards identified are controlled to prevent the child's
further exposure to lead.
Over the past few years, there has been considerable public
attention to and controversy surrounding policies for
screening young children for lead poisoning. There has also
been considerable discussion about primary prevention and
housing-based approaches to primary prevention, as a
consequence of enactment of Title X and federal funding for
the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grants program. In contrast,
there has been little discussion of what actually happens
once a lead-poisoned child is identified. The Alliance To End
Childhood Lead Poisoning and the National Center for Lead-
Safe Housing agreed that it was time to reexamine the
response to lead-poisoned children nationwide. We decided
that characterizing the case management and environmental
investigation services now being provided in each state would
be a useful first step. We hope this report's documentation
of state policies will help sharpen discussion and decision-
making at many levels. This report is timely for at least
four reasons.
First, this report provides the information needed to
ensure that case management and environmental investigation
systems are ``in good working order'' to handle the increased
caseloads that can be expected from expanded lead screening
of high-risk children. Recent reports from the General
Accounting Office (GAO) have focused the spotlight on the
failure of federal health programs to screen high-risk
children for lead poisoning. GAO documented that just 19% of
Medicaid-enrolled children aged 1 through 5 are being
screened as required by law, and that the majority of
children needing case management and environmental
investigation are enrolled in Medicaid. As a consequence,
considerable attention is being paid now to improving lead
screening rates among Medicaid children. In addition, many
states are developing CDC-recommended lead screening plans to
identify and target the highest-risk children for lead
screening.
Second, this report raises a number of policy and program
issues that should be considered as states seek to ensure
that lead-poisoned children enrolled in Medicaid managed care
plans are provided with appropriate follow-up care. Many
states are still developing or fine-tuning their mechanisms
for overseeing and coordinating care with Medicaid managed
care plans, as well as state Children's Health Insurance
Programs.
Third, this report can help to inform a number of pending
policy decisions. The Health Care financing Administration
has been receiving criticism from many quarters for its
policy prohibiting Medicaid reimbursement for analysis of the
environmental samples needed for an adequate environmental
investigation to identify the lead hazards in a poisoned
child's home. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention is currently reviewing the evidence base
for case management services. Finally, U.S. Senators Robert
Torricelli (D-NJ) and Jack Reed (D-RI) and U.S.
Representative Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are introducing federal
legislation to address these issues in Congress.
Fourth, the sharp decline in the number of children with
elevated blood lead levels documented by NHANES III, Phase 2
offers opportunities never before available for using
screening and follow-up measures to advance prevention. For
the first time, the caseload of lead-poisoned children in
jurisdictions historically overwhelmed by the number lead-
poisoned children has become ``manageable.'' We have a
responsibility to respond promptly and humanely to children
with elevated blood lead levels as well as the opportunity to
use these interventions to advance prevention. Childhood lead
poisoning is entirely preventable. But achieving this goal
requires us to sharpen our tools and redouble prevention
efforts, rather than being complacent or uncritically flowing
``established procedures'' by rote.

scope of the survey

The scope of this survey and report is limited to
describing and evaluating the quality of self-reported state
policies and practices for environmental investigation and
case management. This report therefore could not assess state
primary prevention initiatives, lead screening policies and
performance, or even medical care provided to lead-poisoned
children. The most effective state programs are those that
succeed at primary prevention. Once a child is exposed to
lead, the overall effectiveness of the response must be
judged by performance in all three areas of secondary
prevention--and a single weak link in the chain of secondary
prevention activities can undermine the effectiveness of the
entire response. Having exemplary environmental investigation
and case management services is useless if the state fails to
screen children at risk for lead poisoning to identify those
with elevated blood lead levels. Similarly, providing good
environmental investigation and case management services is
pointless if these activities do not trigger action to
control identified lead hazards.
It is also important to be clear about what is meant by
each key term. ``Environmental investigation'' means the
examination of a child's living environment, usually the
home, to determine the source or sources of lead exposure for
a child with an elevated blood lead level. For the purposes
of this report, ``case management'' means coordination,
provision, and oversight of the services to the family
necessary to ensure that lead-poisoned children achieve
reductions in

[[Page 26970]]

blood lead levels. In addition, case management includes
coordination, but not provision and oversight, of the
clinical or environmental care.

survey methodology and responses

To gather the information about current policies and
practices for case management and environmental
investigation, an initial survey and a supplementary survey
were sent to directors of state lead poisoning prevention
programs. In states where these programs do not exist, we
identified knowledgeable respondents by contacting
surveillance grantees of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) or other program staff responsible for lead
services (often a division of the state health department).
Ultimately, we received responses from all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. We also received responses from 15
local lead programs, which allowed us to better characterize
several important dimensions of current practice of state
programs.

key findings and recommendations on initiating services

State blood lead reporting systems
Central reporting of elevated blood lead levels is critical
to ensuring timely follow-up care for lead-poisoned children.
Although nearly all (47) states have a reporting system for
blood lead levels, the utility of the systems for timely
referral of children needing follow-up services varies
considerably. In addition, the lack of uniform national
recommendations for reporting blood lead levels has created a
burden on private laboratories and others that must report
this information to many different states in a variety of
formats, and has made it difficult to assess and compare
blood lead data across states.
CDC should establish national standards for blood lead
reporting to ensure standardization of blood lead data and
enable timely follow-up for lead-poisoned children.
States with blood lead reporting systems should evaluate
the effectiveness of their systems in triggering prompt
identification and follow-up of lead-poisoned children and
address any identified deficiencies.
States without a central reporting system for blood lead
levels should establish one as soon as possible.
Blood lead levels at which services are provided
CDC's 1997 guidance recommends that both case management
and environmental investigation be provided at blood lead
levels of 20 g/dL or persistent levels of 15-19
g/dL. Encouragingly, most states are providing
services to children at or even below the blood lead
thresholds recommended by CDC. For environmental
investigation, 20 states perform environmental investigation
only at blood lead levels at or above 20 g/dL (not
persistent levels above 15 g/dL) and 2 states use a
trigger of 25 g/dL. Since environmental
investigation permits the identification and subsequent
control of lead hazards, early hazard identification by
providing environmental investigation at lower blood lead
levels is a positive preventive measure.
Some states are able to vary the scope of case management
services provided by blood lead level, providing less
intensive services at lower blood lead levels in order to
intervene before blood lead levels rise. Thus, it is not
surprising that many states report offering case management
at lower blood lead levels than recommended by CDC. Six
states offer case management at precisely the level
recommended by CDC, and 28 states offer the service at lower
levels (single levels above 15 g/dL or 10
g/dL). Fourteen states provide case management only
at blood lead levels of 20 g/dL, but not persistent
levels between 15 and 19 g/dL as recommended by CDC.
At a minimum, states should provide case management and
environmental investigation to children at the levels
recommended by CDC, and, resources permitting, preventive
services and environmental investigation to as many children
as possible with blood lead elevations at or above 10
g/dL.

key findings and recommendations on setting standards for services

Case management standards
The lack of national standards for case management of lead-
poisoned children has created variation in approach across
the country, and made achieving reimbursement from Medicaid
and other insurers more difficult. At present, only 29 state
programs indicated they had written standards for case
management. However, a consensus document Case Management for
Childhood Lead Poisoning, developed by the National Center
for Lead-Safe Housing, describing professional standards for
case management for lead-poisoned children already serves as
a guide for some state and local programs. Other
complementary documents exist or are under development.
Any case management protocol or standard must include
certain elements to ensure quality care. Our survey found
that states performed well in some areas, but needed
improvement in others. For example, although most states (43)
provide home visits as part of case management, many programs
make only a single home visit, which is unlikely to be
sufficient for ensuring that steps are taken to improve the
health status of the child. In addition, almost one-third
(29%) of programs fail to inquire about a lead-poisoned
child's WIC status, an important oversight given the
importance of good nutrition for lead-poisoned children.
Because they are an essential part of the solution, families
should be systematically involved in all aspects of the case
management process. Yet, our survey found that more than one-
third of state programs (37%) fail to include families in the
planning process and only one state program indicated that it
routinely refers families to parent support groups in the
community. The indefinite continuation of cases is also a
sign of a weak case management, yet 14 states reported that
they had no criteria for when to close a case.
Case management standards must also describe the specific
interventions to improve the health status of the child that
should be provided by case managers. Nearly all states
provide some type of educational intervention, including
education focused on lead and lead exposure risks, lead-
specific cleaning practices, and nutritional counseling. Two-
thirds of state programs (67%) provide assistance with
referrals to other necessary services and 80% provide follow-
up of identified problems. Six state programs indicate that
they now refer young children routinely to Early Intervention
programs for identification and treatment of possible
developmental problems. Surprisingly, 10 states provide
specialized cleaning services to reduce immediate lead dust
hazards in homes as part of their case management
interventions. However, due to funding considerations, most
of these states are not able to make cleaning available
except in homes in designated target areas and under special
circumstances.
All states should have in place a protocol that identifies
minimum standards for initiation, performance, and tracking
of case management services for lead-poisoned children,
including standards for data collection and outcome
measurements and for professional staffing and oversight.
CDC or its Advisory Committee on Lead Poisoning Prevention
should endorse a set of national standards for case
management for lead-poisoned children, beginning with a
definition of the term case management. The consensus
standards developed by the National Center for Lead-Safe
Housing (Case Management for Childhood Lead Poisoning) offer
a thorough, current, and complete set of expert standards for
quick review and endorsement.
Once national standards are in place, state protocols
should be reviewed for consistency. In the interim, states
should utilize written protocols specifying the services to
be provided along with performance standards and record-
keeping criteria.
Case management standards should include a minimum of two
case management visits to the home of a lead-poisoned child.
State case management protocols should include standards
for assessment, specifically including assessment of WIC
status.
State programs should evaluate the extent to which families
are being involved in case management and make necessary
program modifications to ensure that families are fully
involved in planning, implementation, and evaluation efforts.
States should examine their referral practices to ensure
that parents of lead-poisoned children are routinely referred
to available resources, including community-based parent
support groups, where they exist, in order to connect
families with another source of support and assistance.
All states should have case closure criteria that encompass
reduction in a child's blood lead level and control of
environmental lead hazards and procedures for administrative
closure when needed.
States that routinely follow children until 6 years of age
should evaluate whether such a lengthy follow-up benefits the
child and family.
Case management standards should specify recommended
interventions, including: basic educational interventions;
referrals to Early Intervention services for developmental
assessment, referral services for WIC, housing (emergency and
long-term Solutions), health care, and transportation, as
needed; follow-up of identified problems as needed; and,
follow-up to ensure that families receive needed services.
Environmental investigation standards
State programs vary widely as to what activities constitute
an environmental investigation to determine the source of
lead exposure. Only 35 states have written protocols for
environmental investigation. Where written protocols do
exist, the scope of services and the kinds of data collected
vary extensively. For example, some programs rely almost
exclusively on XRF analysis to test the lead content of
paint, and interpret a positive reading for the presence of
lead-based paint as source identification. Other programs
focus on current pathways of exposure by taking dust wipe and
paint chip samples, assessing paint condition, and in some
cases evaluating exposures from bare soil and drinking water.
And, still other programs operate on a case-by-case basis.
Just 35 states had minimum requirements in place for those
who perform environmental investigations for lead-poisoned
children; most frequently they required state-certified risk
assessors or lead inspectors. Training in the certified
disciplines of risk assessor and lead inspector provides a
core

[[Page 26971]]

foundation of knowledge as well as credentials that may be
important in any legal proceedings. At the same time,
additional training beyond these certified disciplines is
needed, because the scope of the environmental investigation
of a lead-poisoned child is much more comprehensive than a
standard residential lead inspection, and somewhat broader
than a risk assessment.
The responses to our survey do not make it possible to
determine the extent to which states are performing (or
requiring to be performed) clearance testing after work has
done to respond to lead hazards identified in the home of a
lead-poisoned child. Follow-up visits are essential to ensure
that corrective measures were taken and lead safety
precautions followed. Because lead-contaminated dust can be
invisible to the naked eye, clearance dust tests are critical
to ensure the effectiveness and safety of the corrective
measures in the vast majority of situations. Post-activity
dust tests should be taken after completion of any paint
repair or other projects that could generate lead-dust
contamination.
Many program staff expressed frustration that environmental
investigations frequently do not result in any corrective
action. The ultimate measure of the success of an
environmental investigation is the action that results to
control lead hazards to reduce the child's continued lead
exposure. At the extreme, conducting a full environmental
investigation is irrelevant if no measures to reduce lead
exposure occur as a consequence.
States should have a written protocol identifying the
components of an environmental investigation for a lead-
poisoned child. Appropriate flexibility and customization
based on specific case factors and local sources are
legitimate and important elements.
The protocol for environmental investigation should include
routine collection of data on important pathways of exposure
(particularly interior dust lead) and documentation of poor
paint condition. The XRF analyzer should never be relied upon
as the only tool for environmental investigation. Chapter 16
of HUD's Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing provides the most
comprehensive and current guidance for environmental
investigations.
State programs should begin using the more protective dust
lead standards being proposed by EPA and HUD: no higher than
50 g/square foot for floors and 250 g/
square foot for window sills.
Environmental investigations need to generate
``actionable'' data to ensure that all lead hazards
identified are controlled--the ultimate measure of
effectiveness. In most states, improved systems are needed to
document and track corrective actions to control lead hazards
to help ensure that environmental investigations actually
result in health benefits to children.
Health department program staff performing an environmental
investigation for a lead-poisoned child should be trained and
certified as lead professionals. This will serve to increase
professionalism in the field as well as give the results of
the investigation greater standing if challenged in court.
Individuals conducting environmental investigations need
additional training to assess sources of lead exposure beyond
the scope of the traditional EPA/HUD risk assessment.
When state or local programs or managed care organizations
contract environmental investigations out to certified lead
evaluators, it is important that they be charged with
conducting a comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure
sources as described in Chapter 16 of HUD's Guidelines for
the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in
Housing.
State programs need to make clearance dust tests a routine
check to confirm that lead dust hazards are not left behind
after corrective measures are taken in the home of a lead-
poisoned child.
Lead hazard control: Legal authority and resources
Although this survey was not able to quantify the extent to
which state and local programs succeed in controlling hazards
identified in home of a lead-poisoned child, many programs
indicated that this is a major problem. Twenty-eight states,
more than 54%, do not have legal authority to order
remediation of homes with identified lead hazards. More than
40% of all states (22 state programs) indicate that no
funding is available in their state to help property owners
pay for even a portion of the necessary lead hazard control.
No state reported sufficient funds for lead hazard control.
The lack of legal authority to order remediation coupled with
the lack of resources to fund abatement and lead hazard
control is a major stumbling block for lead poisoning
prevention and treatment progress nationally.
States should consider the model legislative language
reflecting the principles and recommended lead-safety
standards of the National Task Force of Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction and Financing developed by the National
Conference of State Legislatures.

key findings and recommendations on financing services

For both case management and environmental investigation,
adequate funding for services is a central challenge to
providing timely and quality services. Most programs have
patched together funding from federal, state, and local
sources as best they can. For case management, 23 states
reported relying primarily on federal funds, 12 states rely
primarily on state funds, and 4 states on Medicaid. Six
states reported a combination of sources. Even in states with
Medicaid reimbursement, Medicaid provides only part of the
support for case management. For environmental investigation,
CDC grant funds are the most common source of funds for
environmental investigation, with 22 states reporting
reliance on this funding source; some use CDC funds
exclusively. Medicaid reimbursement is the next most common
source of funding for environmental investigation, with 20
states receiving at least some reimbursement for services
provided for Medicaid-enrolled children. State funds provide
support in 17 states and local or county funds in 15 states.
Other sources fill in the gaps.
However, it appears that financing is not the strongest
area of state case management and environmental investigation
programs. Many state program staffs are not aware of how
their programs actually receive funds for case management and
environmental investigation services, and others seemed to be
confused about the concept of ``reimbursement'' for services.
At least 6 states provided different answers to the GAO than
they provided to us on the question of state Medicaid policy
for reimbursement of environmental investigations. GAO
surveyed EPSDT agencies while we surveyed program staff
responsible for lead-related services, but both should be
expected to be able to answer this question accurately.
Twenty states currently seek and receive Medicaid
reimbursement for case management, and 22 states report
Medicaid reimbursement for environmental investigation,
(although apparently slightly fewer are actually collecting
Medicaid dollars at this time). States using state (or local)
funds for environmental investigation or case management
without receiving Medicaid reimbursement are effectively
forgoing the federal Medicaid match for state spending. By
all rights, Medicaid should pay the costs of these medically
necessary treatment services for enrolled children. In
addition, by securing Medicaid reimbursement, states may be
able to shift the state's share of costs to the Medicaid
budget, rather than using the limited funds designated for
lead poisoning prevention or other public health functions.
Similarly, states that use CDC lead poisoning prevention
grant funds for environmental investigation without securing
Medicaid reimbursement should consider the opportunity costs.
Since CDC grant funds are finite and scarce, the decision not
to seek Medicaid reimbursement means forgoing other possible
uses, such as initiatives targeted to primary prevention.
The amounts reimbursed by Medicaid for both services vary
dramatically from state to state, ranging from $38 to $490
for environmental investigation and from $25 for one
educational visit to a maximum of $1,610 for 8 months of
follow-up for case management. Although the set of services
provided varies to some extent state-by-state, the actual
cost of providing the services is unlikely to vary so widely.
Ideally, reimbursement should reflect the actual costs of
service delivery. State and local programs cannot
successfully bill Medicaid or managed care for services
provided unless they can document the actual cost of
providing those services.
States following HUD Guidance for investigating the home of
a lead-poisoned child are likely to need to conduct a number
of specific laboratory tests, possibly including interior
dust wipes, paint chips, soil, and drinking water. Yet a
vital source of funding for environmental investigation has
recently been restricted. In September 1998, HCFA erected a
barrier to quality care when it ``clarified'' its policy on
reimbursement for environmental investigation in its update
to the State Medicaid Manual. HCFA's written policy now
inappropriately prohibits reimbursement for the environmental
sampling and analysis (such as measuring lead in dust, soil,
and water) that is needed to investigate the source of lead
exposure in a poisoned child's home--and makes it impossible
to achieve the essential purpose of environmental
investigation. In effect, the new language limits coverage
only to XRF analysis to determine the lead content of paint,
which usually does not confirm the immediate exposure hazard
or reveal what control action is needed to reduce exposure.
Several states reported arbitrary limits on State Medicaid
reimbursement for environmental investigation services, such
as limiting payment to one investigation per child per
lifetime. It appears that such limits on environmental
investigation are illegal, since the federal EPSDT statute
entitles Medicaid children to all services medically
necessary to respond to a condition identified during an
EPSDT screen.
Only one-third of states could report how many or what
percentage of their cases were even enrolled in Medicaid.
States must be able to document the number of Medicaid-
enrolled children receiving services in order to receive or
make informed decisions about reimbursement.
Thirty-eight states reported the enrollment of at least
some Medicaid children into

[[Page 26972]]

managed care plans, but only 24 of these reported that their
state's contract(s) with managed care organizations (MCOs)
contained any language about lead screening or treatment
services. Most reported that the language dealt only with
lead screening or generic EPSDT screening requirements,
missing an opportunity to describe clear duties for health
care providers for lead screening and follow-up care.
State Medicaid agencies that have not yet established
mechanisms for Medicaid reimbursement for case management and
environmental investigation should do so immediately.
Health departments providing case management and
environmental investigation should contact the Medicaid
agency to ensure that reimbursement is available to public
sector service providers, customized for the specific
situation.
CDC should require its CLPP grantees to pursue Medicaid
reimbursement of case management and environmental
investigation as a condition of funding.
HCFA should revise its guidance to permit Medicaid
reimbursement for the costs of the laboratory samples
necessary to determine the source of lead exposure in the
home of a lead-poisoned child.
Medicaid should fund emergency services to reduce lead
hazards for children with EBL, including lead dust removal
and interim measures to immediately reduce hazards in the
child's home. If the child's home can not be made safe,
Medicaid should reimburse the cost of emergency relocation.
State programs should determine and document the actual
costs of providing case management and environmental
investigation services.
State lead programs should negotiate adequate reimbursement
rates with the State Medicaid agency, based on documentation
of the costs of providing services.
Based on current costs of service delivery, state and local
programs should ensure that their budgets and funding
requests seek the resources necessary to adequately manage
their caseloads.
States should consider billing private insurance providers
for services provided to children enrolled in such plans.
HCFA should disallow, and states should discontinue the use
of, arbitrary limits on State Medicaid reimbursement for
environmental investigation services unless they are shown to
have a medical basis.
State programs should establish the administrative means
necessary to track the insurance status (especially Medicaid
enrollment) of lead-poisoned children receiving case
management and environmental investigation services.
CDC should require its CLPP and Surveillance grantees to
pursue collection of data on the insurance status (especially
Medicaid enrollment) of the children receiving case
management and environmental investigation services.
State Medicaid contracts with MCOs should contain clear
language describing the specific duties of the MCOs, making
clear whether they are expected to deliver services, make
referrals, or provide reimbursement to other agencies for
services provided. States should address lead screening,
diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up services explicitly,
rather than relying on general language referencing EPSDT.
States should familiarize themselves with and utilize the
lead purchasing specifications for Medicaid management care
contracts that have been developed by the Center for Health
Policy and Research at the George Washington University
(available at ``www.gwumc.edu/chpr''). Where such language
has already been incorporated into contracts, it should be
enforced.
Where case management and environmental investigation are
provided by public sector providers and Medicaid children are
enrolled in capitated managed care plans, states should
consider financing case management and environmental
investigation through a ``carve-out'' to ensure that
providers are reimbursed for their costs of providing
services.

key findings and recommendations on tracking and evaluating services

Very few programs are tracking outcomes of children
identified as lead poisoned. Most states count the number of
home visits or completed environmental investigations, but
very few monitor the outcomes for children and the corrective
measures taken in those properties found to have poisoned a
child. For example, eight states did not know how many lead-
poisoned children needing follow-up care had been identified
in 1997 and 23 states did not know how many of their lead-
poisoned children had actually received services.
Only 15 states reported providing oversight to ensure that
all children identified as lead-poisoned receive appropriate
follow-up care, including case management and environmental
investigation services. Such oversight would be particularly
useful in the 24 states that rely on providers outside the
health department to provide case management services. Only
13 states indicated that they collected and tabulated data on
the identified source(s) of lead exposure from environmental
investigations.
Tracking case management and environmental investigation
activities is not enough in itself. The ultimate measure of
effectiveness is reducing the child's lead exposure and blood
lead level. Case management and environmental investigation
programs should be thoroughly evaluated to identify programs
that are effective, as well as to identify problems that
require additional staff training, technical assistance, or
other attention. In particular, this survey suggests that
staff in many states could benefit from training in key
areas, such as program evaluation and Medicaid and insurance
reimbursement.
States should establish the administrative capacity at
either the state or local level to track delivery of case
management and environmental investigation services to lead-
poisoned children, to track outcomes of interest for
individual children, and to ensure that appropriate services
are provided to lead-poisoned children.
CDC should require its CLPP grantee to report on case
management service delivery outcome measures in their
required reports. Such reporting would help build capacity
for tracking and begin to document the effectiveness of
program follow-up efforts.
States should establish, collect, and report outcome
measures for case management.
All states should collect and aggregate data on lead
sources, including the proximate cause(s) of lead exposure
identified through environmental investigation, and the lead
hazard control actions taken, along with relevant information
allowing characterization of the lead hazards (e.g., age and
condition of housing, renter or owner-occupied, source and
pathway of exposure, etc.)
CDC requires its grantees to provide data through its
STELLAR database, but its data fields have proven to be
limiting, especially for non-paint sources, and many grantees
report their dissatisfaction with STELLAR. CDC should
consider moving to an alternative software package with
greater flexibility and easily available support. Until CDC
revises its requirements, states should use standard office
database software to keep these records.
CDC should undertake or fund formal evaluations of state
case management and environmental investigation programs.
Programs should be given the tools and opportunity to meet
goals and improve performance. However, if state or local
programs are not able to achieve basic standards of
performance in follow-up of lead-poisoned children, federal
funding should be terminated.
CDC should sponsor a system of peer evaluation for state
and local lead programs. A pear evaluation program would
allow state program staff to learn from and share with one
another, reinforcing the replication of innovative and
effective practices.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my friend and
colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, in discussing the passage
of a resolution we introduced designating this week, October 24 through
the 30th, as National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week.
Senator Reed has been such a strong advocate and leader on lead
poisoning issues. I have enjoyed working with him on this important
public health issue.
It is my hope the designation of this week as National Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Week will help to increase awareness of the
significant dangers and prevalence of childhood lead poisoning across
our Nation.
Great strides have been made in the past 20 years to reduce the
threat that lead poses to human health. Most notably, lead has been
banned from many products, including residential paints, food cans, and
gasoline. These commendable steps have significantly reduced the
incidence of lead poisoning. But unfortunately, contrary to what many
people think, the threat has not been eradicated. In fact, it remains
and continues to imperil the health and well-being of our Nation's
children. In fact, lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental health
threat to children in the United States.
Even low levels of lead exposure can have serious developmental
consequences, including reductions in IQ and attention span, reading
and learning disabilities, hyperactivity and behavioral problems. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently estimates that
890,000 children, age 1 through 5, have blood levels of lead that are
high enough to affect their ability to learn--nearly a million
children.
Today, the major lead poisoning threat to children is posed by paint
that has deteriorated. Contrary to popular belief, it is the dust from
deteriorating or disturbed paint, rather than paint chips, that is the
primary source

[[Page 26973]]

of lead poisoning. Unfortunately, it is all too common for older homes
to contain lead-based paint, particularly if they were built before
1978. More than half of the entire housing stock and three-quarters of
homes built before 1978, contain some lead-based paint. Paint
manufactured prior to the residential lead paint ban often remains
safely contained and unexposed for decades. But over time, often
through remodeling or normal wear and tear, the paint can become
exposed, contaminating the home with dangerous lead dust.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

____________________

PRESIDENTIAL AND SENATORIAL COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR TESTING TREATY

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I address the Senate today with regard to
a bill that I am introducing which provides for the establishment of a
commission to be known as the Presidential and Senatorial Commission on
a Nuclear Testing Treaty.
On October 15, shortly after the historic debate in the Senate and
the vote taken on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I addressed the
Senate, suggesting that the President and the Senate explore options by
which a commission could be appointed for the purpose of assessing
issues relating to testing of nuclear weapons, and the possibility of
crafting a treaty that would meet the security interests of our Nation,
while enabling America to once again resume the lead in arms control.
Following the historic debate and vote, I voted against that treaty,
and I would vote again tomorrow against that treaty, and the day after,
and the day after that. I say that not in any defiant way, but simply,
after three hearings of the Armed Services Committee and one of the
Foreign Relations Committee, after very careful analysis, after hours
of discussion with my colleagues, after participating in the debate, it
was clear to me that the record did not exist to gain my support nor,
indeed, the support of two-thirds majority of the Senate.
It is my view that the Senate and the President will join together to
provide bipartisan leadership to determine, in a collaborative way, how
to dispel much of the confusion in the world about why this Senate
failed to ratify the treaty, to explain what the options are now, and
to show that we are analyzing all of the other possibilities relating
to a nuclear testing treaty. This, hopefully, will dispel such
confusion. Much of that confusion is based on misconceptions and wrong
information. But we can overcome that.
We must explain that this Government has coequal branches--the
executive, headed by the President; and the legislative, represented by
the Congress--and how our Constitution entrusts to this body, the
Senate, sole authority to give advice and consent. This body exercised
that obligation, I think, in a fair and objective manner. But we are
where we are.
My bill is somewhat unique, Mr. President. I call for a commission
with a total of 12 members--6 to be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate; 6 to be appointed by the distinguished Democratic leader of
the Senate, with coequal responsibility between two members to be
designated as cochairmen. I did that purposely to emphasize the need
for bipartisanship. We, the Senate, will not ratify the treaty unless
there are 67 votes in the affirmative. This last vote was 19 votes
short--votes cast by individuals of this body of clear conscience. That
significant margin of 19 votes, in my judgment, can only be overcome
through a bipartisan effort to devise a nuclear testing treaty seen
clearly as in our national interests.
The cochairmen will be appointed--first, one by the distinguished
majority leader of the Senate, and the second by the President, in
consultation, of course, with the distinguished minority leader. That
brings the President well into the equation. He will undoubtedly be in
consultation with the distinguished minority leader throughout the
series of appointments by the minority leader.
This commission can have no more than two Members of the Senate
appointed by the majority leader, and no more than two Members of the
Senate, if he so desires, appointed by the minority leader. Therefore,
up to four Senators could participate. But the balance of the 12--eight
members--will be drawn from individuals who have spent perhaps as much
as a lifetime examining the complexity of issues surrounding nuclear
weapons, the complexity of the issues surrounding all types of
treaties, agreements, and understandings relating to nonproliferation.
We saw them come forward in this debate--individuals such as former
Secretaries of Defense, former Secretaries of State, men and women of
honest, good intention, with honest differences of opinion, and those
differences have to be bridged. By including eight individuals not in
the Senate along with four Senators--if it is the will of the leaders--
we can lift this issue out of the cauldron of politics. We can show the
world that we are making a conscientious effort to act in a bipartisan
manner. The experts the majority leader and the ones the minority
leader, in consultation with the President, would pick will be known to
the world--former Secretaries of Defense of this Nation, former
Secretaries of State, former National Laboratory Directors, individuals
whose collective experience in this would add up to hundreds of years.
In that way, I believe we will bring credibility to this process and
will result in this commission being able to render valuable advice and
recommendations to the Senate and the President at the end of their
work.
Several years ago, I was privileged to be the Ranking Member of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There was a great deal of
concern in the Senate toward the Central Intelligence Agency and how it
was operating at that time. As a matter of fact, some of our most
distinguished Members--one indeed I remember clearly--called for the
abolishment of the CIA. This individual was extremely disturbed with
the manner in which they were conducting business.
I took it upon myself at that time to introduce in the Senate
legislation calling for the establishment of a commission to make an
overall study of our intelligence and to make recommendations to the
President and the Congress. Congress adopted the legislation I
introduced and it was enacted into law.
The first chairman of that commission was Les Aspin, former Secretary
of Defense, who, unfortunately, had an untimely death. He was succeeded
by Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense and former Secretary of
the Air Force, who I knew well. I served with him. Our former
colleague, Senator Rudman, was also closely involved. I was privileged
to be on that commission. It did its work. It came up with
recommendations. The intelligence community accepted those
recommendations. The CIA survived and today flourishes.
I have given the outline of the commission I am proposing today. Let
me briefly refer to the basic charge given the commission and the work
they should perform.
Duties of the commission: It shall be the duty of the commission, (1)
to determine under what circumstances the nuclear testing treaty would
be in the national security interests of our Nation; (2) to determine
how a nuclear testing treaty would relate to the security interests of
other nations. I was motivated to do this because of the
misunderstanding about the important and decisive action taken by this
body.
(3) To determine provisions essential to a nuclear testing treaty
such that that treaty would be in the national security interests of
the United States; (4) to determine whether a nuclear testing treaty
would achieve the nonproliferation and arms control objectives of our
Nation.
The bill includes a number of other recitations and other important
provisions.
We deal with the question of verification. We deal with the question
of the science-based stockpile stewardship program, now being monitored
and

[[Page 26974]]

more fully developed by the Department of Energy.
All of this is carefully covered in this legislation I make to this
body tonight.
This is one Senator who believed he had an obligation to confer with
his colleagues about this important matter. I believe it is important
that this legislation be laid down as a starting point. It may well be
that other colleagues have better ideas. I take absolutely no pride of
authorship in this effort. Perhaps others can contribute ideas as to
how this legislative proposal might be amended.
Eventually, collectively, I hope we can work with our leadership in
establishing some type of commission so the consideration of a nuclear
testing treaty can go foward and people around the globe will have a
better understanding of our efforts to achieve a more secure world.
I went back to do a little research which proved quite interesting.
We have heard so many times in this Chamber that politics should stop
at the water's edge. I was reminded of this as I was privileged, along
with many others in this Chamber, to attend the presentation to the
former President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, and his lovely
wife, Mrs. Betty Ford, the Congressional Gold Medal.
I took down some notes from President Ford's wonderful speech. I had
the privilege of serving under President Ford as Secretary of the Navy
and, indeed, Chairman of the Bicentennial. I have great respect for
him.
He talked about Senator Vandenberg and how Senator Vandenberg was an
absolute, well-known conservative. Yet it was Senator Vandenberg's
leadership that got the Marshall Program through the Senate of the
United States. The Marshall Program was a landmark piece of legislation
initiated by President Truman. Indeed, in some of the accounts of
history, some people said it should be called the Truman Plan. But
Truman said ``Oh, no, don't name it after me because the Congress won't
accept it; name it after George Marshall''--showing the marvelous
character of the wonderful President.
President Ford also talked about Everett Dirksen. He said:

The executive branch and the legislative branch worked with
him arm in arm on relationships that were important between
this country and the rest of the world.

Those are Ford's words.
Bipartisanship helped get the Marshall Plan through and enabled this
country to show strength in the face of the cold war period.
That is history, ladies and gentleman.
I don't suggest in any way that I am making history here tonight. But
I think it is very important that other Senators take time to look at
this and contribute their own ideas. It will require a significant
measure of bipartisanship to achieve the objectives of the commission I
am proposing. Let's see what we can do to work with our leadership and
go forward.
The events of history are interesting. Senator Vandenberg, chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee, in 1948, thought Tom Dewey was
going to win the Presidency. He wrote into the Republican platform the
following phrase. I quote him:

We shall invite the minority party to join us under the
next Republican administration in stopping partisan politics
at the water's edge.

As it turned out, Truman won that historic election. And what did
Vandenberg do but go on and work with President Truman in the spirit of
that statement that he put into the Republican platform, and the first
landmark that the two achieved was the Marshall Plan.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

____________________

THE LATE CHARLES E. SIMONS, JR., SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it gives me no pleasure to rise today
and seek recognition, for it is to carry out a very sad task, which is
to mark the passing of one of my longest and closest friends, Judge
Charles E. Simons, Jr. of Aiken, South Carolina.
Judge Simons has served with distinction as a Federal District Court
Judge for the District of South Carolina since his confirmation in
1964. It was my pleasure to recommend this talented and bright man to
President Johnson, and everyone who monitors the Federal Bench has been
impressed with the skill and insight in which Judge Simons adjudicated
cases. His reputation is that of being a tough, but fair, judge whose
impartiality is above reproach and whose commitment to the rule of law
is well known. The respect and admiration of the legal community for
Judge Simons is evidenced by the fact that the Federal Courthouse on
Park Avenue in Aiken was dedicated in his honor in 1987. Certainly a
fitting tribute to a man who dedicated thirty-five years of his life to
the Federal Bench and had served as the Chief Judge of the District
Court for six years.
I must confess that Charles Simons was well known to me before I
advanced his name to the President, for he and I had been law partners
in Aiken, South Carolina for many years. He was such an able and
intelligent man, he was a great asset to our practice. In 1954, we had
to end our partnership because of my election to the United States
Senate, but Charles Simons continued to prosper as an attorney, earning
a well deserved reputation as an outstanding general practice lawyer.
While Charles Simons loved his work and the law, it was not an all
consuming passion, and he enjoyed many other activities outside the
courtroom. South Carolina is a beautiful state, and its citizens
eagerly engage in activities that allow them to spend as much time as
possible outside enjoying the natural beauty of the Palmetto State. For
Charles Simons, these activities included golf, hunting, and fishing,
each which he pursued with an unflagging enthusiasm. These pursuits not
only allowed him a temporary reprieve from the weighty responsibilities
of the duties of a Federal District Court Judge, but they also allowed
him to spend time with his friends.
One of the things that bonds friendships is shared interests, and
both Charles and I had a shared interest in physical fitness. He
remained a fit and active man right up until July of this year when he
suffered brain damage as a result of a fall. Sadly, surgery did not
return Charles to his previous health and he began a decline that
resulted in his death yesterday at the age of eighty-three. Though his
passing was not entirely unexpected, it still is a blow to his family
and friends and to the South Carolina legal community.
While many mourn the death of Charles Simons, we should take the
opportunity to be certain we celebrate his life and accomplishments. He
served the nation in a time of war, he was an accomplished attorney, a
respected judge, and a devoted family man. He leaves a body of work
that stands as case law and he has set a standard for other public
servants to follow. All these accomplishments are even more impressive
when one considers Charles' humble beginnings and the fact that he
accomplished all he did through hard work, determination, and
intelligence.
I am deeply saddened to have lost such a good friend and I share the
grief of the Simons' family. They have my deepest sympathies and my
heartfelt condolences on the death of Charles.

____________________

REPORT ON CONFERENCE FOR LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a few moments ago, a conference on the
appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
was completed. It was a rather unusual procedure because the conference
report was incorporated into the conference of the District of Columbia
appropriations bill. That arose in light of the fact the House of
Representatives had not passed a bill on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education--an appropriations bill for those three
departments, but the Senate did.
The procedure was adopted to have an informal conference with Senator
Harkin, ranking member of the subcommittee, and myself representing the
Senate, and Congressman John Porter, chairman of the House subcommittee
representing the House. I

[[Page 26975]]

had talked to the ranking Democrat, Congressman Obey, and had invited
him to participate. He did come to one of the meetings but said he did
not intend to participate because of his objection to the nature of the
proceedings, in light of the fact that the House had not passed an
appropriations bill.
This is not the ideal, proceeding in the manner I have described, but
it is the best that could be done under the circumstances. There is a
real effort to complete the 13 appropriations bills and submit them to
the President before the close of business tomorrow so it all would be
on the President's desk before the current continuing resolution
expired. It may be that the President will veto the District of
Columbia bill and the inclusion of the appropriations bill on Labor,
Health and Human Services. If that is to follow, then we will be
proceeding to try to reach an accommodation as to what the bill ought
to be.
My suggestion is the bill, which has been submitted, is a good bill,
not a perfect bill--I haven't seen one of those in the time I have been
in the Senate--but, I submit, a good bill.
It contains a program level of $93.7 billion, which is about $2
billion less than the program level passed by the Senate. This bill was
crafted by Senator Harkin and myself on a bipartisan basis, crafted in
a way to obtain the signature of the President of the United States. We
have directed very substantial funding to the three departments where
the total bill is $6 billion over fiscal year 1999 and an increase of
some $600 million over what the President requested.
Education is a priority in America of the highest magnitude. This
bill contains a program level of $35 billion for the Department of
Education, constituting an increase of $2 billion over fiscal year 1999
and some $300 million over the administration's request.
I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary be printed in the
Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and for the
purposes of this oral statement, I will summarize the highlights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the very important issue of Head Start,
the bill contains $5.2 billion, which is an increase of $608.5 million
over the fiscal year 1999 level, and it matches the very substantial
request for an increase requested by the President.
Special education, another very important item, contains $6.035
billion, an increase of some $912.5 million over last year.
On the program GEAR UP, which is to support early college preparation
for low-income elementary and secondary schoolchildren, there is an
increase of some $60 million, a 50-percent increase over last year's
funding level of $120 million. I mention GEAR UP specifically because
we have not met the President's request, which was a doubling to $240
million from $120 million, but accommodating as far as we could some
50-percent increase, or some $60 million.
There is a contentious issue on class size, and the President has
requested some $1.4 billion with the money to be directed to class size
reduction. We have appropriated $1.2 billion, which is the same as last
year's appropriation, a very substantial sum of money, and we have done
it in a way which is somewhat different from the President's request.
This class size reduction is the priority specified in our bill. But we
do allow the local school districts, if they decide, in their wisdom,
they want to use the money for something else, such as professional
development or any other need of the school district, to direct the
funds in that manner.
The President would like to have it limited only to classroom size
reduction. This is a matter I have personally discussed with President
Clinton, and it seems to me that, public policy-wise, the provisions of
this bill are the preferable ones. I say that because we give priority
to what the President wanted--that is, classroom reduction size--but if
the local school district makes a determination that their local needs
are different, they ought to have the latitude to make that change.
That does not provide a straitjacket coming out of Washington, DC, but
states the preference and allows the latitude for the local district to
make the change.
This bill contains a program for fighting school violence, with some
$733.8 million being reallocated from existing programs to focus on the
cause of youth violence. I convened three extensive roundtable
discussions, or seminars, in effect, with experts from a variety of
agencies within the Department of Education, the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and also the Department of
Justice, to analyze the problems of school violence. We came up with a
variety of programs from existing funds to be directed in this manner.
The bill also contains very substantial increased funding for the
National Institutes of Health. Congressman Porter, Senator Harkin, and
I think the Congress generally has acknowledged that the National
Institutes of Health are the crown jewels of the Federal Government.
Sometimes I say they are the only jewels of the Federal Government. But
enormous increases have been made in medical research to combat
Parkinson's disease, with the experts now telling us we may be within 5
years of conquering Parkinson's. There have been enormous advances on
Alzheimer's, breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart
ailments, and the whole range of medical problems.
Stem cells have become a focal point of medical research. Almost a
year ago, they burst upon the scene and provide a real opportunity--a
veritable fountain of youth--with these cells being replaced in the
human body to conquer these medical maladies. In essence, the bill is a
very comprehensive effort to deal with the funding needs of these three
major departments.
Another aspect of the conference today was an effort to have offsets
in order to obtain the goal that we not touch Social Security, and we
have done that with an across-the-board cut of 0.95 percent in budget
authority and 0.57 percent in outlays. That is a little less than a 1-
percent cut across the board in budget authority and a little more than
a half-percent cut in outlays.
Frankly, I do not like an across-the-board cut. But among all of the
alternatives we were considering to avoid touching Social Security,
this was the least undesirable of the alternatives. And while there
will be cuts below what I would like to see, the increases, by and
large, are sufficient so that there will be a net increase nonetheless.
For example, in the Head Start program, we increase funding by some
$608 million. The 1-percent cut will reduce that figure by $38.7
million, to about a $569 million increase. On special education, for
example, we had a $912 million increase. A 1-percent across-the-board
cut will reduce that by $23 million, so there still will be a net
increase of some $889 million.
We have structured this bill with some advances, but we have made a
determination not to come in with advances higher than what the
President had proposed. It is my hope that President Clinton will sign
this bill. From all of the collateral considerations, it appears
unlikely he will sign the bill.
I have personally contacted Mr. Jack Lew, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in an effort to negotiate with the White House
in advance of this conference report. But there have been objections
raised by some on the Democratic side in the House to having those
discussions move forward because the House, in fact, did not pass a
bill on Labor, Health, and Human Services.
If this is another step in the legislative process, so be it, with
the bill heading toward the President's desk. If he signs it, great; if
he vetoes it, we are prepared to go to work and try to move through
what ought to be done. If someone has a better idea on offsets, we are
prepared to listen. The objective of not touching Social Security, I
think, is a consensus objective. The objective of not raising taxes,
again, is a consensus objective. We have provided,

[[Page 26976]]

I think appropriately--some would say generously--for important
education and health programs, worker safety programs, and we will be
prepared to move forward to see to it that these very important
functions are carried out and to seek agreement between the
legislature--the Congress--and the administration.
One final note: In my discussions with the President when we talked
about his interest in having classroom size done to his specifications,
I think it is fair to note that the Constitution gives the principal
authority on the appropriations process to the Congress. Of course, the
President has to sign the bill. But constitutionally, the Congress has
the principal line of responsibility. The President would like to have
this appropriations bill serve as an authorization vehicle. The
authorizers are not happy about that with the process in the Congress
for a separate committee to do the authorization and the separate
committee to do the appropriations. We have undertaken the
authorization but have exercised our congressional preference in
setting public policy to establish the President's program for
classroom size as the priority, but giving the latitude to the school
districts to do it differently. We think that is consistent with the
constitutional responsibility we have.
We think some deference ought to be paid to our determination of
public policy. But again we are prepared to work with the President to
reach a bill which will be acceptable to both the Congress and the
President.
I thank the Chair.

Exhibit 1

Fiscal Year 2000 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Conference
Agreement

Budget Summary and Bill Totals--The bill contains a program
level of $93.7 billion, an increase of $6 billion over the FY
'99 program level of $87.7 billion, and in increase of $600
million over the President.

bill highlights

School Violence Initiative totals $733.8 million. These
funds were reallocated from existing programs to focus on the
causes of youth violence and to better identify, treat and
prevent youth violence.
Department of Health and Human Services--The bill contains
a program level of $39.8 billion for the Department of HHS,
an increase of $1.6 billion over the FY '99 appropriation and
a decrease of $900 million above the budget request.
National Institutes of Health--$17.9 billion, an increase
of $2.3 billion over the FY '99 appropriation, and $2 billion
over the budget request.
NIH Matching Fund--$20,000,000 is available in the Public
Health and Social Services Fund for a matching fund program
at NIH that would establish partnerships with the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry to accelerate new
antibiotic development.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services--$2.5 billion,
up $62 million over FY '99.
Head Start--$5.2 billion, an increase of $608.5 million
over FY '99 and the same as the budget request.
Consolidated Health Centers--$1 billion, an increase of $99
million to increase health services for low income
individuals.
AIDS--$4.4 billion for prevention and treatment activities,
including $2 billion for research at the NIH; $1.6 billion
for Ryan White programs and $85 million to address global and
minority AIDS.
Ricky Ray--$50 million to compensate hemophilia victims and
their families.
Home Delivered Meals--$147 million, an increase of $35
million over FY '99. This increase will provide an additional
27 million meals to elderly individuals in their homes.
Low Income Home Energy Assistance--$1.4 billion for heating
and cooling assistance as an advance for FY 2001.
Department of Education--The bill contains a program level
of $35.0 billion for the Department of Education, an increase
of $2 billion over the FY '99 program level and $300 million
over the Administration's request.
Pell Grants--The bill increases the maximum Pell Grant to
$3,300, increased $175 over last year.
Campus-based aid--$934 million is included for the Work
Study program which provides part-time employment to needy
college students, an increase of $64 million over last year.
Also increased by $10 million is the Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant program for a total of $631 million in FY
2000.
Special Education--$6.036 billion is included, an increase
of $912.5 million over last year.
Class size/Teacher Assistance Initiative--$1.2 billion, the
same as last year for a class size/teacher assistance
initiative. Local education agencies would have the choice of
using funds first for class size reduction, and if they
determine that they do not wish to use funds for reducing
class size, funds may be used for professional development or
any other need of the school district.
21st Century Learning Centers--$300 million is recommended
to help local education agencies with after school programs,
an increase of $100 million over last year's initial funding
level.
Impact Aid--$910.5 million to assist school districts that
are adversely affected by Federal installations. This amount
is an increase of $46.5 million over FY '99, and a $174.5
million increase over the Administration's request.
GEAR UP--$180 million to support early college preparation
for low-income elementary and secondary children, an increase
of $60 million over last year's funding level. The President
requested $240 million.
Department of Labor--The bill contains a program level of
$11.2 billion for the Department of Labor, an increase of
$300 million over the FY'99 program level, and $400 million
below the Administration's request.
Dislocated Worker Assistance--$1.6 billion, an increase of
$195 million over FY'99.
Job Corps--$1.3 billion, an increase of $49 million.
Related Agencies--The bill contains a program level of $7.7
billion, an increase of $164.2 million over FY'99 and $200
million below the budget request.
Corporation of Public Broadcasting--$350 million, an
increase of $10 million over the FY'99 appropriation, and the
same amount recommended by the Administration.
National Labor Relations Board--$199.5 million, an increase
of $15 million over the FY'99 appropriations, and $11 below
the budget request.
With an 1%-across-the-board decrease in spending from the
Conference Agreement, many programs will still be increased
from last year's level and above the President's request. For
example:
Head Start will be increased by $468 million over the FY99
level--to $5,228 billion, allowing over 33,000 additional
children to be served.
Home-delivered meals to seniors will be increased $33
million over last year's level, funding 25.5 million more
meals than in FY99.
NIH will be increased to $17.7 billion--$2.1 billion over
last year's level, and $1.8 billion over the President's
budget request.
Ryan White AIDS program will be increased to $1.5 billion--
$123.6 million over the FY99 level and $24 million over the
President's budget request.
The Community Services Block Grant will be increased to
$504.9 million--$4.9 million above the President's request,
providing more services to low-income families.
The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant will be increased
to $702.9 million--$8.1 million more than the FY99 level and
$7.9 million more than the President's budget request.
Job Corps will be funded at $1.35 billion, an increase of
$5.1 million over the President's request and $43 million
over the FY99 level.
The conference agreement provides $5.735 billion for
Special Education State grants, an increase of $679.8 million
over the President's request and $628.2 million over the FY
1999 level.
Education technology programs will be funded at $733.2
million, an increase of $35.1 million, or 5%, over the FY
1999 level.
The Impact Act program will be funded at $901.4 million, an
increase of $165.4 million over the President's request and
$37.4 million over the FY 1999 level.
The maximum award for the Pell Grant program will be
increased to a record high of $3,275, an increase of $25 over
the President's request and $150 over the FY 1999
appropriation.

____________________

HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to commemorate the 30-day period
from September 15 through October 15 which was designated by the
President as Hispanic Heritage Month.
Around the country, and in my home state of New Mexico, Hispanics
have been making outstanding contributions to public service, business,
education, and to our communities. Hispanic Heritage Month signals a
time of recognition and celebration of an enriched legacy, tradition,
and culture that has been present in our country for over 400 years.
We in New Mexico are well familiar with the fact that the Hispanic
presence in the United States reaches far back to 1528, and in New
Mexico to 1539. We also know that Hispanics have influenced greatly our
architecture, food, clothing, literature, music, and certainly our
family values. Many of our landmark cities have grown from early
Spanish settlements; cities such as Los Angeles, San Antonio, San
Francisco, and Santa Fe, to name only a few.
Although we know that Hispanics make up the fastest-growing minority
group in this country, and by 2025 will be the largest minority group
in our national population growth, too many Americans still are not
aware of the

[[Page 26977]]

historic significance and contributions of Hispanics in American life.
That is why Hispanic Heritage Month is important as a recognition of
the accomplishments and contributions of Hispanics in our country.
There are countless, New Mexicans who have contributed greatly to our
Hispanic community through hard work and the belief that one can
accomplish what one sets his or her mind to do. Today I'd like to
mention two of these individuals from New Mexico, who have contributed
to their communities and have made a difference in my home State.
At the age of 5, Mike Lujan was already contributing to his family's
household income to help support his parents and 14 siblings. Mike
encountered difficulties in high school and graduated with a 1.7 grade-
point-average. However, because of his determination Mike enrolled in
college, sought tutoring, and this year, he will be celebrating a
quarter century of teaching in the Santa Fe Public Schools. During his
time as a teacher and head wrestling coach, Mike Lujan has been honored
with USA Weekend's ``Most Caring Coach'' award and the national
Jefferson Award given to ``a citizen who cares'' which is presented by
a three-star general at the Pentagon.
This past August, Mike's story was told in ``Vista'' a magazine which
discusses Hispanic Issues and salutes Hispanics in a variety of areas.
The article about Mike closes with a quote from him which says, ``One
of the secrets for success is to remember your roots. Once you forget
who you are, you can't help others.''
The second individual I would like to recognize is Tony Suazo, a
native of Canjilon, located in northern New Mexico. Tony was recognized
as 1 of 10 northern New Mexicans, by the Santa Fe New Mexican, for
their volunteer and professional achievements in the community. Every
Christmas, Tony Suazo walks through the streets of Espanola, NM, in a
Santa Suit, with a bag of toys thrown over his shoulder. He plays Santa
Claus at the ``Put a smile on a Child's Face'' annual children's
Christmas party. This party draws about 3,000 people, and every child
who walks through the door receives a gift. Every year leading up to
this event, Tony closes his business 6 weeks before the Christmas
party. He then runs around town faxing fliers about the event and
collects the toys, to be given as gifts, in front of local shopping
centers.
You see, Mr. President, Tony Suazo and his wife close their business
down 6 weeks prior to this event and live off their savings during that
time. He does not miss his lost income because, as his wife puts it,
``His dream is to see every child, whether they are needy or not, have
a toy.'' Tony has been awarded the Espanola Valley Chamber of
Commerce's Man of the Year.
These two individuals serve as an example of Hispanics who have been
making contributions to our communities--believing in themselves,
believing in hard work, and believing that they can achieve their
goals.
Mr. President, at this time let me just say a couple of sentences in
Spanish because that is a very important part of the Spanish tradition
in my State.
Sr. Presidente, conozco solo una manera de rendir tributo a una
cultura cuyo idioma es tradicionalmente sinonimo de identidad. El
idioma espanol imparte un sentido de conciencia, historia y tradicion
que en ingles, mi lengua materna, es a veces imposible expresar.
Sin idioma no habrian anecdotas, y sin las anecdotas del dirigente
Lujan, Tony Suazo y de un sinnumero de hispanos-americanos, nuestra
nacion sin duda alguna experimentaria un vacio en la medula misma de su
identidad.
Let me just summarize that or translate it:
Mr. President, there is only one way I know to pay full tribute to a
culture for which language is often synonymous with identity. The
Spanish language imparts a sense of feeling, history, and tradition,
which my own native tongue of English often fails to convey.
Without language, there would be no stories, and without the stories
of Coach Lujan, Tony Suazo, and countless other Hispanic-Americans, our
nation would surely suffer from the great void at the very heart of its
identity.
Mr. President, it is with great pride that I call on all my
colleagues and on all Americans to join me even though I am a little
late with this, in celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month and to come
together as individuals, families, and communities to learn more about
this extremely important culture in our country.

____________________

CBO COST ESTIMATE

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on October 19, 1999, I filed Report No.
106-196 to accompany S. 976, a bill to amend title V of the Public
Health Service Act to focus the authority of the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration on community-based services for
children and adolescents, to enhance flexibility and accountability, to
establish programs for youth treatment, and to respond to crises,
especially those related to children and violence. At the time the
report was filed, the estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was
not available. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, October 26, 1999.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 976, the Youth
Drug and Mental Health Services Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Julia
Christensen (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-
9010, and Leo Lex (for the state and local impact), who can
be reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 976--Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act
Summary: S. 976 would reauthorize certain programs of the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) through fiscal year 2002. The bill would consolidate
programs currently operated under the Knowledge and
Development Application (KDA) and Targeted Capacity Expansion
(TCE) programs into three programs that target priorities for
mental health and prevention and treatment of substance
abuse. The bill would explicitly repeal certain programs and
would transfer general discretionary grant authority for
demonstrations, training, and other purposes to these new
programs. In addition, the bill would reauthorize SAMHSA's
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grants and would continue the transition of those block
grant programs into federal-state performance partnerships.
S. 976 also would create several new programs that focus on
children and adolescents.
To fund programs administered by SAMHSA, the bill would
authorize the appropriation of about $4.1 billion for 2000
and such sums as may be necessary for 2001 and 2002. Assuming
the appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates
that implementing S. 976 would cost about $1.5 billion in
2000 and $12.2 billion over the 2000-2004 period. Enacting S.
976 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
S. 976 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA). However, the bill would provide significant funding
to both public and private entities for programs dealing with
substance abuse and mental health.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 976 is shown in the following table.
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill
will be enacted this fall and that the necessary
appropriations will be provided for each fiscal year. The
table summarizes the budgetary impact of the legislation
under two different sets of assumptions. The first set of
assumptions provides the estimated levels of authorizations
with annual adjustments for anticipated inflation, when
appropriate, after fiscal year 2000. The second set of
assumptions does not include any such inflation adjustments.
The costs of this legislation would fall within budget
function 550 (health).

[[Page 26978]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

With Adjustments for Inflation

Without Adjustments for Inflation

SAMHSA Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\.......... 2,488 (\2\) 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............. 2,235 1,427 182 75 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level. 0 4,122 4,122 4,122 0 0
Estimated Outlays............. 0 1,452 3,267 3,828 2,510 750
SAMHSA Spending Under S. 976:
Estimated Authorization Level 2,488 4,122 4,122 4,122 0 0
\1\..........................
Estimated Outlays............. 2,235 2,879 3,449 3,903 2,510 750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year.
\2\ Amounts appropriated for SAMHSA in Public Laws 106-62 and 106-75, the fiscal year 2000 continuing
resolutions that provide funding through October 29, 1999, are not included in this estimate. Thus far, no
full-year appropriations for SAMHSA programs have been provided for 2000.

Basis of Estimate
Provisions relating to services for children and
adolescents
Projects for Children and Violence. S. 976 would authorize
two discretionary grant programs that focus on issues
surrounding children and violence. The bill would authorize
the appropriation of $100 million in 2000 and such sums as
necessary for 2001 and 2002 for making grants to public
entities in support of local community programs. The bill
also would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to use those funds to carry out community assistance
programs. Projects supported by grants must adopt a
comprehensive approach to helping children deal with
violence. S. 976 also would authorize $50 million in 2000 and
such sums as necessary for 2001 and 2002 for a grant program
to sponsor the development of best practices for treating
psychiatric disorders associated with violence-related
stress. Grant assistance would also be available to establish
technical assistance centers that would directly help
communities deal with violence. These programs would cost $18
million in 2000 and $422 million during the 2000-2004 period,
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
High-Risk Youth. The bill would reauthorize the High-Risk
Youth Program at such sums as necessary for 2000 through
2002. Based on the amount spent on this activity in the past,
CBO estimates that continuing the program would require
appropriations of about $7 million a year for 2000 through
2002. Subject to the appropriation of the estimated amounts,
CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $2
million in 2000 and $21 million during the 2000-2004 period.
Substance Abuse Treatment Services for Children and
Adolescents. Section 104 of S. 976 would authorize three
grant programs that would provide assistance to public and
private nonprofit entities for substance abuse services for
children and adolescents. Those programs would increase
access to substance abuse treatment and early intervention
services for children and adolescents and target prevention
activities against methamphetamine or inhalant abuse and
addiction among youths. The bill would require that SAMHSA
conduct an evaluation of methamphetamine and inhalant
prevention programs and submit to the Congress an annual
report on the effectiveness of those programs. The bill also
would authorize a grant program that would fund up to four
youth interagency research, training, and technical
assistance centers. S. 976 would authorize $74 million in
2000 for these programs and such sums as necessary amounts,
CBO estimates that these programs would cost $7 million in
2000 and $205 million during the 2000-2004 period.
Comprehensive Community Services for Children with Serious
Emotional Disturbances. S. 976 would reauthorize the
Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children
and Their Families Program through 2002. The bill would allow
the Secretary of HHS to waive certain program requirements
for territories, Indian tribes, and tribal organizations. The
bill also would increase the grant duration from five years
to six years. It would permit current grantees to receive a
noncompetitive award in the sixth year equal to the amount
awarded in the fifth year. The bill would authorize $100
million for the program in 2000 and such sums as necessary
for 2001 and 2002. Subject to appropriation of the necessary
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would
cost $16 million in 2000 and $290 million over the 2000-2004
period.
Services for Children of Substance Abusers. S. 976 would
reauthorize the Services for Children of Substance Abusers
Program and transfer its authority within HHS from the Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to SAMHSA. This
program was never directly funded under HRSA. The
reauthorized program would provide grants to public and
private nonprofit entities to support a range of services for
children of substance abusers, including primary health care,
counseling, and referral services. It also would provide
services to affected families and would allow funds to be
used for training certain providers of services covered under
the program. For this program, S. 976 would authorize
appropriations of $50 million in 2000 and such sums as
necessary for 2001 and 2002. Implementing this program would
cost $5 million in 2000 and $148 million during the 2000-2004
period.
Services for Youth Offenders. Section 107 of the bill would
authorize a program to award competitive grants to state and
local juvenile justice agencies. Funds would support services
for youth offenders following their discharge from juvenile
or criminal justice facilities. Individuals qualifying for
those services also must have or be at risk of developing a
serious and diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional
disorder. The bill would limit spending on funds used toward
planning and transition costs for youths during their
incarceration to 20 percent of the amount of each grant. S.
976 would authorize $40 million in 2000 and such sums as
necessary for 2001 and 2002. CBO estimates that implementing
this program would cost $4 million in 2000 and $111 million
during the 2000-2004 period.
Emergency Response. S. 976 would permit the Secretary of
HHS to use up to 3 percent of discretionary funds
appropriated to SAMHSA under title V of the Public Health
Service Act, excluding amounts appropriated to the Project
for Assistance in Transition from Homeless (PATH) Program, to
make noncompetitive grants to address emergency situations.
The bill would require that the Secretary publish objective
criteria that would be used to establish the appropriate uses
for the emergency funds.
Other Provisions. The bill also would reauthorize the
general authorities of SAMHSA under section 501 of the Public
Health Service Act. S. 976 would authorize $25 million in
2000 and such sums as necessary for 2001 and 2002 for the
purpose of providing grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts under section 501. According to SAMHSA,
authorizations for this program are intended as a safety-net
mechanism for the agency; therefore, CBO estimates that no
additional amounts would be required for 2001 and 2002.
However, assuming the appropriation of the authorized amount
in 2000, CBO estimates that minimal spending would arise from
this authority--about $1 million in 2000 and $8 million over
the 2000-2004 period.
Provisions relating to mental health
Priority Mental Health Needs of Regional and National
Significance. S. 976 would consolidate SAMHSA's discretionary
authorities for certain mental health activities, including
those currently funded through its KDA program, under a new
program. The bill would repeal certain programs and would
transfer general discretionary grant authority for
demonstrations, training, and other purposes to the new
program. Under the consolidated program, competitive grants
would be disbursed to states, political subdivisions of
states, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, other public
entities, and private nonprofit organizations. Funds could be
used to provide training and technical assistance, develop
best practices in the mental health field for prevention,
treatment and rehabilitation (and evaluations), establish
programs to help states and communities target gaps in
prevention services, and develop family

[[Page 26979]]

and consumer networks. S. 976 would authorize $300 million in
2000 and such sums as necessary for 2001 through 2002.
Subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that this program would cost $30 million in 2000
and $862 million during the 2000-2004 period.
Community Mental Health Services Performance Partnership
Block Grant. S. 976 would provide for a full transition of
SAMHSA's Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services
Program to the Community Mental Health Services Performance
Partnership model. The bill would authorize the appropriation
of $450 million for the program in 2000 and such sums as
necessary for 2001 and 2002. Subject to appropriation of the
necessary amounts, CBO estimates that this provision would
cost $189 million in 2000 and $1.3 billion during 2000
through 2004.
Under the performance partnership grant program, states
enter into agreements, or ``performance partnerships,'' with
the Secretary of HHS. The federal-state partnership
identifies goals and objectives and develops performance
indicators, that will be used to help states and grant
recipients ultimately reach their programmatic targets. The
program is designed to foster the development of networks
that promote a comprehensive approach to community-based
mental health care. The bill would replace the current
requirements for state plan submissions with five broad
criteria. In addition, S. 976 would establish the amount each
state received in 1998 as the minimum for 2000 and subsequent
years.
Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals. The bill
would authorize $50 million for this program in 2000 and such
sums as necessary for 2001 and 2002. The program received no
appropriation in 1999. This program would cost $8 million in
2000 and $146 million over the 2000-2004 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
PATH Program. The Projects for Assistance in Transition
from Homelessness Program would be reauthorized through 2002.
The bill also would provide the Secretary of HHS with new
authority to waive requirements for entities to provide
certain services under the program. The bill would authorize
the appropriation of $75 million a year from 2000 through
2002. Subject to the appropriation of the authorized amounts,
this program would cost $29 million in 2000 and $218 million
during 2000 through 2004.
Protection and Advocacy. S. 976 would reauthorize the
Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of
1986 at such sums as necessary for 2000 through 2002. The
provision also would revise the minimum allotment formula
under the formula grant. In addition, the bill would change
the name of the act to the ``Protection and Advocacy for
Individuals with Mental Illnesses Act.'' CBO estimates that
carrying out this provision would require appropriations of
$23 million a year, adjusted for inflation. Implementing this
program would cost $12 million in 2000 and $70 million during
the 2000-2004 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated
amounts.
Provisions relating to substance abuse
Priority Substance Abuse Treatment Needs of Regional and
National Significance. S. 976 would replace SAMHSA's
substance abuse treatment projects as currently funded under
the KDA and TCE programs with a new program that targets
treatment needs. The bill would repeal certain programs and
would consolidate general discretionary grant authority for
demonstrations, training, and other purposes under the new
program. The bill would authorize $300 million in 2000 and
such sums as necessary for 2001 and 2002. Assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, this program would
cost $39 million in 2000 and $870 million during 2000 through
2004.
Priority Substance Abuse Prevention Needs of Regional and
National Significance. Similarly, S. 976 would replace
SAMHSA's substance abuse prevention activities as currently
funded under the KDA and TCE programs with a new program that
funds projects targeting prevention needs. The new program
would consolidate SAMHSA's discretionary grant authority for
certain substance abuse prevention programs within a single
program. The bill would authorize $300 million in 2000 and
such sums as necessary for 2001 and 2002. Subject to the
appropriation of necessary funds, this program would cost $36
million in 2000 and $869 million during the 2000-2004 period.
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Performance
Partnership Block Grant. S. 976 would provide for a full
transition of the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant to the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Performance Partnership Block Grant model. The bill would
authorize $2 billion for 2000 and such sums as necessary for
2001 and 2002. We estimate that this provision would cost
$988 million in 2000 and $6.1 billion over the 2000-2004
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds.
Under the performance partnership model, the Secretary
works with the states and other interested groups to develop
programmatic goals, objectives, and performance measures with
the intent of reducing the prevalence of substance abuse and
improving access to preventive and treatment services.
S. 976 would repeal or amend some of the requirements under
current law, while retaining others. For example, the bill
would remove the mandate that states use 35 percent of funds
for alcohol abuse prevention and treatment activities and 35
percent of funds for other drug abuse prevention and
treatment activities. In addition, the bill would allow
states to request waivers of certain other spending
allocation requirements. S. 976 would provide states with
greater flexibility in allocating grant funds and allows an
additional year to obligate and spend them. The bill also
would permanently revise the minimum allotment determination.
Alcohol and Drug Prevention or Treatment Services for
Indians and Native Alaskans. S. 976 would authorize grants to
provide substance abuse prevention and treatment services for
Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Native Alaskans. The
bill also would establish a commission to study and report on
health care issues in these populations. It would authorize
$15 million for the prevention and treatment program and $5
million for the commission in 2000 and such sums as necessary
in 2001 and 2002. Subject to appropriation of the necessary
amounts, these provisions would cost $2 million in 2000 and
$55 million during 2000 through 2004.
Other provisions
Data Infrastructure. S. 976 would authorize such sums as
necessary for 2000 through 2002 for a new grant program to
support data infrastructure development in the states. To
facilitate compliance with performance partnership
requirements, the bill would provide financial assistance for
states to develop and operate mental health and substance
abuse data collection, analysis, and reporting systems. CBO
estimates that the necessary authorization would be $100
million in each year, adjusted for inflation. Assuming
appropriation of the estimated amounts, implementing this
provision would cost $10 million in 2000 and $271 million
over the 2000-2004 period.
Miscellaneous Provisions. The bill would provide states
with additional flexibility in their use of federal grant
funds while enhancing accountability through effective
performance measurements. The bill also would reduce some of
SAMHSA's administrative costs associated with managing its
programs. On balance, CBO estimates that the administrative
burden associated with the proposed expansion of programs
under SAMHSA's management, including the costs of
promulgating new regulations and submitting additional
reports to the Congress, would exceed any savings that would
be generated by the bill. Although S. 976 does not explicitly
authorize funding for program management, CBO estimates
authorizations of appropriations for SAMHSA program
administration under S. 976 at $58 million in 2000 and
subsequent years, adjusted for inflation. Assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, such administrative
expenses would cost $57 million in 2000 and $180 million over
the 2000-2004 period.
S. 976 also would require the Secretary of HHS to develop
and implement new rules concerning use of seclusion and
restraints on residents of certain facilities supported by
federal funds. The bill also would apply nondiscrimination
and institutional safeguards to religious providers of
substance abuse services. In cases where a client objects to
the religious nature of the organization, the bill would
require that appropriate referral services be provided. CBO
assumes that, as a condition of grant assistance, states
would bear the cost of enforcing compliance with the referral
requirement. Finally, the bill would require that the
Secretary of HHS submit a report to the Congress within two
years of enactment on the issue of prevention and treatment
of individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance
abuse disorders.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
receipts. Enacting S. 976 as amended by the managers'
amendment of October 22, 1999, would not affect direct
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
The bill would provide grants to state, local, and tribal
governments, as well as other private and nonprofit entities,
for substance abuse and mental health programs. The grant
programs cover a variety of activities including prevention,
intervention, training, counseling, mental health, and
community and youth services.
In most cases, the funds authorized by this bill would be
available for grants to both public and private (including
nonprofit) entities. However, two large block grants would
make funds available to states: the Community Mental Health
Services Performance Partnership Block Grant ($450 million in
fiscal year 2000) and the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Performance Partnership Block Grant ($2 billion in
fiscal year 2000). The bill also would authorize $40 million
in fiscal year 2000 for grants to state and local juvenile
justice agencies that provide services to youth offenders who
have or who may be at risk of developing mental, behavioral,
or emotional disorders.
In some cases, additional conditions of assistance would be
placed on grant programs.

[[Page 26980]]

However, these conditions would not be intergovernmental
mandates as defined in UMRA, and overall, state, local, and
tribal governments would benefit from increased funding, the
extension of existing grant programs, and in many cases a
greater degree of flexibility in administering substance
abuse programs.
Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill contains
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julia Christensen.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Tuesday, October 26, 1999, the Federal debt stood at
$5,678,650,010,507.85 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy-eight
billion, six hundred fifty million, ten thousand, five hundred seven
dollars and eighty-five cents).
One year ago, October 26, 1998, the Federal debt stood at
$5,555,572,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred fifty-five billion,
five hundred seventy-two million).
Five years ago, October 26, 1994, the Federal debt stood at
$4,713,110,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred thirteen billion, one
hundred ten million).
Ten years ago, October 26, 1989, the Federal debt stood at
$2,878,967,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred seventy-eight billion,
nine hundred sixty-seven million).
Fifteen years ago, October 26, 1984, the Federal debt stood at
$1,599,295,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred ninety-nine billion, two
hundred ninety-five million) which reflects a debt increase of more
than $4 trillion--$4,079,355,010,507.85 (Four trillion, seventy-nine
billion, three hundred fifty-five million, ten thousand, five hundred
seven dollars and eighty-five cents) during the past 15 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.)

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

At 1:50 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, without amendment:

S. 1652. An act to designate the Old Executive Office
Building located at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
in Washington, District of Columbia, as the Dwight D.
Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
S. 437. An act to designate the United States courthouse
under construction at 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South in Las
Vegas, Nevada, as the ``Lloyd D. George United States
Courthouse.''

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1175) to locate and secure
the return of Zachary Baumel, a United States citizen, and other
Israeli soldiers missing in action.
The message further announced that pursuant to section 1404 of Public
Law 99-661 (20 U.S.C. 4703), the Minority Leader appoints the following
Member to the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education
Foundation: Mr. Owen B. Pickett of Virginia.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, with amendments, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

S. 1255. An act to protect consumers and promote electronic
commerce by amending certain trademark infringement,
dilution, and counterfeiting laws, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 970. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to provide assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water
System, Inc. for the construction of water supply facilities
in Perkins County, South Dakota.
H.R. 1528. An act to reauthorize and amend the National
Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.
H.R. 1753. An act to promote the research, identification,
assessment, exploration, and development of gas hydrate
resources, and other purposes.
H.R. 2496. An act to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994.
H.R. 2885. An act to provide uniform safeguards for the
confidentiality of information acquired for exclusively
statistical purposes, and to improve the efficiency and
quality of Federal statistics and Federal statistical
programs by permitting limited sharing of records among
designated agencies for statistical purposes under strong
safeguards.
H.R. 2970. An act to prescribe certain terms for the
resettlement of the people of Rongelap Atoll due to
conditions created of Rongelap during United States
administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and other purposes.
H.R. 3061. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to extend for an additional 2 years the period for
admission of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section
101(a)(15)(S) of such Act, and to authorize appropriations
for the refugee assistance program under chapter 2 of title
IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H. Con. Res. 20. Concurrent resolution concerning economic,
humanitarian, and other assistance to the northern part of
Somalia.
H. Con. Res. 46. Concurrent resolution urging an end of the
war between Eritrea and Ethiopia and calling on the United
Nations Human Rights Commission and other human rights
organizations to investigate human rights abuses in
connection with the Eritrean and Ethiopian conflict.
H. Con. Res. 102. Concurrent resolution celebrating the
50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
recognizing the humanitarian safeguards these treaties
provide in times of armed conflict.
H. Con. Res. 188. Concurrent resolution commending Greece
and Turkey for their mutual and swift response to the recent
earthquakes in both countries by providing to each other
humanitarian assistance and rescue relief.
H. Con. Res. 190. Concurrent resolution urging the United
States to seek a global consensus supporting a moratorium on
tariffs on special, multiple, and discriminatory taxation of
electronic commerce.
H. Con. Res. 208. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that there should be no increase in Federal
taxes in order to fund additional Governmental spending.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent and referred as indicated:

H.R. 2496. An act to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
H.R. 2885. An act to provide uniform safeguards for the
confidentiality of information acquired for exclusively
statistical purposes, and to improve the efficiency and
quality of Federal statistics and Federal statistical
programs by permitting limited sharing of records among
designated agencies for statistical purposes under strong
safeguards; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 2970. An act to prescribe certain terms for the
resettlement of the people of Rongelap Atoll due to
conditions created of Rongelap during United States
administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

The following bills were referred to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs by unanimous consent, sequentially, and if
the bills are not reported by that Committee by November 2, 1999, the
Committee be discharged from further consideration thereof, and the
bills be placed on the calendar:

S. 225. A bill to provide housing assistance to Native
Hawaiians.
S. 400. A bill to provide technical corrections to the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996, to improve the delivery of housing assistance to
Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of tribal
self-governance, and for other purposes.

The following concurrent resolutions were read and referred as
indicated:

H. Con. Res. 20. Concurrent resolution concerning economic,
humanitarian, and other assistance to the northern part of
Somalia; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H. Con. Res. 46. Concurrent resolution urging an end of the
war between Eritrea and Ethiopia and calling on the United
Nations

[[Page 26981]]

Human Rights Commission and other human rights organizations
to investigate human rights abuses in connection with the
Eritrean and Ethiopian conflict; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
H. Con. Res. 102. Concurrent resolution celebrating the
50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
recognizing the humanitarian safeguards these treaties
provide in times of armed conflict; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
H. Con. Res. 188. Concurrent resolution commending Greece
and Turkey for their mutual and swift response to the recent
earthquakes in both countries by providing to each other
humanitarian assistance and rescue relief; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
H. Con. Res. 208. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that there should be no increase in Federal
taxes in order to fund additional Governmental spending; to
the Committee on Finance.

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

The following bills were read twice and placed on the calendar:

____________________

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-5839. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Weighted Average Interest Rate Update'' (Notice 99-52),
received October 25, 1999; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5840. A communication from the Mayor of the District of
Columbia, transmitting pursuant to law, the report of a
violation of the Antideficiency Act, report number 99-86; to
the Committee on Appropriations.
EC-5841. A communication from the Executive Director,
Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely
Disabled, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
relative to additions to and deletions from the Procurement
List, received October 25, 1999; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-5842. A communication from the Chief Financial Officer
and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
its commercial activities inventory; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-5843. A communication from the Commissioner of Social
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
its commercial activities inventory; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-5844. A communication from the Executive Director,
Federal Reserve Employee Benefits System, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the annual report of the Retirement Plan for
Employees of the Federal Reserve System and the Thrift Plan
for Employees of the Federal Reserve System for 1998; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-5845. A communication from the Office of Independent
Counsel, transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report
relative to audit and investigative activities and management
control systems for fiscal year 1999; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-5846. A communication from the Director Designee,
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the annual report relative to audit and
investigative activities for fiscal year 1999; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-5847. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
notification of a proposed approval for the export of defense
articles sold commercially under a contract in the amount of
$50,000,000 or more to French Guiana; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-5848. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to the United
Kingdom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5849. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to the
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-5850. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Japan; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5851. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Japan; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5852. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Japan; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5853. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Turkey; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5854. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Japan; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5855. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Italy; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5856. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to the
Netherlands; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5857. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Luxembourg
and French Guiana; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5858. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Japan; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5859. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more to Luxembourg;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5860. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed Technical Assistance Agreement
with Greece; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5861. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed Technical Assistance Agreement
with Brazil; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5862. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with the United Kingdom; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

[[Page 26982]]

EC-5863. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with Greece; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5864. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Initial Report of the
United States of America to the UN Committee Against
Torture''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5865. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to ``countries of
particular concern'' relating to religious freedom; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5866. A communication from the Architect of the Capitol,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of expenditures for
the period October 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999; to the
Committee on Appropriations.
EC-5867. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a Memorandum of Justification relative to
Ex-Im Bank financing of the sale of defense articles to
Colombia; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-5868. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP); Assistance to Private Sector Property
Insurers; 64 FR 56174; 10/18/99'', received October 25, 1999;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5869. A communication from the Deputy Secretary, Office
of Mergers and Acquisitions, Division of Corporation Finance,
Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Cross-Border Tender and
Exchange Offers, Business Combination and Rights Offerings'',
received October 26, 1999; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5870. A communication from the Deputy Secretary, Office
of Mergers and Acquistions, Division of Corporation Finance,
Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulation of Takeovers
and Security Holder Communications--(`Regulation M-A')'',
received October 26, 1999; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5871. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Missouri
Regulatory Program'', received October 26, 1999; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-5872. A communication from the Chairman, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to the denial of safeguards information; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5873. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans
Tennessee; Approval of Source Specific Revisions to the
Nonregulatory Portion of the Tennessee SIP Regarding Emission
Limits for Particulate Matter and Volatile Organic
Compounds'' (FRL #6465-1), received October 25, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5874. A communication from the Acting Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Threatened Status for the Bull Trout in the Coterminous
United States'' (RIN1018-AF01), received October 25, 1999; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5875. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act, a report
relative to the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation
and Ukraine; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-5876. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Student Assistance General
Provisions (Cohort Default Rates)'' (RIN1845-AA04), received
October 25, 1999; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5877. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Federal Family Education Loan
(FFEL) Program (Lenders and Guaranty Agencies)'' (RIN1845-
AA04), received October 25, 1999; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5878. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Final Regulations--Institutional
Eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
Amended and Student Assistance General Provisions'' (RIN1845-
AA08), received October 25, 1999; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5879. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Final Regulations--Student
Assistance General Provisions'' (RIN1845-AA03), received
October 25, 1999; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5880. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Federal Perkins Loan Program''
(RIN1845-AA05), received October 25, 1999; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5881. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Federal Family Education Loan
Program and William D. Ford Direct Loan Program'' (RIN1845-
AA00), received October 25, 1999; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5882. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation, transmitting, a report entitled ``Entry and
Competition in the U.S. Airline Industry: Issues and
Opportunities''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5883. A communication from the Special Assistant to 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; Princeton and Elk River, MN'' (MM Docket
No. 98-208; RM-9396), received October 25, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5884. A communication from the Special Assistant to 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; Cal-Nev-Ari, Boulder City and Las Vegas,
NV'' (MM Docket No. 93-279; DA-99-2115), received October 25,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5885. A communication from the Special Assistant to 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; Mount Olive and Staunton, IL,'' (MM
Docket No. 99-167; RM 9391), received October 25, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5886. A communication from the Special Assistant to 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; Fremont and Holton, MI,'' (MM Docket No.
98-180; RM 9365), received October 25, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5887. A communication from the Acting Assistant Chief
Counsel, Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Motor Carrier Safety Regulations''
(RIN2125-AE70), received October 25, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5888. 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; Mile 94.0 to Mile 96.0, Lower Mississippi River,
Above Head of Passes (COTP New Orleans-99-027)'' (RIN2115-
AA97) (1999-0067), received October 25, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________

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. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1798. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to
provide enhanced protection for investors and innovators,
protect patent terms, reduce patent litigation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1799. A bill for the relief of Sergio Lozano; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 1800. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to
improve onsite inspections of State food stamp programs, to
provide grants to develop community partnerships and
innovative outreach strategies for food

[[Page 26983]]

stamp and related programs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 1801. A bill to provide for the identification,
collection, and review for declassification of records and
materials that are of extraordinary public interest to the
people of the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 1802. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on instant
print film; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman,
Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, and
Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1803. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend permanently and expand the research tax credit; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1804. A bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Science
Technology and the Director of the National Science
Foundation, to establish a program for increasing the United
State's scientific, technology, and mathematical resources,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy,
and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1805. A bill to restore food stamp benefits for aliens,
to provide States with flexibility in administering the food
stamp vehicle allowance, to index the excess shelter expense
deduction to inflation, to authorize additional
appropriations to purchase and make available additional
commodities under the emergency food assistance program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Cleland):
S. 1806. A bill to authorize the payment of a gratuity to
certain members of the Armed Forces who served at Bataan and
Corregidor during World War II, or the surviving spouses of
such members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1807. A bill to provide for increased access to airports
in the United Kingdom by United States air carriers, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Biden):
S. 1808. A bill to reauthorize and improve the drug court
grant program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Frist, Ms. Collins, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Dodd, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 1809. A bill to improve service systems for individuals
with developmental disabilities, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr.
Sarbanes):
S. 1810. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
clarify and improve veterans' claims and appellate
procedures; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1811. A bill for the relief of Sophia Shiklivsky and her
husband Vasili Chidlivski; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 1812. A bill to establish a commission on a nuclear
testing treaty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords,
Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Cochran):
S. 1813. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide additional support for and to expand clinical
research programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Cleland, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Helms, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Voinovich):
S. 1814. A bill to establish a system of registries of
temporary agricultural workers to provide for a sufficient
supply of such workers and to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to streamline procedures for the admission
and extension of stay of nonimmigrant agricultural workers,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 1815. A bill to provide for the adjustment of status of
certain aliens who previously performed agricultural work in
the United States to that of aliens who are lawfully admitted
to the United States to perform that work; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. Res. 207. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding fair access to Japanese telecommunications
facilities and services; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
S. Con. Res. 62. A concurrent resolution recognizing and
honoring the heroic efforts of the Air National Guard's 109th
Airlift Wing and its rescue of Dr. Jerri Nielsen from the
South Pole; to the Committee on Armed Services.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

the american inventors protection act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, along with the
Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to introduce
the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Simply put, this
legislation reflects several years of discussions and consensus-
building efforts in the Senate and the House, and represents the most
important and most comprehensive reforms to our nation's patent system
in nearly half a century. As we prepare to enter a new millennium built
on high-tech growth, the Internet, and electronic commerce, in which
American competitiveness will depend on the strength of the patent
system and the protections it affords, this legislation could not be
more timely.
The last time the Patent Act underwent a significant update was in
1952. Since then, our Nation has experienced an unprecedented explosion
of technology growth and a tremendous expansion of the global market
for the fruits of American ingenuity. Yet our patent laws have remained
largely unchanged in the face of the new demands engendered by these
developments. This legislation--which many of my colleagues will
recognize as a compromise version of the Omnibus Patent Act passed by
the Judiciary Committee with near unanimity more than 2 years ago--will
effect targeted changes to the patent code to equip the patent system
to meet the challenges of new technology and new markets as we approach
the new millennium, while at the same time promoting American
competitiveness and ensuring adequate protection for American
innovators, both at home and abroad.
As many of my colleagues know, this legislation is the product of
several years of discussion and extensive efforts to reach agreement on
a responsible package of patent reforms. The Senate made significant
progress toward consensus during the last Congress when several key
compromises were reached in the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the
bill's protections for small businesses and independent inventors and
to preserve America's competitive edge in the face of increasing global
competition. I was pleased this year to see those efforts continued in
the House, where the supporters and former opponents of the bill agreed
to sit down and work through their differences to produce a
constructive patent reform bill. The result is H.r. 1907, which has 59
cosponsors in the House--including the most ardent opponents of prior
reform measures--and was passed in the House by a 376-43 vote.
In many ways, the House-passed ``American Inventors Protection Act''
builds upon the compromises reached in the Senate during the last
Congress. For example, the widespread agreement on 18-month publication
of patent applicants is centered around the

[[Page 26984]]

Senate compromise that allowed inventors to avoid disclosure of their
applications by not filing their application abroad, where 18-month
publication is now the rule. Similarly, estoppel provisions similar to
those agreed to in the Senate form a key component on the broad-based
agreement on patent reexamination reform. I am pleased to see these
compromises preserved and to see that the House has built upon them to
reach the sort of broad consensus on patent reform that I have long
advocated.
The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today in the Senate
preserves these important compromises and adds to them a number of
important provisions. For example, our bill includes a title not in the
House bill to reduce patent fees for only the second time in history
(the first time fees were reduced was last year in a bill Senator Leahy
and I ushered through the Senate), to ensure that trademark fees are
spent only for trademark-related operations, and to require a study of
alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by the
American inventor community. Our bill also adds important provisions to
enhance protections for our national security by preventing disclosure
of sensitive and strategic patent-related information and by helping to
identify national security positions at the Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) and obtain appropriate security clearances for PTO employees. The
bill also prohibits the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks from
entering into an agreement to exchange U.S. patent data with certain
foreign countries without explicit authorization from the Secretary of
Commerce. Also in our bill is a requirement that GAO conduct a study on
patents issued for methods of doing or conducting business, which have
been the subject of a 75 percent increase in applications at the PTO/
Like the House bill, our legislation will achieve a number of
important substantive patent reforms, consistent with the principles of
protecting American inventors, our national competitiveness, and the
integrity of our patent system.
First, the bill provides inventors with enhanced protections against
invention promotion scams by creating a private right of action for
inventors harmed by deceptive and fraudulent practices and by requiring
invention promoters to disclose certain information in writing prior to
entering into a contract for invention promotion services. An inventor
who is harmed by any material false or fraudulent statement or
representation, or any omission of material fact, by an invention
promoter, or by the invention promoter's failure to make the required
disclosures, may recover actual damages or, at the plaintiff's
election, statutory damages in an amount up to $5,000, as the court
considers just, plus reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. A court may
award increased damages, up to treble damages, where it finds such
conduct to have been intentional and done with the intent to deceive
the inventor. And, in an effort to provide better access to information
for inventors, the Patent and Trademark Office is required to make
publicly available all complaints received involving invention
promoters, along with any response of the invention promoter.
Second, as noted above, the bill will reduce patent fees, protect
trademark fees from being diverted to non-trademark uses, and require
the PTO to study alternative fee structures to encourage maximum
participation by American inventors.
Third, the bill provides a ``first inventor defense'' to an action
for patent infringement for someone who has reduced an invention to
practice at least one year before the effective filing date of the
patent and commercially used the subject matter before the effective
filing date of such patent. The bill responds to recent changes in PTO
practice and the Federal Circuit's 1998 decision in State Street Bank &
Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed Cir. 1998),
in which it formally did away with the so-called ``business methods''
exception to statutory patentable subject matter. As a result, patent
filings for business methods are up by 75 percent this year, and many
who have been using business methods for many years pursuant to trade
secret protection--believing such methods were not patentable--are now
faced with potential patent infringement suits from others who, while
they may have come later to the game, were first to reach the patent
office after the bar to patentability for business methods was lifted.
Fourth, the bill will guarantee a minimum 17-year patent term for
diligent applicants, addressing concerns that have been expressed since
the United States went to a 20-year from filing term of protection with
the adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994.
Fifth, the bill will place American inventors on a level playing
field with their foreign competitors by providing for domestic
publication in English of those patent applications that are now
subject to foreign publication by foreign patent offices, while still
retaining the option inventors now enjoy of preserving the secrecy of
their application by not filing abroad. It also protects American
inventors from broader disclosure of their invention through domestic
publication than occurs in foreign publications by allowing the patent
applicant to submit a redacted copy of their application for
publication. This provision will effectively facilitate access to
information that will enable inventors to target their resources more
effectively while also providing, for the first time, effective interim
protection for inventors during patent pendency.
Sixth, the bill is designed to reduce litigation in district courts
and make reexamination a viable, less-costly alternative to patent
litigation by giving third-party requesters the option of inter-partes
reexamination procedures (in addition to the current ex parte
reexamination procedures). Under this optional procedure, the third
party is afforded an expanded, although still limited, role in the
reexamination process through an opportunity to respond, in writing, to
an action by a patent examiner when, but only when, the patent owner
does so. These expanded rights for third parties are carefully balanced
with incentives to prevent abusive reexamination requests, including
broad estoppel provisions and severe restrictions on appeals.
Finally, the bill will make a number of miscellaneous, yet important
patent reforms.
In short, the provisions of this bill now enjoy widespread bipartisan
and bicameral support. The total package of changes that have been made
to this legislation over the past several years are both responsive and
comprehensive. The time to act on this package of reforms is now.
Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are among our
nation's greatest assets in this technology-dominated age. Our patent
system must be equipped to handle the challenges of the new millennium
and to protect our nation's creators into the next century. The
strength of our economy depends upon it. If we do not, we will lose our
edge in the ongoing race for technological and economic leadership in
the world economy.
In the most simple of terms, we must have a patent system that is
state of the art. The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today
will help to provide just that. I hope that my colleagues will join
with me in giving their overwhelming support for this measure.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with Senator
Hatch in introducing the ``American Inventors Protection Act of 1999,''
which I hope can be enacted into law this year.
This patent bill is important to America's future. I have heard from
inventors, from businesses large and small, from hi-tech to low-tech
firms that this bill will give American inventors and businesses an
improved competitive edge now enjoyed by many European countries.
We should be on a level playing field with them.
This bill reduces patent fees for only the second time in history.
The first time that was done was also in a Hatch-Leahy bill passed by
the Senate in the 105th Congress.

[[Page 26985]]

All the concepts in this bill--such as patent term guarantees,
domestic publication of patent applications filed abroad, first
inventor defense--have been thoroughly examined. Indeed, they have been
included in several bills that the Congress has carefully studied.
Chairman Hatch and I have worked closely on this bill. I believe that
we can get a good patent bill to the President before we go out of
session this year. I look forward to working with the House on these
issues and appreciate the hard work and careful crafting that went into
their bill--H.R. 1907.
I wish to point out that the Senate Judiciary Committee last year
also developed a strong bill--S. 507--which contained many of the same
concepts and approaches found in H.R. 1907 and S. 1798.
It is long past time for the Senate to consider and pass this patent
reform legislation. Our patent bill will be good for Vermont, good for
Utah and every state in the Nation, good for American innovators of all
sizes, and good for America.
We will be working with the Administration, the full Senate and with
the House to move this bill along quickly. I hope we can keep this
bipartisan coalition together because otherwise this bill will die, as
past efforts have.
The patent bill will reform the U.S. patent system in important ways.
It will reduce legal fees that are paid by inventors and companies;
eliminate duplication of research efforts and accelerate research into
new areas; increase the value of patents to inventors and companies;
and facilitate U.S. inventors and companies' research, development, and
commercialization of inventions.
In Vermont, we have a number of independent inventors and small
companies. It is, therefore, especially important to me that this bill
will be one that helps them as well as the larger companies in Vermont
like IBM.
Over the past several years, Congress has held eight Congressional
hearings with more than 80 witnesses testifying about the various
proposals incorporated in the bill. Republican and Democratic
Administrations alike, reaching back to the Johnson Administration,
have supported these similar reforms.
I also thank Secretary Daley and the administration for their
unflagging support of effective patent reform. I also know that they
worked closely with the House on H.R. 1907. I will submit a more
detailed statement on S. 1798 before we proceed to Senate
consideration.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1799. A bill for the relief of Sergio Lozano; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

private relief bill

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer
legislation that provides permanent resident status to Sergio Lozano
who, with his younger sister and brother, were granted immigrant visas
to come to the United States with their mother in 1997. Unfortunately,
they lost the opportunity to be come immigrants when they tragically
lost their mother in that same year.
Sergio Lozano lived with his siblings and their mother, Ana Ruth
Lozano, until her death in February of this year due to complications
from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the three siblings have
been living with their closest relative, their U.S. citizen grandmother
who lives in Los Angeles and has since adopted the two younger
children.
Without his mother, Sergio does not have the legal right to remain in
the United States. When he first arrived in the U.S. at 17, he was
unable to obtain lawful permanent residence because immigration law
prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children without their
parents. However, as a child of 17, he was also outside the age limit
for adoption by his grandmother. As a result, Sergio, through no fault
of his own, has been left in limbo in the United States.
Without legal status, this young man can be deported by the INS
despite the fact that he has no immediate family in El Salvador except
their estranged father who was alleged to have been abusive to the
mother and the children.
Without the legislation, Sergio will most likely be separated from
his brother and sister and sent back to El Salvador. Here in the U.S.,
he can remain with his brother and sister, further his education and
continue to thrive in the loving environment provided by his U.S.
citizen grandmother and uncles.
I have previously sought administrative relief for all three Lozano
children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and
Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in
their case. INS told my staff that there was nothing further they could
do administratively and a private relief bill may be then only way to
protect the children from deportation. Since then, the two younger
Lozano children have been adopted by their grandmother and have
received approval of their lawful permanent resident petitions. Like
his siblings, Sergio has too suffered a sense of loss and bewilderment
after losing a parent. However. unlike his sister and brother, he
stands to be deprived of the security of his American family and
deported back to a land he no longer knows, if only as a consequence of
being born two years too soon.
Last year, the Senate passed by unanimous consent the private bill I
introduced on behalf of Sergio Lozano and his siblings. However, the
105th Congress came to a close before the House was able to act.
This year, I hope you will support the bill on behalf of Sergio
Lozano so that we can help him begin to rebuild his life with his
loving family in the United States.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 1800. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve onsite
inspections of State food stamp programs, to provide grants to develop
community partnerships and innovative outreach strategies for food
stamp and related programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

the food stamp outreach and research for kids act of 1999 (the fork
act)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce
The Food Stamp Outreach and Research for Kids Act of 1999.
Along with my House colleagues Representatives William Coyne and
Sander Levin, I created this common sense piece of legislation with the
goal of guarding children and their families against hunger.
In 1998, over 14 million children lived in households that could not
afford to buy food.
That was an increase of almost 4 million children from 1997.
At the same time, the number of poor children not getting Food Stamps
reached its highest level in a decade.
My bill, the Food Stamp Outreach for Kids Act of 1999 (the FORK Act),
would help us to give children who are currently going hungry the Food
Stamps that they need.
Some time ago, food banks in Florida started telling me that the
number of people coming to them for assistance was increasing, and that
if demand continued at the current rate, they might run out of food.
This crisis was not specific to Florida, Congressman Coyne and
Congressman Levin were hearing the same concerns from food banks in
Pennsylvania and Michigan.
When we asked them whom the new people coming to the food banks were,
we were told that they were mostly low-income working families.
When the food banks screened these families using eligibility
guidelines, it looked as if the majority of the new people coming to
the food banks for assistance should have been receiving food stamps
but were not.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) researched this issue, and in
their July, 1999 report found that while a number of people who have
left the Food Stamp program because of the improved economy, economic
growth alone does not explain the drop in Food Stamp participation.
The GAO found that demand for emergency and supplemental food was

[[Page 26986]]

increasing and that some state agencies were not correctly following
federal laws regarding Food Stamp benefits.
Perhaps most disturbing of all, the GAO found that almost half of the
people who have lost Food Stamps since 1996 are children.
The FORK Act is designed to address GAO's findings and
recommendations to make certain that children and families in this
country are not going hungry.
The FORK Act would provide grant funding to food banks, schools,
health clinics, local governments and other entities that interact with
working families. The grants would allow those organizations to develop
and expand innovative approaches to Food Stamp outreach, which would
help the Food and Nutrition Service enroll many of the eligible
families that currently go hungry.
The FORK Act would require the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to
conduct onsite inspections of state Food Stamp programs to identify
barriers to enrollment and work with states to develop corrective
action plans.
The FORK Act would authorize FNS to conduct research, which will help
it to improve access, formulate nutrition policy and measure program
impacts and integrity.
The FORK Act would require the Departments of Agriculture and Health
and Human Services to work with state Temporary Assistance for Children
and Families (TANF) programs to train caseworkers and make sure that
prospective and former TANF recipients are property informed about Food
Stamp eligibility.
Finally the FORK Act would authorize private-public partnerships to
expand nutrition education programs.
Mr. President, I do not believe that there is a member in this
Congress who ever intended for children to go hungry because their
parents left welfare to go to work.
Now that we know it is happening, we must act quickly to make certain
that the Food Stamp program works for children and families in need.
I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask that a list of groups supporting the bill be
printed in the Record.
The material follows:

Organizations Supporting the Food Stamp Outreach and Research Act for
Kids 1999 (The FORK Act)

national organizations

ACORN
AFSCME
America's Second Harvest
American Federation of Teachers
American Friends Service Committee
Americans for Democratic Action
Brain Injury Association
Bread For The World
Catholic Charities USA
Center for Community Change
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition on Human Needs
Community Nutrition Institute
Food Research and Action Center
Foodchain
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, ELCA
Lutheran Services in America
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
McAuley Institute
Mennonite Center Committee U.S. Washington Office
Migrant Legal Action Program
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
National Association of Child Advocates
National Association of Social Workers
National Center on Poverty Law
National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
National Council of Churches
National Council of La Raza
National Immigration Law Center
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
National Urban League
National Women's Law Center
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
RESULTS
The General Board of Church and Society of the United
Methodist Church
Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees
(UNITE)
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society
United Food and Commercial Workers
United States Conference of Mayors
Welfare Law Center
Wider Opportunities for Women
World Hunger Year

alabama

Alabama Coalition Against Hunger

arizona

Chidren's Action Alliance
Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona
World Hunger Ecumenical Arizona Task-Force (WHEAT)

arkansas

Arkansas Hunger Coalition

california

Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Food Policy Advocates
California Statewide Lao Hmong Coalition
Chico Hmong Advisory Council
Desert Cities Hunger Action
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
Food Share, Inc./Ventura County Food Bank
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness
Lutheran Office of Public Policy--California
Southland Farmers' Market Association
The San Diego Hunger Coalition

colorado

Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry--Colorado
Weld Food Bank

connecticut

CY Anti-Hunger Coalition/CT Association for Human Services
End Hunger Connecticut!
Foodshare of Greater Hartford

delaware

Food Bank of Delaware

district of columbia

Capital Area Community Food Bank

florida

Daily Bread Food Bank
Florida Association for Community Action
Florida Atlantic University Department of Social Work
Florida Impact
Harry Chapin Food Bank

georgia

Atlanta Community Food Bank
Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger

hawaii

Task Force on Children's Nutrition Rights (of World
Alliance on Nutrition and Human Rights)

idaho

Idaho Community Action Network
The Idaho Food Bank

illinois

Chicago Anti-Hunger Federation
Illinois Hunger Coalition

indiana

Indiana Food & Nutrition Network
Lafayette Urban Ministries

iowa

Food Bank of Iowa

kansas

Campaign to End Childhood Hunger (Wichita, KS)

kentucky

Kentucky Task Force on Hunger

louisiana

Bread for the World--New Orleans

maine

Hospitality House Inc.
Maine Coalition for Food Security

maryland

Community Assistance Network

massachusetts

Boston Medical Center Department of Pediatrics
Food Bank of Western Massachusetts
Massachusetts Law Reform
National Priorities Project
Project Bread
Survivors, Inc.

michigan

Capitol Area Community Services
Center for Civil Justice
Hunger Action Coalition of Michigan

minnesota

Adults & Childrens Alliance
Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy in Minnesota
Minnesota FoodShare
Second Harvest St. Paul Food Bank

mississippi

Mississippi Human Services Coalition

missouri

Harvesters--The Community Food Network
Missouri Association for Social Welfare
Reform Organization of Welfare (ROWEL)

montana

Montana Hunger Coalition

nebraska

Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest

nevada

Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

[[Page 26987]]

new hampshire

New Hampshire Food Bank

new jersey

Community Food Bank of New Jersey
Food Bank of South Jersey
Statewide Emergency Food and Anti-Hunger Network (SEFAN)

new mexico

New Mexico Advocates for Children and Families

new york

Community Food Resource Center
Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies Inc.
Food Bank of Western New York
Health and Welfare Council of Long Island
Make the Road by Walking
NYC Coalition Against Hunger
New York Immigration Coalition
Task Force on Welfare Reform, NYC Chapter of National
Association of Social Workers
The Nutrition Consortium of NYS
The Westchester Progressive Forum

north carolina

Food Bank of North Carolina
Manna Food Bank, Inc.
North Carolina Hunger Network

ohio

Ohio Hunger Task Force

oklahoma

Tulsa Community Food Bank

oregon

Oregon Center for Public Policy
Oregon Food Bank
Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force

pennsylvania

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger
Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank
Just Harvest
PA Hunger Action Center
Women's Association for Women's Alternatives

rhode island

George Wiley Center and Campaign to Eliminate Childhood
Poverty

south carolina

SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center

south dakota

Children's Agenda for South Dakota

tennessee

MANNA
Tennessee Hunger Coalition

texas

Center for Public Policy Priorities
Greater Dallas Community of Churches
North Texas Food Bank
Texas Alliance for Human Needs

utah

Crossroads Urban Center
Coalition of Religious Communities
Utahns Against Hunger

vermont

Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger

virginia

Grassroots Innovative Policy Program
Virginia Poverty Law Center

washington

Children's Alliance Food Policy Center
Washington State Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition
Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition

west virginia

West Virginia Coalition on Food and Nutrition

wisconsin

Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee
Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy in Wisconsin
Women and Poverty Public Education Initiative.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 1801. A bill to provide for the identification, collection, and
review for declassification of records and materials that are of
extraordinary public interest to the people of the United States, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

public interest declassification act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the
Public Information Disclosure Act, a bill that seeks to add to our
citizens' knowledge of how and why our country made many of its key
national security decisions since the end of World War II. This bill
creates a mechanism for comprehensively reviewing and declassifying,
whenever possible, records of extraordinary public interest that
demonstrate and record this country's most significant and important
national security policies, actions, and decisions.
As James Madison once wrote, ``A people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
Acquiring this knowledge has become increasingly difficult since World
War II's end, when we witnessed the rise of a vast national security
apparatus that encompasses thousands of employees and over 1.5 billion
classified documents that are 25 years or older. Secrecy, in the end,
is a form of regulation. And I concede that regulation of state secrets
is often necessary to protect national security. But how much needs to
be regulated after having aged 25 years or more?
The warehousing and withholding of these documents and materials not
only impoverish our country's historical record but retard our
collective understanding of how and why the United States acted as it
did. This means that we have less chance to learn from what has gone
before; both mistakes and triumphs fall through the cracks of our
collective history, making it much harder to resolve key questions
about our past and to chart our future actions.
On the other hand, greater openness makes it more possible for the
government to explain itself and to defend its actions, a not so
unimportant thing when one recalls Richard Hofstader's warning in his
classic 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics: ``The
distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents
see conspiracies here and there in history, but they regard a `vast' or
`gigantic' conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost
transcendent power as the motive force in historical events.'' A poll
taken in 1993 found that three-quarters of those surveyed believed that
President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy involving the CIA,
renegade elements of our military, and organized crime. The Grassy
Knoll continues to cut a wide path across our national consciousness.
The classified materials withheld from the Warren Commission, several
of our actions in Vietnam, and Watergate have only added to the
American people's distrust of the Federal government.
Occasionally, though, the government has drawn back its cloak of
secrecy and made substantial contributions to our national
understanding. In 1995, the CIA and the NSA agreed to declassify the
Venona intercepts, our highly secretive effort that ranged over four
decades to decode the Soviet Union's diplomatic traffic. Much of this
traffic centered on identifying Soviet spies, one of the cardinal
preoccupations of that hateful era we call ``McCarthyism.'' These
releases made at least one thing crystal clear: Their timely release
decades ago would have dimmed the klieg lights on many who were
innocent and shown them more brightly on those who truly were guilty.
It would have been an important contribution during a time when the
innocent and the guilty were ensnared in the same net.
Today, Congress plays a pivotal role in declassification through so-
called ``special searches.'' Generally, these involve a member of
Congress or the White House asking the intelligence community to search
its records on specific subjects. These have ranged from Pinochet to
murdered American church women to President Kennedy's assassination.
However, these good intentions often produce neither good results nor
good history. Sadly, most of these searches have been done poorly,
costing millions of dollars and consuming untold hours of labor.
Several have been performed repeatedly. Special searches on murdered
American church women, for example, have been done nine separate times.
Yet there are still several important questions that have yet to be
answered. The CIA alone has been asked to do 33 ``special searches''
since 1998.
Part of the problem is that Congress lacks a centralized, rational
way of addressing these requests. This bill establishes a nine-member
board composed of outside experts who can filter and steer these
searches, all the while seeking maximum efficiency and disclosure.
The other part of the problem lies in how the intelligence community
has conducted these searches. It is imperative that searches are
carried out in a comprehensive manner. This is not only cheaper in the
long run but produces a much more accurate record of our history. One
cannot do Pinochet, for example, and not do Chile under his rule at the
same time. To do otherwise

[[Page 26988]]

skews history too much and creates too many blind spots, all leading to
more questions and more searches. This does a disservice not only to
those asking for these searches but to the American people who have to
pay for ad hoc, poorly done declassification. If we do it right the
first time, then we can forgo much inefficiency.
Many of these special searches ask vital questions about this
nation's role in many disturbing events. We must see, therefore, that
they are done correctly and responsibly. This legislation, if passed,
would improve Congress' role in declassification, making it an
instrumental arm in the de-cloaking and re-democratization of our
national history. Indeed, anything less would cheat our citizens,
undermine their trust in our institutions, and erode our democratic
values.
______

By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Lieberman.
S. 1803. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
permanently and expand the research tax credit; to the Committee on
Finance.

permanent extension of the R&E tax credit

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation that will
permanently extend the research credit and increase the alternative
incremental credit 1% per step. It will also expand the credit to
companies operating in Puerto Rico. Mr. President, research and
experimentation are the foundation of a vibrant economy. While there is
some initial cost involved, studies have shown that a permanent
extension of the R&E tax credit pays for itself over time due to
increased federal revenues generated by a rise in productivity and
economic growth. Without a permanent extension of the R&E credit,
businesses are less likely to make long term investments in research
that is necessary for scientific and technological advancements.
Instead, decisions must be made on an annual basis which, over time,
have the effect of slowing progress. In order to guarantee that our
country remains the leader in cutting edge technology we need to
permanently extend the R&E credit. The advantages of increased research
and experimentation are simply too overwhelming to ignore.
I intended on offering this bill as an amendment in the Finance
Committee to the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, (S. 1792), but I was
persuaded by members on both sides of the aisle that amendments in
Committee threatened the whole deal. I decided, instead, to address
this issue on the Senate floor. I still strongly support the tax
extenders bill that was reported out of Committee, but I believe, as I
have for some time, that we need to address this one deficiency.
Without certainty, our nation's investments in research will suffer.
Permanent extension of the R&E tax credit is the only way to provide
that certainty. Despite recent setbacks, I will continue to work with
all of my colleagues to extend this credit permanently.
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. 1803

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RESEARCH
CREDIT.

(a) Permanent Extension.--
(1) In general.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities)
is amended by striking subsection (h).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b)
of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.
(b) Increase in Percentages Under Alternative Incremental
Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 41(c)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``1.65 percent'' and inserting ``2.65
percent'',
(B) by striking ``2.2 percent'' and inserting ``3.2
percent'', and
(C) by striking ``2.75 percent'' and inserting ``3.75
percent''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after June 30, 1999.
(c) Extension of Research Credit to Research in Puerto Rico
and the Possessions of the United States.--
(1) In general.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is
amended by inserting ``, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
any possession of the United States'' after ``United
States''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1804. A bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Science Technology and the Director
of the National Science Foundation, to establish a program for
increasing the United State's scientific, technology, and mathematical
resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

the 21st century technology resources and commercial leadership act

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I am please to introduce a bill
intended to preserve the United States' world leadership position in
technology into the coming century. This legislation is intended to
assure that our scientific, mathematics, engineering and technology
resources are surpassed by no one. It is intended to ensure that our
most precious national resources, our people, receive the best
education and training through our best national product, innovation.
We must allow our most creative forces to interact to achieve improved
math and science education in our schools. We must assure more highly
trained college graduates in science, math, engineering and technology.
And we must encourage the retooling of our country's experienced minds
to address the problems and the solutions of tomorrow.
Specifically, this legislation uses a portion of each H-1B visa fee
to provide grants for innovative programs which will improve the math,
science, engineering and technology skills of Americans so that they
can fill the estimated average of 137,800 new positions expected to be
created in these fields each year from now through 2006. During the
interim, while the American pipeline of talent is filling, the bill
lifts the caps on H-1B visas to allow our American companies to
continue to grow and prosper.
This legislation is necessary and beneficial to our nation. Let me
explain in some detail why.
First, although this country can be proud of having some of the most
highly regarded colleges and universities in the world, our elementary
and secondary education system is not sufficiently emphasizing science
and math in the curriculum. Our students are falling behind in these
areas. The results of the 1998 Third International Math and Science
Study (TIMSS) are instructive. In math, our 4th graders ranked 12th out
of 26 countries. Not a stellar performance. But even more discouraging,
by 12th grade, the U.S. math rank was 19th out of 21 countries. As a
result, not enough American college students are majoring in the
sciences, including computer science, mathematics and engineering to
fill the escalating need for highly trained professionals.
According to information compiled by the American Electronics
Association, at the same time that the number of jobs in these fields
has increased by 20%, the number of college graduates with degrees in
engineering, engineering technology, computer science, mathematics,
business information systems, and physics has declined by 5%.
To fill the jobs available, American companies are finding it
increasingly necessary to hire foreign professionals. When they recruit
on university campuses in the United States, 32% of the Masters degree
and 45% of the doctoral degree candidates are foreign, not American,
students. Even though they have been educated here, these foreign
students cannot remain here to work without a visa.
Even with these graduates available, there are more jobs to be filled
than

[[Page 26989]]

qualified candidates. When our companies cannot hire qualified people
to work for them, they cannot function--they cannot compete. Most of
these companies have concluded long ago that they need to retain the
qualified people that they do hire. They understand that one way to
retain them is to provide training to continually update and upgrade
their skills. There are many examples of these kinds of programs.
In addition, there are older American workers with advanced technical
skills that are outdated, or whose experience is in industries which
are not in a growth mode. Companies are finding ways to assist some of
these professional to retool for the current and future needs of
business. An example of retraining experienced workers is a program at
San Diego State University. That institution's Defense Conversion
Center has focused on retraining displaced defense industry
professional, including military personnel and aerospace engineers.
Let me read from their project proposal description dated 9/21/99.

The expansion of the H-1B visa program is a limited and
temporary fix to a critical national problem. Unless we find
creative ways to meet our workforce needs internally, our
ability to produce cutting-edge products will erode. Indeed,
some experts predict that our position as the world's leader
in innovation will slip from first place to sixth early in
the next century. The risk goes beyond losing our competitive
edge in the global marketplace; without a strong technology
base, our national defense system will be jeopardized.

The proposal goes on to describe the university's program:

In the early 1990's, the defense industry in San Diego
virtually disintegrated, resulting in the loss of over 42,000
jobs. Established with a grant from the Department of
Defense, the SDSU Defense Conversion Center developed several
certificate programs designed to fast-track displaced defense
industry workers back into the marketplace. To date, over
1100 individuals have enrolled in the Center, and 80% of
those who participated in the program found or retained
employment in such high-tech fields as radio-frequency
design, software engineering, concurrent design and
manufacturing, and multi-media design.

Many companies are also finding that it is not enough to focus on
only their short term hiring needs. There are numerous examples of
companies partnering with their local schools to provide innovative
changes in curriculum and skill sets.
For example, Hewlett-Packard has joined forces with Colorado State
University to assist minority students beginning their studies at CSU.
The assistance includes 10-week internships at H-P, during which CSU
provides instructors to H-P to teach calculus. The internships provide
a bridge from the academic to the real world, demonstrating the
application of math and science skills. They also provide the freshmen
with valuable experience that can lead to permanent jobs at H-P.
Eastman Chemical Company in Tennessee offers another example. Working
with its local school system, the company focused on two objectives: to
help prepare and motivate all students to develop competency in math
and science, and to create a school system of such excellence that
college graduates would be drawn there as a great place to raise
children. The result was several programs, including an ``Educator on
Loan'' program where on a rotating basis, teachers could work at the
company's manufacturing plant to under the skills required.
These private/public partnerships are an excellent start. But these
efforts are not sufficient to solve the problems we have with
maintaining our country's ability to compete and lead the world in the
21st century. We must encourage more innovation, more achievement to
fill the pipeline so that our children will be able to prosper in the
technological revolution underway.
This legislation encourages innovation. It provides financial
assistance for ideas which will work. The proposed legislation is broad
enough to cover any idea which can be demonstrated to produce results.
Some of the programs I think should be considered would be to provide
scholarships to students who possess the requisite talent and are
willing to become certified as math and science teachers, and who will
agree to teach for a number of years. Scholarships for students who
will major in math, science, engineering or technology fields makes
sense. But we should not limit our selves to these stock type
approaches. There will be many other new and creative ideas and we
should welcome them and reward them, as long as they produce the
outcome we want. We want to improve and increase the American talent
pool.
In the meantime, I think it is important not to force our companies
to develop off-shore bases in order to hire the foreign professional
they need. The history of numeric caps on H-1B visas is one of best
guess, rather than of calculated need. It is difficult to anticipate
the total need, but simply inserting a number because it is politically
agreeable isn't the right answer. During the last session we adopted
legislation produced through the fine efforts of Senator Abraham and
others who worked tirelessly in addressing a broad array of problems
and issues.
The result is that our law now requires those who are dependent on H-
1B worker to attest, to give their oath, that they have tried to hire
an American to fill the position unsuccessfully before applying for a
foreign worker visa. These requirements are stringent. They protect
American workers against companies which might otherwise ignore
qualified applicants in order to bring in a foreign worker. The law
protects against layoffs followed by foreign hiring.
With this law in place and with diligent enforcement of its
requirements, there is no reason to also pick an arbitrary number as a
cap for H-1B visas. We can let the marketplace prevail. We can focus on
improving our own resources and our own children's education so that in
the future we will have more highly skilled professionals to fill these
positions. When our supply meets the demand we will have achieved the
goals of improving our education curriculum and our ability to remain
leaders in the 21st century.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 1805. A bill to restore food stamp benefits for aliens, to provide
States with flexibility in administering the food stamp vehicle
allowance, to index the excess shelter expense deduction to inflation,
to authorize additional appropriations to purchase and make available
additional commodities under the emergency food assistance program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

the hunger relief act of 1999

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Specter, Leahy, Jeffords,
and I are introducing the Hunger Relief Act of 1999. Our goals in this
legislation are to promote self-sufficiency and the transition from
welfare to work, and to eradicate childhood hunger by increasing the
availability of food stamps to low-income working families. Republicans
and Democrats share these goals, and it deserves broad bipartisan
support.
Improving Food Stamp accessibility is a central part of helping low-
income working families feed their children and achieve self-
sufficiency. A strong Food Stamp Program, along with a higher minimum
wage and an adequate Earned Income Tax Credit, gives low-income
families the stability they need to build a brighter future. With the
unemployment rate at a 30-year low and record, economic growth, this is
a time of broad economic prosperity for most Americans. But that is not
true for the poorest Americans. In 1998 the poverty rate declined from
13.3% to 12.7%, but this still surpasses rates in the 11% range
recorded throughout the 1970's. The safety net provided by food stamps
has weakened since the 1970's, and hunger among working families in
America has grown.
In July 1999, the Department of Agriculture reported that 6.6 million
adults and 3.4 million children live in households that suffered from
hunger in 1998, and that 36 million people comprising 10% of the
nation's households lack secure access to enough food for an active
healthy life.

[[Page 26990]]

In the same month, the Congressional General Accounting Office
reported that of the 14 million U.S. children who live in poverty, the
proportion who receive food stamps dropped from 94% in 1995 to 84% in
1997. During 1997 alone, the number of children living in poverty
decreased by 350,000--but the number receiving food stamps decreased by
1.3 million. GAO's report concludes, ``children's participation in the
Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children
living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and
assistance.''
In January 1999, the Urban Institute released the results of a study
of former welfare recipients and reported that 33% have to skip or
reduce meals due to lack of food. This result is corroborated by
independent studies in Wisconsin and South Carolina, and by NETWORK's
National Welfare Reform Project.
In 1998, surveys of emergency food providers conducted by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest independently
documented that the need for emergency food services increased 15 to
20% over the previous year, and that almost 40% of emergency food
clients live in households in which an adult is employed.
The Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project conducted
surveys of over 5,000 low-income families between 1992 and 1994--the
most comprehensive study of childhood hunger ever undertaken in the
U.S.--and found that approximately 4 million children under age 12 were
hungry, and 9.6 million were at risk of hunger.
Far too many working parents still struggle to feed their families.
If our national values cannot persuade us to fight hunger now, while
the economy is strong, when will we ever do so? If we need economic
reasons to fight hunger in America, we need only consider the effects
of hunger on children.
Hunger and undernutrition are serious problems for people of all
ages, but their effects are particularly damaging to children. Over 14
million children live in households that suffer hunger. Hungry and
undernourished children are more likely to become anemic, and to suffer
from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more
likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When
children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not
address this problem, our considerable investments in education and
early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that
they should. Hunger and under-nutrition injure our greatest national
resource--our children.
In the past three decades, food stamps have grown into the nation's
most comprehensive and trusted way to end hunger. The news that
participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 27% over the past
three and a half years would be welcome--if poverty had declined by a
comparable amount. But the poverty rate declined by only 7% over this
time. Six million more poor people are without food stamps today than
in 1995. GAO reported that in 1997 alone, while the number of children
living in poverty decreased by just 350,000, the number of children
receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. We need to be concerned
that the nutritional needs of the other 950,000 children are not being
met.
Just as the decline in the welfare rolls does not by itself show that
people are no longer poor, the decline in Food Stamp rolls in no way
means that children and families are no longer hungry. Increasingly,
low-income working families are relying on emergency food services.
Across the country, demand for emergency food services has increased by
as much as 50% in some places. Many food banks find themselves unable
to meet the increased requests for help.
Only two days ago, the Chicago Sun-Times published an article
entitled ``Hunger--a growing concern in suburbs,'' describing
increasing demand for emergency food in some of Chicago's most affluent
neighborhoods.
A November 1998 study by Project Bread and Tufts University found
that 49% of emergency food providers in Massachusetts reported
increased need among families with children over the previous year. Of
those requesting assistance, 33% of food bank clients were children,
and 27% of Massachusetts adults requesting emergency food assistance
were employed. Although our strong economy and historically low
unemployment rate have helped many families get back on their feet,
there is no question that many families are working hard and still
cannot make ends meet.
By simplifying Food Stamp eligibility rules and improving access to
the program, we can reduce hunger and malnutrition, and help working
families live healthier, more fulfilling lives. No one in this country
should go hungry. This is a problem we can solve. We must not become
indifferent to the message that hunger indeed has a cure.
The Hunger Relief Act repeals many of the 1996 welfare reform law's
restrictions on access to food stamps for legal immigrants. For 30
years prior to the welfare reform law, Food Stamps were available to
legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law made them no longer
eligible. That law also created substantial uncertainty among eligible
groups as to whether they qualify.
Last year, Congress restored food stamp eligibility to some legal
immigrants--children, seniors, and disabled persons--who were in the
United States before August 1996. This was an important step, but it
helped fewer than a third of those who were adversely affected by the
1996 law. Hunger among legal immigrants predictably increased after
1996, although many legal immigrants held low-income jobs and paid
taxes. Children continue to be denied benefits because they arrived in
the U.S. after 1996 or because exclusion of their parents directly
results in decreased access to food stamps. Our laws recognize that
legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care
programs. Yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal
immigrants are denied access to adequate nutrition. The Hunger Relief
Act ensures that all those who need food stamps can obtain them.
In addition, the Hunger Relief Act helps low-income families by
relaxing federal limits on the value of a vehicle that a family can own
and still be eligible for food stamps. The current federal limit is
$4,650, which has risen only $150 since 1977.
Because low-income parents commonly need a vehicle to get to work and
to safely transport their children, many states have adopted vehicle
allowance standards for their state assistance programs that are more
generous than the federal standard. The conflicting and complex rules
that govern state programs and the Food Stamp Program complicate access
to food stamps for working families, as confirmed by GAO's July 1999
report.
By giving states the option of using their state vehicle standards
instead of the federal standard, the Hunger Relief Act gives states the
flexibility to ensure that their nutritional needs are met. It also
promotes work and child safety.
The case of a single parent of three young children in Northeastern
Massachusetts illustrates the need for this provision. The mother's
income recently dropped to $928 per month, but she is denied food
stamps because the value of her car exceeds $4650. Massachusetts would
be unlikely to reject her application under state law, but the federal
law requires her pleas for help to be rejected. Our Hunger Relief Act
will change that.
The Hunger Relief Act also enables families to qualify for food
stamps when they have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing
costs. Low-income families must often pay high rent for substandard
housing in many cities today. According to a recent report by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, demand for public housing
is rising, while the supply of affordable apartments and houses is
declining. Between 1996 and 1998, the number of affordable apartments
fell by more than 1 million. Nearly 1 million low-income families are
now waiting for public housing units across the country. They may wait
as long as 8 years in New York City to be placed.

[[Page 26991]]

HUD compares finding affordable housing to an ominous game of musical
chairs in which only the lucky find seats. In Boston, the average rent
for a two bedroom apartment rose by 58% between 1990 and 1998 to $1,350
after adjusting for inflation. The Women's Educational and Technical
Union has documented that single parents with one infant pay an average
rent of $839 in Boston, $709 in Worcester, and $578 in Pittsfield. All
of these figures far exceed half of a minimum wage worker's income.
Present law permits some shelter costs to be deducted when
determining Food Stamp eligibility, but the deduction is capped too
low. In 1996, 950,000 people received reduced food stamp benefits due
to the shelter cap. Over 880,000 of those affected were families with
children. The Hunger Relief Act raises the cap from $275 to $340, and
then indexes it to inflation, increasing access to food stamps for
approximately 1.25 million people.
For example, a family from Centerville, Massachusetts consisting of a
working mother and three children, survives on $1,433 in income each
month. Yet their shelter costs exceed $1,200. This family cannot
possibly meet these children's nutritional needs on $233 each month,
even if the family spends money on nothing besides shelter and food.
The Hunger Relief Act is intended to keep families like this from
having to choose between heating and eating.
Finally, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal support for
emergency food programs. Sharp increases in requests for help from food
pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year, despite
steep declines in food stamp participation. The U.S. Conference of
Mayors, and America's Second Harvest has independently documented a 15
to 20% increase in need over 1998. A recent survey of 30 cities by the
National Governors Association found that a growing number of low-
income working parents rely on food banks to feed their children. 79%
of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Projected Bread reported
serving more working poor in 1998, and 72% reported helping more
families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met,
the Hunger Relief Act increases federal funding for The Emergency Food
Assistance Program by 10%.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the
Hunger Relief Act will be $2.5 billion over the first 5 years. This
amount will increase our support for the Food Stamp Program by just
over 2% each year, a relatively small price to repair the most serious
problems in the nation's core nutrition program.
Americans overwhelmingly recognize that hunger is also closely linked
to problems in health, education, and the workplace. Adequate nutrition
should be available to all. Over three hundred national, regional, and
local organizations support the Hunger Relief Act. Even before welfare
reform was enacted, a January 1996 poll found that 55% of Americans
believe hunger is worsening in our country, and 74% felt that more
should be done to combat hunger in America. I request unanimous consent
that a letter signed by over 300 organizations in support of the Hunger
Relief Act may be printed in the Congressional Record following my
statement.
Millions of low-income working families, like the Jenkins family of
Royalston, Massachusetts will be helped by this bill. Although Terry
Jenkins' husband works in two jobs, after their mortgage payments, car
payments, utilities and clothing expenses for four children are paid,
they often cannot afford enough food for their family. As a result,
Terry worries that her children cannot concentrate during their
classes.
Her concern is legitimate. Students who are hungry or at-risk of
hunger are twice as likely to have academic, social and psychological
problems as children from similar low-income families who are not
hungry. By improving the Food Stamp Program, the Hunger Relief Act will
reduce the suffering for millions of families like the Jenkins.
Now, while the economy is strong, we must actively fight hunger and
ensure that the most basic needs of children and families are met. I
welcome the support of Senators Specter, Leahy and Jeffords in this
bipartisan effort and I look forward to early action in the Senate to
pass this needed legislation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we approach the beginning of the next
century, we have much to be proud of as a nation. The stock market has
reached an historic 10,000 mark. We are in the midst of one of the
greatest economic expansions in our nation's history. More Americans
own their own homes than at any time, and we have the lowest
unemployment and welfare caseloads in a generation.
Yet, there are millions of Americans who go hungry every day. Just
this past July, the Department of Agriculture published a report
entitled ``Household Food Security in the United States 1995-1998''
which reported that last year, 36 million persons--of which
approximately 40% were children--lived in households that experienced
hunger.
While it is true that food stamp and welfare program caseloads have
dropped over the past few years, hunger has not. As families try to
make the transition from welfare to work, too many are falling out and
being left behind. And too often, it is our youth who is feeling the
brunt of this, as one out of every five people lining up at soup
kitchens is a child.
Second Harvest, the nation's largest hunger relief charity,
distributed more than one billion pounds of food to an estimated 26
million low-income Americans last year through their network of
regional food banks. These food banks provide food and grocery products
to nearly fifty thousand local charitable feeding programs--food
shelves, pantries, soup kitchens and emergency shelters.
Yet as the demand has risen at local hunger relief agencies, too many
pantries and soup kitchens have been forced to turn needy people away
because the request for their services exceeds available food.
Last year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors released its Annual Survey
of Hunger and Homelessness, which reported that the demand for hunger
relief services grew 14 percent last year. Additionally, 21 percent of
requests for emergency food were estimated to have gone unmet. This is
the highest rate of unmet need by emergency food providers since the
recession of the early 1990s. And this is not just a problem of the
inner cities. According to the Census Bureau, hunger and poverty are
growing faster in the suburbs than anywhere else in America. In my own
state of Vermont, one in ten people is ``food insecure,'' according to
government statistics. That is, of course, just a clinical way to say
they are hunger or at risk of hunger.
Under the leadership of Deborah Flateman, the Vermont Food Bank
distributes food to approximately 240 private social service agencies
throughout the state to help hungry and needy Vermonters. The local
food shelves and emergency kitchens which receive food from the Vermont
Food Bank clearly are on the front-line against hunger. And what they
are seeing is very disturbing--one in four seeking hunger relief is a
child under the age of 17. Elderly people make up more than a third of
all emergency food recipients. We cannot continue to allow so many of
our youngest and oldest citizens face the prospect of hunger on a daily
basis. Another extremely troubling statistic about hunger in Vermont is
that in 45 percent of the households that receive charitable food
assistance, one or more adults are working. Nationwide, working poor
households represent more than one-third of all emergency food
recipients. These are people in Vermont and across the U.S. who are
working, paying taxes and contributing to the economic growth of our
nation, but are reaping few of the rewards.
Our government has taken numerous steps to alleviate hunger in
America, but clearly more still needs to be done.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program has been essential in the fight
against hunger by providing USDA commodities to the nation's food banks
and local emergency feeding charities. As the demands continue to grow,
however, TEFAP resources are running on

[[Page 26992]]

empty. The Hunger Relief Act would increase funding for TEFAP, thus
helping community charities cope with increased local demand for hunger
relief.
Perhaps more than any other program, the Food Stamp Program has been
critical to the prevention and alleviation of hunger and poverty, and
is essential to helping families on welfare transition to work.
Nationally, one in ten people--half of which are children--participates
in the Food Stamp Program.
In this time of economic booms, one in five U.S. children--
approximately 15 million children--lives in a household receiving food
stamps.
And far too many families with full-time or part-time minimum wage
jobs need food stamps just to approach the poverty line.
For many families, the choice between paying the rent and buying food
is becoming more and more common. While the Food Stamp Program does
adjust benefits for families with high shelter costs, this adjustment
has been artificially capped. In 1993, Congress passed a phased-out
elimination of the cap on the food stamp shelter deduction. With the
passage of the Welfare Reform bill, however, Congress repealed the
phase-out and the cap remained in place.
The cap on the shelter deduction has had a significant impact on
working families, who tend to have higher shelter costs than families
receiving public housing assistance. The Hunger Relief Act raises the
shelter cap from $275 to $340, and then indexes it to inflation,
increasing access to Food Stamps for approximately 1.25 million people.
Many working poor families, particularly in rural areas, own a
modestly valued car, necessary to get to work, but of a value greater
than the antiquated food stamp vehicle limit. In the last 22 years, the
limit on car values has increased a total of $150, and in many states
the Food Stamp vehicle allowance is much lower than the TANF vehicle
allowance. The Hunger Relief Act would give states more freedom,
allowing states the option of using the same limits for vehicles under
both TANF and Food Stamps. The Hunger Relief Act would also complete
the restoration of food stamp benefits to thousands of immigrants who
were pushed out of the program by the Welfare Reform Act.
Last Congress I worked hard to include $818 million in the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act to
restore food stamp benefits for thousands of legal immigrants. This
legislation restored food stamps to legal immigrants who are disabled
or elderly, or who later become disabled, and who resided in the United
States prior to August 22, 1996. That law also increased food stamp
eligibility time limits--from five years to seven years--for refugees
and asylees who came to this country to avoid persecution. Hmong
refugees who aided U.S. military efforts in Southeast Asia were also
covered, as were children residing in the United States prior to August
22, 1996.
Though the Agriculture Research Act restored food stamp eligibility
to children of legal immigrants, many of these children are not
receiving food stamps and are experiencing alarming instances of
hunger. In its recent report entitled ``Who is Leaving the Food Stamp
Program? An Analysis of Caseload Changes from 1994 to 1997,'' the
United States Department of Agriculture reported that participation
among children living with parents who are legal immigrants fell
significantly faster than children living with native-born parents. It
appears that restrictions on adult legal immigrants deterred the
participation of their children. That is a disturbing development that
must be rectified, and the Hunger Relief Act would go along way toward
making the situation right by restoring food stamp eligibility to all
legal immigrants.
Of the many problems that we face as a nation, hunger is one that is
entirely solvable. Hunger is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Hunger
is a problem that all Americans should agree must be ended in our
nation. I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Jeffords
in introducing the Hunger Relief Act, and I look forward to working
with members of the Senate to see the passage of this legislation.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Hollings, and Mr. Cleland):
S. 1806. A bill to authorize the payment of a gratuity to certain
members of the Armed Forces who served at Bataan and Corregidor during
World War II, or the surviving spouses of such members, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

bataan and corregidor veterans legislation

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important
legislation, of which Senator Hollings and Senator Cleland are also
sponsors, recognizing the heroic contributions of American soldiers who
served in Bataan and Corregidor during World War II. This legislation
will provide a one time honorarium to those veterans who survived the
notorious Death March and were made to work as slave labor in support
of the Japanese war effort. Compensation awarded these heroes for their
imprisonment has never approached the value of their sacrifices on
behalf of our nation's liberty. As these legendary heroes approach the
final chapters of their lives, if is fitting that the nation pay them
special homage for their heroic deeds heretofore unrewarded. That's why
I am introducing this legislation today--to salute these Americans in
recognition of the great sacrifices they made for this nation.
From December 1941 to April 1942, American military forces stationed
in the Philippines fought valiantly against overwhelming Japanese
military forces on the Bataan peninsula near Manila. Under severe
combined attack of the Japanese forces, General Douglas MacArthur
ordered U.S. troops to withdraw to the Bataan peninsula to form a
strong defensive perimeter to protect the eventual evacuation of troops
from the island. The U.S. forces fought for 3 months, considerably
longer than the unfavorable troop balance would have suggested was
possible. As a result of extending Japanese military resources during
that crucial initial phase of the war in the Pacific, U.S. forces in
Bataan and Corregidor prevented Japan from accomplishing critical
strategic objectives that would have enabled them to capture Australia.
Had the Japanese been able to accomplish their plans, their victory in
the Philippines could have doomed Allied efforts in the Pacific from
the very outset.
On April 9, 1942, Major General Edward King, Commander of U.S. forces
on the Bataan peninsula, ordered the troops to surrender rather than
face certain slaughter on the battlefield. What followed was the
tragic, infamous ``Death March'' of American prisoners from the Bataan
peninsula to Camp O'Donnell of Manila. Some experts estimate that more
than 10,000 Americans died on the 85-mile march to the prison camp.
Many died of starvation or lack of water; some were executed on the
spot by their Japanese captors.
In June 1942, following the surrender of American troops of the
Corregidor garrison, prisoners held at the O'Donnell Prisoner of War
(POW) camp were joined with those captured at Corregidor and
transferred to the Cabanatuan POW camp. In the fall of 1944, the
Japanese transferred more than 1,600 prisoners from the Cabanatuan POW
camp to ``hell ships'' destined for Japan, where prisoners were used as
slave laborers working in mines, shipyards, and factories. In some
cases, because the ``hell ships'' weren't marked, they were attacked
and sunk by U.S. military aircraft.
Mr. President, the heroic performance of our soldiers at Bataan and
during incarceration in POW camps earned them well-deserved citations
following the war. The 200th and 515th Coastal Artillery units from New
Mexico that served to defend the retreating troops at Bataan received
three Presidential Unit Citations and the Philippine Presidential Unit
Citation for their heroism. New Mexico is particularly proud of these
men whose heroism I seek to salute through this legislation today.

[[Page 26993]]

Of the 25,000 American servicemen stationed in the Philippines at the
outbreak of World War II, less than 1,000 are living today. These
heroes deserve special recognition and gratitude from the American
people beyond the symbolic recognition and remuneration they have
heretofore received.
In December, 1998, the Canadian Government approved a legislative
measure to compensate their military veterans who had been captured by
the Japanese during the fall of Hong Kong, and who subsequently
provided slave labor in Japanese POW camps. The measure awarded
approximately 700 qualified veterans and surviving spouses $15,600 each
``as an extraordinary payment to extraordinary individuals who suffered
extraordinary treatment in captivity.'' The payment to Canadian
veterans will total $11.7 million from Canadian federal funds, not from
the Japanese Government. The Japanese Government considers their
liability for treatment of POWs to have been settled by the treaty
signed in 1952, compensating each prisoner of war for their time in
captivity, but not for any slave labor that was performed. Last fall,
Japan's high court rejected a compensation suit seeking redress filed
by a coalition of former Allied prisoners on the basis of the 1952
treaty protecting Japan from further liability in post-war settlements.
Mr. President in agreeing to provide their veterans with compensation
for slave labor performed while in POW camps, the Canadian Government
recognized that lengthy legal proceedings appealing the decision of the
Japanese high court would likely be too drawn out to be beneficial to
their aging veterans. As a result, the Canadian Government concluded
that it was appropriate and honorable to recognize the heroic
contributions of veterans who were made to perform slave labor simply
out of recognition of the debt of gratitude owed to the veterans by the
Canadian people.
Our American veterans who served in Bataan and Corregidor and
performed slave labor in Japanese mines, shipyards, and factories are
in a similar predicament as their Canadian colleagues. These men have
never been fully compensated for their heroism and sacrifices made
while serving as slaves to their Japanese captors. The Japanese
government has concluded that it is no longer liable for compensating
such claims. Appealing the decision of the Japanese high court to
further authority would take more time than many of our veterans have.
Consequently, Mr. President, I believe that the American Government,
just as the Canadian Government has done, should choose to recognize
the contributions of the war heroes of Bataan and Corregidor.
The legislation I am introducing today calls on the Congress to
authorize payment of $20,000 to each veteran of Bataan or Corregidor
who performed slave labor during World War II. The honorarium would
also be extended to surviving spouses. This small token of appreciation
would mean a great deal to these heroes and their families.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I hope we can enact it in
the near future.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me commend our distinguished
colleague from New Mexico. I had the privilege of visiting Corregidor
about 30 years ago with Senator Montoya. We talked about the New Mexico
National Guard. Most were lost who went through that dreadful
experience. For those that survived--I lost a good friend, Jack
Leonard, and other graduates who served in the New Mexico National
Guard--this is a moment of history that should be noted in a more clear
and reverent fashion.
I ask, please, to be added as a cosponsor to the Senator's bill.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina very much. This
legislation will move more quickly with him as a cosponsor. I also want
to indicate that Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of this legislation,
as well. As I say, I hope we can move ahead with it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague
Senator Bingaman to introduce legislation that will compensate our
veterans who fought at Bataan and Corregidor and were later held
prisoner.
I do not think words can fully describe the bravery of these veterans
and the horrific conditions they endured, but I think a quote from Lt.
Gen. Jonathan M. Wainwright provides an insight into these men:

They were the first to fire and last to lay down their
arms, and only reluctantly doing so after being given a
direct order.

The 200th and 515th Coast Artillery better known as the New Mexico
Brigade played a prominent and heroic role in the fierce fighting that
took place in the Philippines. For four months the men of the 200th and
the 515th held off the Japanese only to be finally overwhelmed by
disease and starvation.
Today every student in his or her history class learns about the
tragic result of the Battle for Bataan. The survivors of the battle
were subjected to the horrors and atrocities of the 65 mile ``Death
March.'' As if this were not enough, following the infamous march these
men were held for over 40 months in Prisoner of War Camps.
Sadly, of the eighteen hundred men in the Regiment, less than nine
hundred returned home and a third of those passed away within a year of
returning. I simply cannot imagine what it must have been like for
these men.
I would now like to briefly discuss the Bill we are introducing. This
legislation offers long overdue compensation to a select group of men
who served in the Philippines at Bataan and Corregidor during World War
II. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay
$20,000 to any veteran, or his surviving spouse, who served at Bataan
or Corregidor, was captured and held as a prisoner of war, and was
forced to perform slave labor as a prisoner in Japan during World War
II.
There is one final point that I want to make as a matter of simple
fairness. I believe that in the upcoming months the federal tax
implications should be examined. It may be necessary to provide that
the $20,000 payment should be excluded from federal income taxes.
Without an exclusion, the interaction between a lump sum payment, the
social security income tax earnings limitation could subject some of
the survivors of the Bataan death march to one-time exorbitant tax
rates in excess of 50 percent. We don't want the federal government to
give the compensation with one hand, only to have it taken away by the
IRS.
Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
issue.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1807. A bill to provide for increased access to airports in the
United Kingdom by United States air carriers, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

open skies between the u.s. and the u.k. legislation

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation in
response to the lack of progress in negotiations between the United
States and the United Kingdom to open up competition through an open-
skies treaty for air travel between our countries. International
aviation travel is central to the continued growth of commerce and
tourism, and every effort must be made to increase these opportunities.
This bill mandates that the United States and the United Kingdom come
to an agreement that would grant all applications U.S. carriers
currently have filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation for
route access to the United Kingdom. The bill also mandates more access
to London's Heathrow International Airport for U.S. carriers that do
not currently have access to this airport. Congressman Bud Shuster,
Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
has already introduced an identical bill, H.R. 3072, with the Ranking
Minority Member, Congressman James Oberstar, in the House of
Representatives.
Under the current 22 year old bilateral agreement, known as Bermuda
II,

[[Page 26994]]

only two U.S. airlines, American and United, and two from Great
Britain, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, can fly between Heathrow
and the United States. Under the current agreement, the British hold
dominant rights to air travel between our countries in one of the most
restrictive existing bilateral agreements for air travel. For example,
British Airways is allowed to fly more routes to the U.S. than all U.S.
carriers can fly to the United Kingdom combined. This present policy is
unfair and is not in the best interests of American or British
consumers.
This situation is illustrated by the recent announcement by British
Airways that it would be ending its nonstop flights between Pittsburgh
and London as of October 31, 1999. This means that a city which has had
nonstop for over a decade will no longer have it. Under the current
restrictive agreement, only the British can fly to and from Pittsburgh;
American carriers willing to pick up this route are unable to do so.
The United States has open-skies agreements with over 36 countries
which have been completed or are being phased in. Open-skies agreements
allow a free market in air service in which airlines can fly where they
want. It is inappropriate for the United States to lack a similar
agreement with an historic ally and major trading partner such as the
United Kingdom.
If an agreement is not reached within six months of the bill's
passage, the Secretary of Transportation is required to revoke all
current slots and slot exemptions held by British air carriers at
Chicago O'Hare and New York Kennedy airports. In addition, if the
United States and the United Kingdom do not reach an open-skies
agreement by the end of 2000, the bill mandates renunciation of the
current bilateral agreement. My goal is to provide a strong incentive
for our two countries to negotiate a fair, long overdue agreement by
increasing competition and choices for consumers and all interested
carriers in both countries.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1807

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

SECTION 1. ACCESS TO UNITED KINGDOM AIRPORTS.

(a) In General.--If the Governments of the United Kingdom
and the United States have not signed an agreement, by the
date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, that--
(1) provides for approval of all applications for air
routes from the United States to the United Kingdom that have
been submitted to the Secretary of Transportation by United
States air carriers and are pending on October 14, 1999; and
(2) provides slots at Heathrow International Airport to
United States air carriers that do not have any slots at such
airport on such date of enactment, without affecting any
slots held by other United States air carriers at such
airport on such date of enactment,

the Secretary of Transportation shall immediately revoke all
slots and exemptions to the slot rule held by British air
carriers at O'Hare International Airport and John F. Kennedy
International Airport and, after the date of such revocation,
shall not grant any slot or exemption to the slot rule to a
British air carrier at either of such airports until such an
agreement is signed.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) British air carrier.--The term ``British air carrier''
means a citizen of Great Britain undertaking by any means,
directly or indirectly, to provide foreign air transportation
(as defined in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States
Code).
(2) Slot rule.--The term ``slot rule'' means the
requirements contained in subparts K and S of part 93 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) United states air carrier.--The term ``United States
air carrier'' has the meaning given to the term ``air
carrier'' by section 40102(a) of title 49, United States
Code.

SEC. 2. OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT.

If the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United
States have not signed an open skies agreement, as defined in
Department of Transportation Order 92-8-13, by December 31,
2000, the Secretary of State shall immediately file a notice
to terminate the Agreement Between the United States of
America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Air Services, in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Biden):
S. 1808. A bill to reauthorize and improve the drug court grant
program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Drug Court Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a
bill to provide federal assistance to States and local governments for
drug courts to provide treatment rather than expensive imprisonment for
drug addicted nonviolent offenders.
This legislation would reauthorize and improve upon a novel program
by which States and localities may obtain Federal funds to assist in
the implementation of a ``drug court'' within the State and local
criminal courts. Drug courts are designed to select from the general
criminal population nonviolent offenders who test positive for drugs,
and put them through a program of court supervised drug treatment and
rehabilitation. In this way, we can both aid first-time drug offenders
by preventing them from becoming career criminals and provide
localities the funds to enable them to control the serious backlogs in
their criminal court caused by the drug crime wave. In the long-term,
this solution to the drug plague promises to be less expensive than
incarcerating these nonviolent offenders.
In 1991, I introduced similar legislation (S. 648), which was
proposed by a 1990 study commissioned by the Philadelphia Bar
Association entitled, ``Clearing the Road to Justice.'' This study
found that state and local courts are overwhelmed by a large number of
drug related crimes committed by first time offenders. The study
concluded that a separate drug court division could both speed
processing of drug related cases and provide mandatory drug screening
programs to target first-time nonviolent drug offenders, and at the
same time free up the rest of the court system to focus on violent
criminals.
Congress enacted legislation to authorize a federal drug court grant
program as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994. However, in an action without any debate and that I believe
reflected poor judgment, Congress repealed such authority in the
Omnibus Consolidation Recessional and Appropriations Act of 1996 (PL
104-134). Although Congress rescinded the authority for this program,
it has had been good sense to continue to appropriate some funds to the
program by increasing funding from $11.5 million in 1995 to $40 million
in 1999.
As a result of this federal funding, there has been a considerable
increase in the number of drug courts in the United States. Since 1994,
the total number of operating drug court program has grown from 42 to
approximately 300. However, there is still not enough funding to
adequately support the program despite the increased interest. Last
year the Department of Justice received 216 grant applications, but was
able to award only 88 grants. Justice reports that there were at least
38 additional programs that would have received grants had there been
funding available.
During my travels in Pennsylvania, I have confirmed that there is a
great deal of interest in implementing this program. Currently, there
are six counties (Allegheny, Chester, Lycoming, Philadelphia, York,
Erie) that are in various stages of planning and implementing drug
court programs. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of
prosecutors, judges and participants of these programs. They are very
positive about their initial progress and very optimistic about the
results that they will achieve in the future.
As a member of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, I have
been an advocate of increasing funds for this program. I am committed
to a balanced federal budget and realize that we must be careful in how
we make federal expenditures. With this in mind, I have chosen this
program carefully as one in which we should invest federal funds. I
believe that Congress must step up to the plate and

[[Page 26995]]

commit to this program by authorizing it and appropriating sufficient
funds to meet the growing demand for drug court alternatives. It is
necessary that the criminal justice system and Congress face up to the
fact that realistic rehabilitation must be a part of the process of
drug treatment and crime reduction.
I believe that the drug courts are extremely effective in breaking
the cycle of substance abuse and crime and will save large amounts of
money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. With this
program, first-time drug offenders may be prevented from becoming
career criminals, and localities will be provided with funds to
minimize the serious backlogs in criminal courts caused largely by drug
crimes. The most recent Drug Court Survey Report, published by the
Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
Assistance Project at American University found that the drug court
programs reported low recidivism rates between 2% and 20%. The survey
also found significantly reduced drug use even among those who did not
graduate from the programs, with as many as 93% of participants testing
negative for drugs. Further, this alternative promises to be less
expensive than incarcerating nonviolent offenders. Drug courts offer
significant cost savings as compared to incarceration. According to the
Drug Court Survey Report, the average cost for the treatment component
of a drug court program ranges between $900 and $1,200 per participant,
and savings in jail bed days have been estimated to be at least $5,000
per defendant. Additional reported savings include reductions in police
overtime, witness costs and grand jury expenses.
While these statistics are very promising, they are not necessarily
representative of all of the drug court programs. In 1997, GAO issued a
report entitled ``Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics and
Results,'' which found that nearly half of the drug court programs do
not maintain follow-up data regarding recidivism or relapse to drug
abuse. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the Attorney General require
drug court programs to collect and maintain follow-up data on
recidivism and drug use relapse. This legislation includes a
requirement for such follow-up so Congress can better determine the
program's efficacy.
This legislation would authorize up to $200 million per year for this
innovative program, the original level from the 1994 law. Additionally,
in order to create greater flexibility for states and local governments
to fund the drug court programs, this legislation would allow federal
funds that are received from sources other than the Drug Courts Program
Office to be counted as a part of the 25% grantee matching contribution
requirement. The current Justice policy requires the grantee to
contribute 25% of the total program costs--none of which can come from
a federal source.
Additionally, the 1994 law required the Department of Justice to
consult with HHS concerning administration of the drug court program,
and although the drug court provision was rescinded, Justice has
continued to consult with HHS in an informal manner regarding treatment
programs. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the important role
that HHS can play in improving the treatment aspect of the drug court
program. Accordingly, this bill would reinstate the requirement that
Justice consult with HHS regarding administration of the drug court
program and would authorize $75 million to be appropriated to HHS to be
used for drug treatment services associated with drug court programs.
I urge my colleagues to support this important program which provides
an effective alternative to imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent
offenders.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Frist,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 1809. A bill to improve service systems for individuals with
developmental disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to introduce
today, for myself, and my colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Frist, Collins,
Wellstone, Reed, Dodd, and Murray, The Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill is the
reauthorization of a piece of legislation with a rich legacy, and a
long history of bipartisan Congressional support. Originally authorized
in 1963 and last reauthorized in 1996, it has always focused on the
needs of our most vulnerable citizens, an estimated four million
individuals with severe disabilities, including individuals with mental
retardation and other lifelong, pervasive disabilities.
Initial versions of this legislation focused primarily on the
interdisciplinary training of professionals to work with individuals
with developmental disabilities. The University Affiliated Facilities
(UAFs) were the first federally funded programs charged with expanding
the cadre of professionals to address the needs of individuals with
developmental disabilities. The name of these programs was changed to
University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) in a subsequent reauthorization
and their mission was expanded to include community services and
information dissemination pertaining to individuals with developmental
disabilities. Finally, in 1996, after 33 years of planned expansion by
Congress, each State established and received core funding for at least
one UAP.
In the 1970 reauthorization of the DD Act, Congress recognized the
need for, and value of strengthening State efforts to coordinate and
integrate services for individuals with developmental disabilities. As
a result, Congress established and authorized funding for State
Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils) in each state. The
purpose of the Councils was, and continues to be, to advise governors
and State agencies on how to use available and potential resources to
meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Every
State has a DD Council. The Councils undertake advocacy, capacity
building, and systemic change activities directed at improving access
to community services and supports for individuals with disabilities
and their families.
In 1975, Congress created and authorized funding for Protection and
Advocacy Systems (P&As) in each state to ensure the safety and well
being of individuals with developmental disabilities. The mission of
these systems has evolved over the years, initially addressing the
protection of individuals with developmental disabilities who lived in
institutions, to the present responsibilities related to the protection
of individuals with developmental disabilities from abuse, neglect, and
exploitation, and from the violation of their legal and human rights,
both in institutions and in the community.
The 1975 reauthorization of the DD Act also established funding for
Projects of National Significance. Through this new authority Congress
authorized funding for projects that would support national initiatives
related to specific areas of need. Over the years, projects related to
areas such as people with developmental disabilities and the criminal
justice system, home ownership, employment, assistive technology, and
self-advocacy for individuals with developmental disabilities have been
initiated through these projects.
The 1999 reauthorization of the DD Act builds on the past successes
of these programs, reflects today's changing society, and seeks to
provide a foundation to provide the services and supports that
individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and
communities will need as we enter the next century. Let me take a few
moments to highlight the major provisions of this bill.
The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of
1999 continues a tradition of support for a DD Network in each State
that is able

[[Page 26996]]

to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities
in quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care,
employment, health, housing, transportation, recreation and other
services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their
families. This approach reflects current trends in society and in the
field of developmental disabilities in that it emphasizes the
empowerment of individuals with developmental disabilities and their
families and joins it with state flexibility and increased
accountability.
The bill continues and further develops the important work of the DD
Act programs in each State. It seeks to ensure that more individuals
with developmental disabilities are able to fully participate in and
contribute to their communities through full integration and inclusion
in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational
mainstream of our nation. It also assists DD Act programs to improve
the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families regardless of where they choose to
live.
Unfortunately, in keeping with other realities of our time, the bill
also recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities are at
greater risk of abuse, neglect, financial and sexual exploitation, and
the violation of their legal and human rights, than the general
population. Based upon this recognition, the bill supports the extra
effort and attention that is needed, in both individual and systemic
situations, to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities
are put at no greater risk of harm than others in the general
population.
The bill recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities
often have multiple, evolving, life long needs that require interaction
with agencies and organizations that offer specialized assistance as
well as interaction with generic services in their communities. The
nature of the needs of these individuals and the capacity of States and
communities to respond to them have changed. In the past 5 years, new
strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with
developmental disabilities have gained visibility and credibility.
These new strategies are reinforced by and reflected in this bill.
In the past, the Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems have been
authorized to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change
activities to make access to and navigation through various service
systems easier for individuals with developmental disabilities. Over
time there has been pressure for these three programs to provide
assistance beyond the limit of their resources and beyond their
authorized missions. The bill clearly and concisely specifies the roles
and responsibilities of Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems so that
there is a common understanding of what the programs are intended to
contribute toward a State's efforts to respond to the needs of
individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
The bill gives States' Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems more
flexibility. Each program in a State, working with stakeholders, is to
develop goals for how to assure that individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have
access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other
forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence,
productivity, integration, and inclusion in all facets of community
life. Goals may be set in any of the following areas of emphasis:
quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care,
health, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, or other
community services.
Consistent with Congressional emphasis on strengthening
accountability for all federal programs, this legislation requires each
program to determine, before undertaking a goal, how it will be
measured. Measurement of a goal must reflect the impact of the goal on
individuals with developmental disabilities. The Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to develop indicators
of progress to evaluate how the three programs in each State have
engaged in activities to promote and achieve the purpose and policy of
the Act in terms of choices available to individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families, their satisfaction with services,
their ability to participate in community life, and their safety. In
addition, the Secretary is to monitor how the three programs funded in
each State coordinate their efforts, and how that coordination affects
the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families in that State.
During the past several years, a clearer picture has emerged of what
individuals with developmental disabilities are able to accomplish when
they have access to the same choices and opportunities available to
others and with the appropriate support. There has also been increasing
recognition of and support for self-advocacy organizations established
by and for individuals with developmental disabilities. This bill
reflects and promotes such efforts by authorizing State Councils in
each State to support self-advocacy organizations for individuals with
developmental disabilities.
The legislation renames the University Affiliated Programs as
University Centers for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities
Education, Research, and Service, expands their responsibilities to
include the conduct of research, and links them together to create a
National Network.
By administering the three programs specifically authorized under the
DD Act and by funding projects of national significance to accomplish
similar or complementary efforts, the Administration on Developmental
Disabilities (ADD) in HHS plays a critical role in supporting and
fostering new ways to assist individuals with developmental
disabilities and in promoting system integration to expand and improve
community services for individuals with disabilities. This bill
provides ADD with the ability to foster similar efforts across the
Executive Branch. The bill authorizes ADD to pursue and join with other
Executive Branch entities in activities that will improve choices,
opportunities, and services for individuals with developmental
disabilities.
The bill recognizes that forty-nine States have begun to develop
family support programs for families with children with disabilities.
This supports States by providing grants (one, 3-year grant per State,
on a competitive basis) to assist States to provide services to
families who choose to keep their children with disabilities at home
and not be forced to place their children in institutions due to the
lack of support. The bill gives States maximum flexibility to use
targeted funds to strengthen or expand existing State family support
programs.
Finally, in response to a national need to increase the number and
improve the training of direct support workers who assist individuals
with developmental disabilities where they live, work, go to school,
and play, the bill includes provisions proposed by Senators Frist and
Wellstone. One provides funding for the development and dissemination
of a technology-based training curriculum to provide state of the art
staff development for individuals in direct service roles with people
with developmental disabilities and their families. The other is a
scholarship program to encourage continuing education for individuals
entering the field of direct service
Throughout the country, the DD Act programs have a long history of
achievement. In Vermont, the DD Act programs make ongoing contributions
to major initiatives affecting individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families. They play significant roles in many of
Vermont's accomplishments, including: the inclusion of children with
severe disabilities into local schools and classrooms; early
intervention and family leadership initiatives that are national
models; and innovative programs in the areas of employment, and
community living options for individuals with developmental
disabilities. Based upon the letters our office has received from
across the country, it is clear that these small programs make
substantial, positive differences in their states.

[[Page 26997]]

The bill we present today reflects the foundation of what Congress
has supported over the past 36 years, combined with our best efforts to
support individuals with the most severe disabilities, their families,
and their communities into the next century. It represents the best of
what we in Congress have the opportunity to do . . . to ensure that
those who are among our most vulnerable citizens, are protected,
supported, and encouraged to achieve their potential. My colleagues and
I are proud to present it to you today and hope to see it enacted as
soon as possible.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator
Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator
Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research
Enhancement Act of 1999''.
Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is
central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological
research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of
medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting-
edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the
bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the
advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and
treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research
are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines,
and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy
and create jobs.
Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical
research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of
physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21%. Studies
by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health
have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical
researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training
opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school.
The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical
research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research
support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all
stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to
conduct clinical research.
The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored
Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support
clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers
by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study.
The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will
provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for
clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators.
To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages
in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will
support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and
dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in
clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and
institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education,
NIH will support continuing education in such research.
Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan
repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators.
Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians
graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because
of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay
their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to
choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged
this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program
to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our
legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout
the country will be eligible.
A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In
clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the
general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout
the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical
research centers.
In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by
academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are
confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and
are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize
costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become
much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important
legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70
biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American
Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support as a
cosponsor of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act Amendments of 1999, a bill to extend and improve our
Nation's developmental disabilities programs which allow individuals
with developmental disabilities, such as mental retardation and severe
physical disabilities, to live more independent and productive lives.
As the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy
during the 104th Congress, I introduced the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1996 which successfully
extended this vital law. Through this experience, I became aware of the
importance of the programs under this Act and how they work to improve
the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities.
Before the DD Act was first signed in 1963, Americans who happened to
be born with developmental disabilities often lived and died in
institutions where many were subjected to unspeakable conditions, far
worse than conditions found in any American prison. Over the last
several decades, thanks in part to the programs included in the DD Act,
we have learned how to help families to bring up their children with
developmental disabilities in their family homes; we have learned how
to teach children with developmental disabilities; we have learned how
to make room for these citizens to live and work in the heart of our
communities; and we have learned how to ensure safe living environments
and dependable care for those individuals with developmental
disabilities who remain in residential facilities.
The bill introduced today will ensure that these activities will
continue. This bill will update and increase the accountability and
flexibility of these programs under the law. These programs include the
university affiliated programs which educate students in developmental
disabilities related fields and which conduct research and training on
how to meet the needs of the disabled. The law also authorizes funding
for State Developmental Disabilities Councils which advise governors
and State agencies on how to use available and potential resources to
meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. To help
protect the rights of the developmentally disabled, the law provides
grants for Protection and Advocacy Systems to provide information and
referral services and to investigate reported incidents of abuse and
neglect of individuals with developmental disabilities.
I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has agreed to include a provision
in this bill which I drafted to address the training of direct service
personnel for individuals with developmental disabilities. The training
of direct service personnel is a national challenge in both magnitude
and complexity. The size of this workforce is over 400,000 persons with
an estimated annual turnover rate of 50 percent. In addition, nearly
half of these workers are part time, working nontraditional hours. To
address this dilemma, I have drafted a provision to develop a training
program to create, evaluate, and disseminate a multimedia curriculum
for staff

[[Page 26998]]

development of individuals who are direct support workers or who seek
to become direct support workers. This program will help develop a
training regime that will be both cost and time effective for providers
of services for the developmentally disabled.
Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1999,
which will improve and strengthen an important law which provides
support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their
families and which will assist individuals with developmental
disabilities to live independently and work in the community, out of
institutions, with as little bureaucracy and government intrusion as
possible.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. The Developmental Disabilities Act
has been a cornerstone of federal registration for people with
disabilities. I am pleased to be here today with Senator Jeffords,
Senator Kennedy, and other colleagues from the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee to introduce legislation that will
reauthorize this important law.
The entities funded under the Act--The Developmental Disabilities
Councils, University Affiliated Programs, and the Protection and
Advocacy agencies--have enabled us to move away from a service system
dominated by large public institutions, and to establish services where
families and individuals want them--in their own homes, communities,
and neighborhoods. In fact, the Supreme Court cited the Developmental
Disabilities Act in the recent Olmstead decision as one of several
pieces of federal legislation that secure opportunities for people with
disabilities to enjoy the benefits of community living.
This year's reauthorization is important for a number of reasons.
First, we must continue our progress toward providing better community
services for all people with disabilities. The Development Disabilities
Act is instrumental in that work.
Second, we must ensure that people with developmental disabilities
are free from abuse and neglect in all aspects of the service delivery
system. This bill will help protect people with disabilities from abuse
and neglect no matter where they live--inside an institution or in the
community.
And, finally, we must do more to strengthen and support families as
they provide care and support to family members with a disability.
Family Support programs are one of the fastest growing services on the
State level. State policy-makers are realizing that family caregivers
are the true heroes of our long-term care system and they need help if
they are going to keep their children at home. In this year's
reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act, we have included
a Family Support program to help states strengthen and coordinate their
support systems for family caregivers.
I commend the disability groups for all of their work to make this
reauthorization possible. I thank my colleagues and their staff for
their hard work to reauthorize this law into the next millennium. I
applaud their commitment to people with developmental
disabilities.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Kerrey, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 1810. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify and
improve veterans' claims and appellate procedures; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.

DUTY TO ASSIST VETERANS LEGISLATION

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to
make sure we treat America's veterans with the compassion they deserve.
They have sacrificed so much of their personal lives for our country.
And with this bill, I want to show them we appreciate their service,
and we will be there when they need help.
When veterans need medical care, they file a claim for benefits with
the Veterans Administration. It requires researching information over
many years and from many different government organizations.
Traditionally, the Veterans Administration has helped veterans
research and file their claims. That's the way it should be.
But a series of recent court decisions have changed that--and made it
harder for veterans to file their claims. I want to set the record
straight. The VA has a duty to assist veterans in filing their claims.
So today, I am introducing legislation to amend Title 38 of the
United States Code to clarify and improve veterans claims and
procedures.
My legislation clarifies that the Department of Veterans Affairs has
a duty to assist veterans in preparing all of the facts pertinent to a
claim for benefits. The VA has historically aided veterans in gathering
information from the federal bureaucracy so they can file a claim.
Let's not forget--the claims process was set up to aid our veterans.
It's important to all veterans, especially those with severe mental and
physical disabilities.
Homeless veterans need help. Elderly veterans need help. And family
members--who sacrifice to care for veterans--need help from the federal
government.
Anyone who has ever dealt with a veterans claim for benefits knows
this is a very difficult process. It can be frustrating for veterans
who--even in the best of circumstances--may be forced to wait several
years for a claim to be approved and granted. Veterans already pay a
heavy cost for delayed benefits. They often face financial, family, and
health problems, as they try to resolve their claims.
Yet, as we speak, the claims process at the VA is becoming even more
difficult for America's veterans and their families.
Through a series of court decisions, the VA's historic duty to assist
veterans has been set aside. The courts responsible for veterans claims
have determined that it is now the individual veteran's responsibility
to file a well-rounded claim before they can get assistance from the
VA. The effect has been to place the burden on the individual veteran
to gather information--service records, medical records, and other
documentation--from the federal government in order to file a claim.
Mr. President, the courts have decided our veterans in need of
assistance must go it alone. Homeless veterans suffering from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder must now prepare their claims without
assistance from the government they sacrificed for. Veterans who are
sick, mentally or physically disabled, indigent, or poorly educated now
face new barriers to assistance they may be legally entitled to
receive. Veterans without the financial resources, time or familiarity
with the claims process system must navigate through the bureaucracy
without federal assistance. That's not the way we should treat
America's veterans.
Clearly, the courts have misinterpreted Congressional intent. The
Veterans Judicial Review Act was signed into law during the 100th
Congress with the following language,

It is the obligation of the Veterans Administration to
assist a claimant in developing facts pertinent to his claim
and to render a decision which grants him every benefit that
can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the
Government.

Somehow the courts interpreted that language differently. My
objective in introducing legislation today is not to quarrel with the
courts. I simply want to reassert congressional intent and re-establish
the VA's duty to assist veterans. My legislation simply confirms the
Congress believes it is important and appropriate for the federal
government to assist veterans in preparing claims for benefits.
Mr. President, this legislation is widely supported among those who
work on veterans benefits claims every day. Numerous veterans advocacy
groups, including the Disabled American Veterans, strongly support my
legislation. This bill has original cosponsors from both sides of the
aisle. It is a bipartisan response to a real problem confronting
America's veterans.
Let's do the right thing for America's veterans and particularly for
those veterans who need the government's assistance the most.

[[Page 26999]]

I urge prompt Senate consideration and passage of this
legislation.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords, Ms.
Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1813. A bill to expand the Public Health Service Act to provide
additional support for and to expand clinical research programs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.

the clinical research enhancement act of 1999

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator
Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator
Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research
Enhancement Act of 1999''.
Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is
central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological
research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of
medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting-
edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the
bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the
advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and
treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research
are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines,
and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy
and create jobs.
Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical
research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of
physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21 percent.
Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council,
the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health
have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical
researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training
opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school.
The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical
research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research
support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all
stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to
conduct clinical research.
The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored
Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support
clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers
by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study.
The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will
provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for
clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators.
To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages
in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will
support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and
dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in
clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and
institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education,
NIH will support continuing education in such research.
Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan
repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators.
Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians
graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because
of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay
their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to
choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged
this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program
to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our
legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout
the country will be eligible.
A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In
clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the
general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout
the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical
research centers.
In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by
academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are
confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and
are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize
costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become
much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important
legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70
biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American
Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, the
American Federation for Medical Research's letter of support, and a
list of supporters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1813

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

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Research
Enhancement Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Clinical research is critical to the advancement of
scientific knowledge and to the development of cures and
improved treatment for disease.
(2) Tremendous advances in biology are opening doors to new
insights into human physiology, pathophysiology and disease,
creating extraordinary opportunities for clinical research.
(3) Clinical research includes translational research which
is an integral part of the research process leading to
general human applications. It is the bridge between the
laboratory and new methods of diagnosis, treatment, and
prevention and is thus essential to progress against cancer
and other diseases.
(4) The United States will spend more than
$1,200,000,000,000 on health care in 1999, but the Federal
budget for health research at the National Institutes of
Health was $15,600,000,000 only 1 percent of that total.
(5) Studies at the Institute of Medicine, the National
Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences have
all addressed the current problems in clinical research.
(6) The Director of the National Institutes of Health has
recognized the current problems in clinical research and
appointed a special panel, which recommended expanded support
for existing National Institutes of Health clinical research
programs and the creation of new initiatives to recruit and
retain clinical investigators.
(7) The current level of training and support for health
professionals in clinical research is fragmented,
undervalued, and underfunded.
(8) Young investigators are not only apprentices for future
positions but a crucial source of energy, enthusiasm, and
ideas in the day-to-day research that constitutes the
scientific enterprise. Serious questions about the future of
life-science research are raised by the following:
(A) The number of young investigators applying for grants
dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993.
(B) The number of physicians applying for first-time
National Institutes of Health research project grants fell
from 1226 in 1994 to 963 in 1998, a 21 percent reduction.
(C) Newly independent life-scientists are expected to raise
funds to support their new research programs and a
substantial proportion of their own salaries.
(9) The following have been cited as reasons for the
decline in the number of active clinical researchers, and
those choosing this career path:
(A) A medical school graduate incurs an average debt of
$85,619, as reported in the Medical School Graduation
Questionnaire by the Association of American Medical Colleges
(AAMC).
(B) The prolonged period of clinical training required
increases the accumulated debt burden.
(C) The decreasing number of mentors and role models.
(D) The perceived instability of funding from the National
Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies.
(E) The almost complete absence of clinical research
training in the curriculum of training grant awardees.
(F) Academic Medical Centers are experiencing difficulties
in maintaining a proper environment for research in a highly
competitive health care marketplace, which are compounded by
the decreased willingness of third party payers to cover
health care costs

[[Page 27000]]

for patients engaged in research studies and research
procedures.
(10) In 1960, general clinical research centers were
established under the Office of the Director of the National
Institutes of Health with an initial appropriation of
$3,000,000.
(11) Appropriations for general clinical research centers
in fiscal year 1999 equaled $200,500,000.
Since the late 1960s, spending for general clinical
research centers has declined from approximately 3 percent to
1 percent of the National Institutes of Health budget.
(12) In fiscal year 1999, there were 77 general clinical
research centers in operation, supplying patients in the
areas in which such centers operate with access to the most
modern clinical research and clinical research facilities and
technologies.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide
additional support for and to expand clinical research
programs.

SEC. 3. INCREASING THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES
OF HEALTH IN CLINICAL RESEARCH.

Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 409C. CLINICAL RESEARCH.

``(a) In General.--The Director of National Institutes of
Health shall undertake activities to support and expand the
involvement of the National Institutes of Health in clinical
research.
``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Director of National Institutes of Health shall--
``(1) consider the recommendations of the Division of
Research Grants Clinical Research Study Group and other
recommendations for enhancing clinical research; and
``(2) establish intramural and extramural clinical research
fellowship programs directed specifically at medical and
dental students and a continuing education clinical research
training program at the National Institutes of Health.
``(c) Support for the Diverse Needs of Clinical Research.--
The Director of National Institutes of Health, in cooperation
with the Directors of the Institutes, Centers, and Divisions
of the National Institutes of Health, shall support and
expand the resources available for the diverse needs of the
clinical research community, including inpatient, outpatient,
and critical care clinical research.
``(d) Peer Review.--The Director of National Institutes of
Health shall establish peer review mechanisms to evaluate
applications for the awards and fellowships provided for in
subsection (b)(2) and section 409D. Such review mechanisms
shall include individuals who are exceptionally qualified to
appraise the merits of potential clinical research training
and research grant proposals.''.

SEC. 4. GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS.

(a) Grants.--Subpart 1 of part B of title IV of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 481C. GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS.

``(a) Grants.--The Director of the National Center for
Research Resources shall award grants for the establishment
of general clinical research centers to provide the
infrastructure for clinical research including clinical
research training and career enhancement. Such centers shall
support clinical studies and career development in all
settings of the hospital or academic medical center involved.
``(b) Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Director of National Institutes of Health shall expand the
activities of the general clinical research centers through
the increased use of telecommunications and telemedicine
initiatives.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
year.''.
(b) Enhancement Awards.--Part B of title IV of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.), as amended by
section 3, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 409D. ENHANCEMENT AWARDS.

``(a) Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development
Awards.--
``(1) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes
of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Mentored
Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards') to
support individual careers in clinical research at general
clinical research centers or at other institutions that have
the infrastructure and resources deemed appropriate for
conducting patient-oriented clinical research.
``(B) Use.--Grants under subparagraph (A) shall be used to
support clinical investigators in the early phases of their
independent careers by providing salary and such other
support for a period of supervised study.
``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at
such time as the Director may require.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
year.
``(b) Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented
Research.--
``(1) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes
of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Mid-Career
Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research') to support
individual clinical research projects at general clinical
research centers or at other institutions that have the
infrastructure and resources deemed appropriate for
conducting patient-oriented clinical research.
``(B) Use.--Grants under subparagraph (A) shall be used to
provide support for mid-career level clinicians to allow such
clinicians to devote time to clinical research and to act as
mentors for beginning clinical investigators.
``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at
such time as the Director requires.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
year.
``(c) Graduate Training in Clinical Investigation Award.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes
of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Graduate
Training in Clinical Investigation Awards') to support
individuals pursuing master's or doctoral degrees in clinical
investigation.
`` (2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at
such time as the Director may require.
`` (3) Limitations.--Grants under this subsection shall be
for terms of 2 years or more and shall provide stipend,
tuition, and institutional support for individual advanced
degree programs in clinical investigation.
``(4) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
`advanced degree programs in clinical investigation' means
programs that award a master's or Ph.D. degree in clinical
investigation after 2 or more years of training in areas such
as the following:
``(A) Analytical methods, biostatistics, and study design.
``(B) Principles of clinical pharmacology and
pharmacokinetics.
``(C) Clinical epidemiology.
``(D) Computer data management and medical informatics.
``(E) Ethical and regulatory issues.
``(F) Biomedical writing.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
year.
``(d) Clinical Research Curriculum Awards.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes
of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Clinical
Research Curriculum Awards') to institutions for the
development and support of programs of core curricula for
training clinical investigators, including medical students.
Such core curricula may include training in areas such as the
following:
``(A) Analytical methods, biostatistics, and study design.
``(B) Principles of clinical pharmacology and
pharmacokinetics.
``(C) Clinical epidemiology.
``(D) Computer data management and medical informatics.
``(E) Ethical and regulatory issues.
``(F) Biomedical writing.
``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be submitted by an individual institution or
a consortium of institutions at such time as the Director may
require. An institution may submit only 1 such application.
``(3) Limitations.--Grants under this subsection shall be
for terms of up to 5 years and may be renewable.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 5. LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM REGARDING CLINICAL
RESEARCHERS.

Part G of title IV of the Public Health Service Act is
amended by inserting after section 487E (42 U.S.C. 288-5) the
following:

``SEC. 487F. LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM REGARDING CLINICAL
RESEARCHERS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall
establish a program to enter into contracts with qualified
health professionals under which such health professionals
agree to conduct clinical research, in consideration of the
Federal Government agreeing to repay, for each year of
service conducting such research, not more than $35,000 of
the principal and interest of the educational loans of such
health professionals.
``(b) Application of Provisions.--The provisions of
sections 338B, 338C, and 338E shall, except as inconsistent
with subsection (a) of this section, apply to the program
established under subsection (a) to the same extent and in
the same manner as such provisions apply to the National
Health Service

[[Page 27001]]

Corps Loan Repayment Program established in subpart III of
part D of title III.
``(c) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
year.
``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated for carrying out
this section shall remain available until the expiration of
the second fiscal year beginning after the fiscal year for
which the amounts were made available.''.

SEC. 6. DEFINITION.

Section 409 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
284d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting ``(a) Health
Service Research.--For purposes''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Clinical Research.--As used in this title, the term
`clinical research' means patient oriented clinical research
conducted with human subjects, or research on the causes and
consequences of disease in human populations involving
material of human origin (such as tissue specimens and
cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator or colleague
directly interacts with human subjects in an outpatient or
inpatient setting to clarify a problem in human physiology,
pathophysiology or disease, or epidemiologic or behavioral
studies, outcomes research or health services research, or
developing new technologies, therapeutic interventions, or
clinical trials.''.

SEC. 7. OVERSIGHT BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Congress a reporting describing the extent to
which the National Institutes of Health has complied with the
amendments made by this Act.
____

American Federation

for Medical Research,

Washington, DC, October 27, 1999
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I write to thank you for your
continued support of the need to enhance clinical research
programs at the National Institutes of Health by
reintroducing the Clinical Research Enhancement Act. The
American Federation for Medical Research, a national
organization of over 5,000 physician-scientists who are
involved in basic, translational, clinical and health
services research, is committed to the improvement of human
health through the translation of basic scientific
discoveries to treatments and cures for disease.
For many years, academic medical centers have been able to
provide institutional support to young physician-scientists
who are interested in pursuing careers in biomedical
research. However, as the health care marketplace has become
increasingly competitive, academic centers have all but
eliminated internal subsidies for clinical research or the
training of clinical investigators. In fact, the Association
of American Medical Colleges has estimated that these
institutions have lost approximately $800 million in annual
``purchasing power'' for research and research training
within their institutions.
Unfortunately, young investigators and medical students
have suffered as a result of the loss of these funds from the
system. The AMA has reported that the number of medical
school graduates indicating an interest in a research career
has fallen steadily in the 1990's. In addition, the number of
first time physician applicants to the National Institutes of
Health for research support has fallen by at least 20 percent
between 1994 and 1997. It is important that these downward
trends are stopped. These lost physician scientists represent
the next generation who will move basic science discoveries
to patients. We thank you for introducing the Clinical
Research Enhancement Act, an extremely modest investment in a
much-needed program to reinvigorate our nation's clinical
research capabilities.
There is a strong consensus among the 70 scientific and
consumer organizations that have endorsed this legislation
that Congress must stop the deterioration of the U.S.
clinical research capacity. In addition, we must assure that
the American people and the American economy benefit from the
translation of basic science breakthroughs to improved
clinical care and new medical products. The American
Federation for Medical Research is pleased to have the
opportunity to express its strong support for this important
piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
William Lowe, M.D.,
President.
____

Supporters of the Senate Clinical Research Enhancement Act

Academy of Radiology Research, Alliance for Aging Research,
Alzheimer's Association, Ambulatory Pediatric Association,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American
Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
American Academy of Optometry, American Academy of Orthopedic
Surgeons, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck
Surgery, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association
for Cancer Research, American Association for Dental
Research, American Association for the Study of Liver
Disease, American Association of Dental Schools, American
College of Cardiology, American College of
Neuropsychopharmacology, American College of Physicians--
American Society of Internal Medicine, American College of
Preventive Medicine.
American Federation for Medical Research, American Heart
Association, American Kidney Fund, American Pediatric
Society, American Podiatric Medical Association, American
Professors of Dermatology, American Society for Clinical
Pharmacology and Therapeutics, American Society for Clinical
Nutrition, American Society for Investigative Pathology,
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society
for Addiction Medicine, American Society for Hematology,
American Urological Association, Arthritis Foundation,
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology,
Association of Academic Health Centers, Association of
American Cancer Institutes, Association of Departments of
Family Medicine, Association of Medical Schools Pediatric
Department Chairs, Association of Pathology Chairs.
Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology,
Citizens for Public Action, Coalition for American Trauma
Care, Coalition of Patient Advocates for Skin Disease
Research, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Cooley's
Anemia Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, East Carolina
University School of Medicine, Epilepsy Foundation,
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological & Cognitive Sciences,
Friends of the National Institute of Dental Research, General
Clinical Research Centers Program Directors Association,
Jeffrey Modell Foundation, Medical Dermatology Society,
National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs,
National Health Council, National Hemophilia Foundation,
National Organization for Rare Disorders, National
Osteoporosis Foundation, New York University School of
Medicine, Research! America, Research Society on Alcoholism,
RESOLVE, The National Infertility Association, St. Jude
Children's Research Hospital, Scleroderma Foundation--Central
New Jersey Chapter, Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Society
for Investigative Dermatology, Society for Maternal--Fetal
Medicine, Society for Pediatric Research, Society for Women's
Health Research, University of Washington--Department of
Ophthalmology.
______

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Mack, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Helms, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bunning, and Mr.
Voinovich):
S. 1814. A bill to establish a system of registries of temporary
agricultural workers to provide for a sufficient supply of such workers
and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to streamline
procedures for the admission and extension of stay of nonimmigrant
agricultural workers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

agricultural job opportunity benefits and security act of 1999 (agjobs)

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise with Senators Graham,
Craig, Cleland, McConnell, Coverdell, Mack, Cochran, Helms, Grams,
Crapo, Bunning, and Voinovich to encourage support of S. 1814, the
Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999.
Our bill will reform the agricultural labor market, establish and
maintain immigration control, provide a legal workforce for our
farmers, and restore the dignity to the lives of thousands of
farmworkers who have helped make the U.S. economy the powerhouse that
it is today.
I am sure you are aware of the problems that have arisen within
American agriculture. For many years, employers in the agricultural
industry have struggled to hire enough legal workers to harvest their
produce and plants.
As one of the most rapidly growing industries in this country, we can
only expect the demand for agricultural labor jobs to continue to rise.
When coupled with the lowest unemployment rates in decades, a crackdown
on illegal immigration, and increased Social Security audits, the
agriculture industry--and ultimately its consumers--face a crisis of
devastating proportions.
Contrary to some media accounts, these labor shortages and the need
for a revised H-2A temporary foreign worker program exist around the
country. Mr. President, my colleagues all

[[Page 27002]]

agree with the General Accounting Office's (GAO) statement that while
the labor shortage is not caused by one single problem, regional
shortages stemming from region-specific problems do exist.
We have a shortage of legal workers in this country and the GAO
estimates that there are in excess of 600,000 self-identified illegal
aliens currently employed in U.S. agriculture. Another survey done by
the Department of Labor also revealed that more than 70 percent, or
about 1 million, of those hired to work on U.S. farms are here
illegally.
Due to the highly sophisticated fraudulent documents in circulation
and strict U.S. laws prohibiting employers from scrutinizing these
documents too carefully, thousands of illegal workers have been
unknowingly hired as a result. This situation leaves many agricultural
employers vulnerable to potential labor shortfalls in the event of
concentrated or targeted Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
enforcement efforts or Social Security Administration audits.
Immigrants are also severely impacted when they must work as
undocumented workers. These foreign workers risk their lives paying
human ``coyotes'' $1,200 to be smuggled across the desert border in the
trunk of a car to work in this country. Because of the risks these
foreign workers face in coming here and the difficulty of returning if
they leave for a visit home, many go for years without seeing their
spouses and children, some never return home. These illegal workers are
extremely vulnerable to these ``coyotes'' and other dark elements of
society that prey upon them, prohibiting the basic human rights of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A recent survey published by the William C. Velasquez Institute
demonstrated that a vast majority of registered Latino voters support a
new farmworker program. In addition to supporting higher wages and
unionization for farmworkers, the overwhelming majority of registered
Latino voters--76% in California and 67% in Texas--supported a program
where ``illegal immigrant'' farmworkers were allowed to become
permanent residents in exchange for several years of mandatory
agricultural labor.
This poll clearly demonstrates that the current farm labor system
serves no one well. Farmworkers support changing an illegal system that
victimizes them and their families.
This issue is not new to Congress. Our government's H-2A agricultural
guest worker program was designed in part to help solve the labor
problems facing our farmers. Instead of helping, the H-2A program--the
only legal temporary agricultural worker program in the United States--
it merely adds bureaucratic red tape and burdensome regulations to the
growing crisis. And it is failing those who use it.
The H-2A program is not practicable for the agriculture and
horticulture industry because it is loaded with burdensome regulations,
excessive paperwork, a bureaucratic certification process and untimely,
inconsistent, and hostile decision-making by the U.S. Department of
Labor. This program is over 50 years old.
To illustrate, Mr. President, this is the application I filled out to
run for the United States Senate. It is one page, front and back.
This is the Department of Labor's 325-page handbook, from January
1988, which attempts to guide employers through the H-2A program's
confusing application process. The GAO itself found that this handbook
is outdated, incomplete, and very confusing to the user.
Even the December 1997 GAO report illustrated the burdensome H-2A
process with which employers must comply in order to bring in legal,
foreign workers. A grower must apply to multiple agencies to obtain
just one H-2A worker. This process is further complicated by the
multiple levels of government, redundant levels of oversight and
conflicting administrative procedures and regulations. Also, as
reported by the recent Department of Labor Inspector General, the H-2A
program does not meet the interests of domestic workers because it does
a poor job of placing domestic workers in agricultural jobs.
We are looking for solutions to not only make it easier for employers
to hire legal workers to harvest their crops, but also to ensure that
U.S. workers find jobs and are treated fairly in the process.
Our bill is a win-win-win for farmers, farmworkers, and immigration
control. It reforms the agricultural labor market and establishes and
maintains immigration control. It gives farmers the stability of a
legal workforce and the certainty that the crops will be harvested in a
timely manner. It gives farmworkers the ability to earn the right to
legal status, avoid the risks of undocumented status and receive U.S.
labor law protections. It addresses a status quo that persons on both
sides of the issue agree is indefensible, but until now, has been too
easy to ignore. It is a balanced bill that seeks both short and long-
term solutions to the crisis in farm labor.
Our bill will allow farmworkers who have a proven history of
agricultural employment to eventually adjust to legal status in this
country. Serious agricultural workers who are willing to commit to work
several years in agricultural employment will receive nonimmigrant
status and the rights that go with it.
If employment requirements are met, workers can eventually adjust to
permanent resident status, allowing them to remain in the U.S. year-
round. Utilizing the skills of the existing farmworker workforce, a
majority of whom are undocumented status in the United States, would
reduce the number of temporary H-2A workers needed. It allows
hardworking farmworkers seeking to better themselves and their families
the opportunity to earn the right to legal status.
At the same time, the current temporary farmworker program--called H-
2A--will be reformed to make it more responsive, affordable and usable
by the average family farmer who needs temporary help to produce and
harvest agricultural crops and commodities. The need and risks of
illegal immigration are removed.
Our bill provides a system or registry where our unemployed U.S.
workers can go to find out about job openings on our U.S. farms. Any
legal U.S. resident who wants to work in agriculture will get the
absolute right of first refusal for any and all jobs that become
available. After the Department of Labor determines that a shortage of
domestic workers exists, farmers would be able to recruit adjusted
workers. If a shortage of adjusted workers is found, farmers could then
utilize H-2A workers. This ensures that employers hire workers already
in the U.S. before recruiting foreign guest workers.
Our bill also improves the conditions of the farm workers' lives and
provide them the dignity they deserve. These needed benefits include
providing a premium wage, providing housing and transportation
benefits, guaranteeing basic workplace protections, and extending the
Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act to all workers.
To add more protections for the health, safety, and security of
farmworkers, our bill establishes a commission that would study
problems with farmworker housing. Our bill also directs the Department
of Labor and Department of Agriculture to study field sanitation,
childcare and child labor violations, labor standards enforcement and
to ultimately make recommendations for long-term changes and
improvements.
I am very concerned that workers are protected, but let's not forget
that growers have been victimized by this process too. In order to feed
their families--and yours--the growers need to harvest their crops on
time, meet their payroll, and ultimately maintain their bottom line.
Without achieving those things, farms go out of business and the jobs
they create are lost along with them. So it is in all of our best
interests--workers, growers, and consumers alike--that growers have the
means by which to hire needed legal workers.
While I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future of the
indefensible status quo, I can tell you that we will have a major
economic and social crisis on our U.S. farmlands if there is not

[[Page 27003]]

an improvement over the current process.
Let's not keep making fugitives out of farmworkers and felons out of
farmers.
I urge my fellow colleagues to join Senators Graham, Craig, Cleland,
McConnell, Coverdell, Mack, Cochran, Helms, Grams, Crapo, Bunning,
Voinovich, and me in support of this important bipartisan legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1814

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of
1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--ADJUSTMENT TO LEGAL STATUS

Sec. 101. Agricultural workers.

TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES

Sec. 201. Agricultural worker registries.

TITLE III--H-2A REFORM

Sec. 301. Employer applications and assurances.
Sec. 302. Search of registry.
Sec. 303. Issuance of visas and admission of aliens.
Sec. 304. Employment requirements.
Sec. 305. Program for the admission of temporary H-2A workers.

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Enhanced worker protections and labor standards enforcement.
Sec. 402. Bilateral commissions.
Sec. 403. Regulations.
Sec. 404. Determination and use of user fees.
Sec. 405. Funding for startup costs.
Sec. 406. Report to Congress.
Sec. 407. Effective date.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Adverse effect wage rate.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``adverse effect wage rate'' means the rate of pay
for an agricultural occupation that is 5 percent above the
prevailing rate of pay for that agricultural occupation in an
area of intended employment, if the prevailing rate of pay
for the occupation is less than the prior year's average
hourly earnings of field and livestock workers for the State
(or region that includes the State), as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture, provided no adverse effect wage
rate shall be more than the prior year's average hourly
earnings of field and livestock workers for the State (or
region that includes the State), as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture.
(B) Exception.--If the prevailing rate of pay for an
activity is a piece rate, task rate or group rate, and the
average hourly earnings of an employer's workers employed in
that activity, taken as a group, are less than the prior
year's average hourly earnings of field and livestock workers
in the State (or region that includes the State), as
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, the term
``adverse effect wage rate'' means the prevailing piece rate,
task rate or group rate for the activity plus such an amount
as is necessary to increase the average hourly earnings of
the employer's workers employed in the activity, taken as a
group, by 5 percent, or to the prior's years average hourly
earnings for field and livestock workers for the State (or
region that includes the State) determined by the Secretary
of Agriculture, whichever is less.
(2) Agricultural employment.--The term ``agricultural
employment'' means any service or activity that is considered
to be agriculture under section 3(f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)) or as agricultural
labor under section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986. For purposes of this paragraph, agricultural employment
in the United States includes, but is not limited to,
employment under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)).
(3) Eligible.--The term ``eligible'' as used with respect
to workers or individuals, means individuals authorized to be
employed in the United States as provided for in section
274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1188).
(4) Employer.--The term ``employer'' means any person or
entity, including any farm labor contractor and any
agricultural association, that employs workers.
(5) H-2A employer.--The term ``H-2A employer'' means an
employer who seeks to hire one or more nonimmigrant aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
(6) H-2A worker.--The term ``H-2A worker'' means a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
(7) Job opportunity.--The term ``job opportunity'' means a
specific period of employment provided by an employer to a
worker in one or more agricultural activities.
(8) Prevailing wage.--The term ``prevailing wage'' means
with respect to an agricultural activity in an area of
intended employment, the rate of wages that includes the 51st
percentile of employees in that agricultural activity in the
area of intended employment, expressed in terms of the
prevailing method of pay for the agricultural activity in the
area of intended employment.
(9) Registered worker.--The term ``registered worker''
means an individual whose name appears in a registry.
(10) Registry.--The term ``registry'' means an agricultural
worker registry established under section 201(a).
(11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Labor.
(12) United states worker.--The term ``United States
worker'' means any worker, whether a United States citizen or
national, a lawfully admitted permanent resident alien, or
any other alien who is authorized to work in the job
opportunity within the United States other than an alien
admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) or section
218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in effect on
the effective date of this Act, or a nonimmigrant
agricultural worker whose status was adjusted under section
101(a).
(13) Work day.--The term ``work day'' means any day in
which the individual is employed one or more hours in
agriculture.

TITLE I--ADJUSTMENT TO LEGAL STATUS

SEC. 101. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

(a) Nonimmigrant Status.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall adjust the
status of an alien agricultural worker who qualifies under
this subsection to that of an alien lawfully admitted for
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act if the Attorney General
determines that the following requirements are satisfied with
respect to the alien:
(A) Performance of agricultural employment in the united
states.--The alien must establish that the alien has
performed agricultural employment in the United States for at
least 880 hours or 150 work days, whichever is lesser, during
the 12-month period prior to October 27, 1999.
(B) Application period.--The alien must apply for such
adjustment not later than 12 months after the effective date
of this Act.
(C) Admissibility.--
(i) In general.--The alien must establish that the alien is
otherwise admissible to the United States under section 212
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, except as otherwise
provided under subsection (d).
(ii) Waiver of ineligibility for unlawful presence.--An
alien who has not previously been admitted to the United
States pursuant to this section, and who is otherwise
eligible for admission in accordance with clause (i), shall
not be deemed inadmissible by virtue of section 212(a)(9)(B)
of that Act.
(2) Period of validity of nonimmigrant status.--
(A) In general.--The status granted in paragraph (1) shall
be valid for a period of not to exceed 7 consecutive calendar
years, except that the alien may not be present in the United
States for more than an aggregate of 300 days in any calendar
year.
(B) Exception.--The 300-day-per-year limitation in
subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any period of validity of
the status of any alien who--
(i) has established a permanent residence in the United
States and has a minor child who was born in the United
States prior to the date of enactment of this Act who resides
in the alien's household; and
(ii) performs agricultural employment for not less than 240
days in a calendar year.
(3) Authorized travel.--During the period an alien is in
lawful nonimmigrant status granted under this subsection, the
alien has the right to travel abroad (including commutation
from a residence abroad).
(4) Authorized employment.--During the period an alien is
in lawful nonimmigrant status granted under this subsection,
the alien shall be granted authorization to engage in the
performance only of agricultural employment in the United
States and shall be provided an ``employment authorized''
endorsement or other appropriate work permit, only for the
performance of such employment. A nonimmigrant alien under
this subsection may perform agricultural employment anywhere
in the United States.
(5) Termination of nonimmigrant status.--Except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (2), the Attorney General
shall terminate the status, and bring proceedings under
section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove,
any nonimmigrant alien under this subsection who failed
during 3 prior calendar years to perform 1,040 hours or 180
work days, whichever is lesser, of agricultural services in
any single calendar year.

[[Page 27004]]

(6) Record of employment.--Each employer of a nonimmigrant
agricultural worker whose status is adjusted under this
subsection shall--
(A) provide a written record of employment to the alien;
and
(B) provide a copy of such record to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
(b) Adjustment to Permanent Residence.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Attorney General shall adjust the status of any alien
provided lawful nonimmigrant status under subsection (a) to
that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
the Attorney General determines that the following
requirements are satisfied:
(A) Qualifying years.--The alien has performed a minimum
period of agricultural employment in the United States in
each of 5 calendar years during the period of validity of the
alien's adjustment to nonimmigrant status pursuant to
subsection (a). Qualifying years under this subparagraph may
include nonconsecutive years.
(B) Minimum periods of agricultural employment.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
minimum period of agricultural employment in any calendar
year is 1,040 hours or 180 work days, whichever is lesser.
(ii) Exception.--An alien described in subsection (a)(2)(B)
who remains in the United States for more than 300 days in a
calendar year may only be credited with satisfaction of the
minimum period of agricultural employment requirement for
that year if the alien performed agricultural employment in
the United States for at least 240 work days that year.
(C) Application period.--The alien applies for adjustment
of status not later than 6 months after completing the fifth
year of qualifying employment in the United States.
(2) Grounds for denial of adjustment of status.--The
Attorney General may deny adjustment to nonimmigrant status
and provide for termination of the nonimmigrant status
granted such alien under subsection (a) if--
(A) the Attorney General finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the adjustment to nonimmigrant status was the
result of fraud or willful misrepresentation as set out in
section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), or
(B) the alien commits an act that (i) makes the alien
inadmissible to the United States under section 212 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, except as provided under
subsection (c)(2), or (ii) is convicted of a felony or 3 or
more misdemeanors committed in the United States.
(3) Treatment of aliens demonstrating prima facie case for
adjustment.--Any alien who demonstrates a prima facie case of
eligibility for adjustment under this subsection in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Attorney
General, shall be considered a temporary resident alien and,
pending adjudication of an application for permanent resident
status under this subsection--
(A) may remain in the United States and shall be granted
authorization to engage in any employment in the United
States; and
(B) shall become eligible for any assistance or benefit to
which a person granted lawful permanent resident status would
be eligible on the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Grounds for removal.--Any nonimmigrant alien under
subsection (a) who does not apply for adjustment of status
under this subsection before the expiration of the
application period described in paragraph (1)(C) is
deportable and may be removed.
(5) Numerical limitation.--In any fiscal year not more than
20 percent of the number of aliens obtaining nonimmigrant
status under subsection (a) may be granted adjustment of
status under this subsection. In granting such adjustment,
aliens having the greater number of work hours shall be
accorded priority. Any temporary resident alien under
paragraph (3) who does not receive adjustment of status under
this subsection in a fiscal year by reason of the limitation
in this paragraph may continue to work in any employment, and
shall be credited with any additional hours of agricultural
employment performed for purposes of being accorded priority
for adjustment of status.
(c) Applications for Adjustment of Status.--
(1) To whom may be made.--
(A) Within the united states.--The Attorney General shall
provide that--
(i) applications for adjustment of status under subsection
(a) may be filed--

(I) with the Attorney General; or
(II) with a qualified designated entity (designated under
paragraph (2)), but only if the applicant consents to the
forwarding of the application to the Attorney General; and

(ii) applications for adjustment of status under subsection
(b) shall be filed directly with the Attorney General.
(B) Outside the united states.--The Attorney General, in
cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall provide a
procedure whereby an alien may apply for adjustment of status
under subsection (a) at an appropriate consular office
outside the United States. The Attorney General shall
prescribe regulations setting forth procedures for
notification of immigration officials by the alien before
departing the United States.
(C) Travel documentation.--The Attorney General shall
provide each alien whose status is adjusted under this
section with a counterfeit-resistant document of
authorization to enter or reenter the United States.
(2) Designation of entities to receive applications.--For
purposes of receiving applications under subsection (a), the
Attorney General--
(A) shall designate qualified voluntary organizations and
other qualified State, local, community, farm labor
organizations, and associations of agricultural employers;
and
(B) may designate such other persons as the Attorney
General determines are qualified and have substantial
experience, demonstrated competence, and traditional long-
term involvement in the preparation and submittal of
applications for adjustment of status under section 209 or
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law 89-
732, or Public Law 95-145.
(3) Proof of eligibility.--
(A) In general.--An alien may establish that the alien
meets the requirement of subsection (a)(1)(A) through
government employment records or records supplied by
employers or collective bargaining organizations. The
Attorney General shall establish special procedures to
properly credit work in cases in which an alien was employed
under an assumed name.
(B) Documentation of work history.--(i) An alien applying
for adjustment of status under subsection (a)(1) has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
alien has worked the requisite number of hours (as required
under subsection (a)(1)(A)).
(ii) If an employer or farm labor contractor employing such
an alien has kept proper and adequate records respecting such
employment, the alien's burden of proof under clause (i) may
be met by securing timely production of those records under
regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.
(4) Treatment of applications by qualified designated
entities.--Each qualified designated entity must agree to
forward to the Attorney General applications filed with it in
accordance with paragraph (1)(A)(ii) but not to forward to
the Attorney General applications filed with it unless the
applicant has consented to such forwarding. No such entity
may make a determination required by this section to be made
by the Attorney General. Upon the request of the alien, a
qualified designated entity shall assist the alien in
obtaining documentation of the work history of the alien.
(5) Limitation on access to information.--Files and records
prepared for purposes of this section by qualified designated
entities operating under this section are confidential and
the Attorney General and the Service shall not have access to
such files or records relating to an alien without the
consent of the alien, except as allowed by a court order
issued pursuant to paragraph (6).
(6) Confidentiality of information.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph,
neither the Attorney General, nor any other official or
employee of the Department of Justice, or bureau or agency
thereof, may--
(i) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant
to an application filed under this section, or the
information provided to the applicant by a person designated
under paragraph (2)(B), for any purpose other than to make a
determination on the application, including a determination
under subsection (b)(3), or for enforcement of paragraph (7);
(ii) make any publication whereby the information furnished
by any particular individual can be identified; or
(iii) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and
employees of the Department or bureau or agency or, with
respect to applications filed with a designated entity, that
designated entity, to examine individual applications.
(B) Crime.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits
information to be examined in violation of this paragraph
shall be fined not more than $10,000.
(7) Penalties for false statements in applications.--
(A) Criminal penalty.--Whoever--
(i) files an application for adjustment of status under
this section and knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals,
or covers up a material fact or makes any false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses
any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, or
(ii) creates or supplies a false writing or document for
use in making such an application,
shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States
Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(B) Exclusion.--An alien who is convicted of a crime under
subparagraph (A) shall be considered to be inadmissible to
the United States on the ground described in section
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(d) Waiver of Numerical Limitations and Certain Grounds for
Inadmissibility.--

[[Page 27005]]

(1) Numerical limitations do not apply.--The numerical
limitations of sections 201 and 202 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act shall not apply to the adjustment of aliens
to lawful permanent resident status under this section.
(2) Waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility.--In the
determination of an alien's admissibility under subsection
(a)(1)(D), the following provisions of section 212(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act shall not apply:
(A) Grounds of exclusion not applicable.--The provisions of
paragraphs (5) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) shall not apply.
(B) Waiver of other grounds.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Attorney General may waive any other provision of section
212(a) in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian
purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in
the public interest.
(ii) Grounds that may not be waived.--The following
provisions of section 212(a) may not be waived by the
Attorney General under clause (i):

(I) Paragraph (2) (A) and (B) (relating to criminals).
(II) Paragraph (4) (relating to aliens likely to become
public charges).
(III) Paragraph (2)(C) (relating to drug offenses), except
for so much of such paragraph as relates to a single offense
of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
(IV) Paragraph (3) (relating to security and related
grounds), other than subparagraph (E) thereof.

(C) Special rule for determination of public charge.--An
alien is not ineligible for adjustment of status under this
section due to being inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) if
the alien demonstrates a history of employment in the United
States evidencing self-support without reliance on public
cash assistance.
(e) Temporary Stay of Removal and Work Authorization for
Certain Applicants.--
(1) Before application period.--The Attorney General shall
provide that in the case of an alien who is apprehended
before the beginning of the application period described in
subsection (a)(1) and who can establish a nonfrivolous case
of eligibility to have his status adjusted under subsection
(a) (but for the fact that he may not apply for such
adjustment until the beginning of such period), until the
alien has had the opportunity during the first 30 days of the
application period to complete the filing of an application
for adjustment, the alien--
(A) may not be removed, and
(B) shall be granted authorization to engage in
agricultural employment in the United States and be provided
an ``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate
work permit for such purpose.
(2) During application period.--The Attorney General shall
provide that in the case of an alien who presents a
nonfrivolous application for adjustment of status under
subsection (a) during the application period, including an
alien who files such an application within 30 days of the
alien's apprehension, and until a final determination on the
application has been made in accordance with this section,
the alien--
(A) may not be removed, and
(B) shall be granted authorization to engage in
agricultural employment in the United States and be provided
an ``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate
work permit for such purpose.
(3) Prohibition.--No application fees collected by the
Service pursuant to this subsection may be used by the
Service to offset the costs of the agricultural worker
adjustment program under this title until the Service
implements the program consistent with the statutory mandate
as follows:
(A) During the application period described in subsection
(a)(1)(A) the Service may grant nonimmigrant admission to the
United States, work authorization, and provide an
``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate
work permit to any alien who presents a preliminary
application for adjustment of status under subsection (a) at
a designated port of entry on the southern land border. An
alien who does not enter through a port of entry is subject
to deportation and removal as otherwise provided in this Act.
(B) During the application period described in subsection
(a)(1)(A) any alien who has filed an application for
adjustment of status within the United States as provided in
subsection (b)(1)(A) is subject to paragraph (2) of this
subsection.
(C) A preliminary application is defined as a fully
completed and signed application with fee and photographs
which contains specific information concerning the
performance of qualifying employment in the United States and
the documentary evidence which the applicant intends to
submit as proof of such employment. The applicant must be
otherwise admissible to the United States and must establish
to the satisfaction of the examining officer during an
interview that his or her claim to eligibility for
agriculture worker status is credible.
(f) Administrative and Judicial Review.--
(1) Administrative and judicial review.--There shall be no
administrative or judicial review of a determination
respecting an application for adjustment of status under this
section except in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Administrative review.--
(A) Single level of administrative appellate review.--The
Attorney General shall establish an appellate authority to
provide for a single level of administrative appellate review
of such a determination.
(B) Standard for review.--Such administrative appellate
review shall be based solely upon the administrative record
established at the time of the determination on the
application and upon such additional or newly discovered
evidence as may not have been available at the time of the
determination.
(3) Judicial review.--
(A) Limitation to review of exclusion or deportation.--
There shall be judicial review of such a denial only in the
judicial review of an order of removal under section 106.
(B) Standard for judicial review.--Such judicial review
shall be based solely upon the administrative record
established at the time of the review by the appellate
authority and the findings of fact and determinations
contained in such record shall be conclusive unless the
applicant can establish abuse of discretion or that the
findings are directly contrary to clear and convincing facts
contained in the record considered as a whole.
(g) Dissemination of Information on Adjustment Program.--
Beginning not later than the date designated by the Attorney
General under subsection (a)(1)(A), the Attorney General, in
cooperation with qualified designated entities, shall broadly
disseminate information respecting the benefits which aliens
may receive under this section and the requirements to obtain
such benefits.

TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES

SEC. 201. AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES.

(a) Establishment of Registries.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish and
maintain a system of registries containing a current database
of workers described in paragraph (2) who seek agricultural
employment and the employment status of such workers--
(A) to ensure that eligible United States workers are
informed about available agricultural job opportunities and
have the right of first refusal for the agricultural jobs
available through the registry; and
(B) to provide timely referral of such workers to
agricultural job opportunities in the United States.
(2) Covered workers.--The workers covered by paragraph (1)
are--
(A) eligible United States workers; and
(B) eligible nonimmigrant agricultural workers whose status
was adjusted under section 101(a).
(3) Geographic coverage.--
(A) Single state.--Each registry established under
paragraph (1) shall include the job opportunities in a single
State, except that, in the case of New England States, two or
more such States may be represented by a single registry in
lieu of multiple registries.
(B) Requests for inclusion.--Each State having any group of
agricultural producers seeking to utilize the registry shall
be represented by a registry, except that, in the case of a
New England State, the State shall be represented by the
registry covering the group of States of which the State is a
part.
(4) Computer database.--The Secretary of Labor may
establish the registries as part of the computer databases
known as ``America's Job Bank'' and ``America's Talent
Bank''.
(5) Relation to process for importing h-2a workers.--
Notwithstanding section 218 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1188), no petition to import an
alien as an H-2A worker (as defined in section 218(i)(2) of
that Act) may be approved by the Attorney General unless the
H-2A employer--
(A) has applied to the Secretary to conduct a search of the
registry of the State in which the job opportunities for
which H-2A workers are sought are located; and
(B) has received a report described in section 303(a)(1).
(b) Registration.--
(1) In general.--An eligible individual who seeks
employment in agricultural work may apply to be included in
the registry for the State in which the individual resides.
Such application shall include--
(A) the name and address of the individual;
(B) the period or periods of time (including beginning and
ending dates) during which the individual will be available
for agricultural work;
(C) the registry or registries on which the individual
desires to be included;
(D) the specific qualifications and work experience
possessed by the applicant;
(E) the type or types of agricultural work the applicant is
willing to perform;
(F) such other information as the applicant wishes to be
taken into account in referring the applicant to agricultural
job opportunities; and
(G) such other information as may be required by the
Secretary.
(2) Validation of employment authorization.--No person may
be included on any registry unless the Secretary of Labor has
requested and obtained from the Attorney

[[Page 27006]]

General a certification that the person is authorized to be
employed in the United States.
(3) United states workers.--United States workers shall
have preference in referral by the registry, and may be
referred to any job opportunity nationwide for which they are
qualified and make a commitment to be available at the time
and place needed.
(4) Adjusted nonimmigrants.--Adjusted nonimmigrant aliens
who apply to be included in a registry may only be referred
to job opportunities for which they are qualified within the
State covered by the registry or within States contiguous to
that State.
(5) Sanctions for noncompliance.--Adjusted nonimmigrant
aliens who elect to be listed on the registry and who fail to
report to a registry job opportunity for which they had made
an affirmative commitment and been referred will be removed
from the registry for a period of 6 months for the first such
failure and for a period of 1 year for each succeeding
failure.
(6) Use of registry.--Any United States agricultural
employer may use the registry.
(7) Discretionary use for new hires.--An agricultural
employer may require prospective employees to register with a
registry as a means of assuring that its workers are eligible
to be employed in the United States.
(8) Workers referred to job opportunities.--The name of
each registered worker who is referred and accepts employment
with an employer shall be classified as inactive on each
registry on which the worker is included during the period of
employment involved in the job to which the worker was
referred, unless the worker reports to the Secretary that the
worker is no longer employed and is available for referral to
another job opportunity. A registered worker classified as
inactive shall not be referred.
(9) Removal of names from a registry.--The Secretary shall
remove from the appropriate registry the name of any
registered worker who, on 3 separate occasions within a 3-
month period, is referred to a job opportunity pursuant to
this section, and who declines such referral or fails to
report to work in a timely manner.
(10) Voluntary removal.--A registered worker may request
that the worker's name be removed from a registry.
(11) Removal by expiration.--The application of a
registered worker shall expire, and the Secretary shall
remove the name of such worker from the appropriate registry
if the worker has not accepted a job opportunity pursuant to
this section within the preceding 12-month period.
(12) Reinstatement.--A worker whose name is removed from a
registry pursuant to paragraph (9), (10), or (11) may apply
to the Secretary for reinstatement to such registry at any
time.
(c) Confidentiality of Registries.--The Secretary shall
maintain the confidentiality of the registries established
pursuant to this section, and the information in such
registries shall not be used for any purposes other than
those authorized in this Act.
(d) Advertising of Registries.--The Secretary shall widely
disseminate, through advertising and other means, the
existence of the registries for the purpose of encouraging
eligible United States workers seeking agricultural job
opportunities to register. The Secretary of Labor shall
ensure that the information about the registry is made
available to eligible workers through all appropriate means,
including appropriate State agencies, groups representing
farm workers, and nongovernmental organizations, and shall
ensure that the registry is accessible to growers and farm
workers.

TITLE III--H-2A REFORM

SEC. 301. EMPLOYER APPLICATIONS AND ASSURANCES.

(a) Applications to the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 28 days prior to the date
on which an H-2A employer desires to employ an H-2A worker in
a temporary or seasonal agricultural job opportunity, the
employer shall, before petitioning for the admission of such
a worker, apply to the Secretary for the referral of a United
States worker or nonimmigrant agricultural worker whose
status was adjusted under section 101(a) through a search of
the appropriate registry, in accordance with section 302.
Such application shall--
(A) describe the nature and location of the work to be
performed;
(B) list the anticipated period (expected beginning and
ending dates) for which workers will be needed;
(C) indicate the number of job opportunities in which the
employer seeks to employ workers from the registry;
(D) describe the bona fide occupational qualifications that
must be possessed by a worker to be employed in the job
opportunity in question;
(E) describe the wages and other terms and conditions of
employment the employer will offer, which shall not be less
(and are not required to be more) than those required by this
section;
(F) contain the assurances required by subsection (c);
(G) specify the foreign country or region thereof from
which alien workers should be admitted in the case of a
failure to refer United States workers under this Act; and
(H) be accompanied by the payment of a registry user fee
determined under section 404(b)(1)(A) for each job
opportunity indicated under subparagraph (C).
(2) Applications by associations on behalf of employer
members.--
(A) In general.--An agricultural association may file an
application under paragraph (1) for registered workers on
behalf of its employer members.
(B) Employers.--An application under subparagraph (A) shall
cover those employer members of the association that the
association certifies in its application have agreed in
writing to comply with the requirements of this Act.
(b) Amendment of Applications.--Prior to receiving a
referral of workers from a registry, an employer may amend an
application under this subsection if the employer's need for
workers changes. If an employer makes a material amendment to
an application on a date which is later than 28 days prior to
the date on which the workers on the amended application are
sought to be employed, the Secretary may delay issuance of
the report described in section 302(b) by the number of days
by which the filing of the amended application is later than
28 days before the date on which the employer desires to
employ workers.
(c) Assurances.--The assurances referred to in subsection
(a)(1)(F) are the following:
(1) Assurance that the job opportunity is not a result of a
labor dispute.--The employer shall assure that the job
opportunity for which the employer requests a registered
worker is not vacant because a worker is involved in a
strike, lockout, or work stoppage in the course of a labor
dispute involving the job opportunity at the place of
employment.
(2) Assurance that the job opportunity is temporary or
seasonal.--
(A) Required assurance.--The employer shall assure that the
job opportunity for which the employer requests a registered
worker is temporary or seasonal.
(B) Seasonal basis.--For purposes of this Act, labor is
performed on a seasonal basis where, ordinarily, the
employment pertains to or is of the kind exclusively
performed at certain seasons or periods of the year and
which, from its nature, may not be continuous or carried on
throughout the year.
(C) Temporary basis.--For purposes of this Act, a worker is
employed on a temporary basis where the employment is
intended not to exceed 10 months.
(3) Assurance of provision of required wages and
benefits.--The employer shall assure that the employer will
provide the wages and benefits required by subsections (a),
(b), and (c) of section 304 to all workers employed in job
opportunities for which the employer has applied under
subsection (a) and to all other workers in the same
occupation at the place of employment, and in no case less
than the greater of the hourly wage prescribed under section
6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.
206(a)(1)), or the applicable State minimum wage.
(4) Assurance of employment.--The employer shall assure
that the employer will not refuse to employ qualified
individuals referred under section 302, and will terminate
qualified individuals employed pursuant to this Act only for
lawful job-related reasons, including lack of work.
(5) Assurance of compliance with labor laws.--
(A) In general.--An employer who requests registered
workers shall assure that, except as otherwise provided in
this Act, the employer will comply with all applicable
Federal, State, and local labor laws, including laws
affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, with
respect to all United States workers and alien workers
employed by the employer.
(B) Limitations.--The disclosure required under section
201(a) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1821(a)) may be made at any time
prior to the time the alien is issued a visa permitting entry
into the United States.
(6) Assurance of advertising of the registry.--The employer
shall assure that the employer will, from the day an
application for workers is submitted under subsection (a),
and continuing throughout the period of employment of any job
opportunity for which the employer has applied for a worker
from the registry, post in a conspicuous place a poster to be
provided by the Secretary advertising the availability of the
registry.
(7) Assurance of advertising of job opportunities.--The
employer shall assure that not later than 14 days after
submitting an application to a registry for workers under
subsection (a) the employer will advertise the availability
of the job opportunities for which the employer is seeking
workers from the registry in a publication in the local labor
market that is likely to be patronized by potential
farmworkers, if any, and refer interested workers to register
with the registry.
(8) Assurance of contacting former workers.--The employer
shall assure that the employer has made reasonable efforts
through the sending of a letter by United States Postal
Service mail, or otherwise, to contact any eligible worker
the employer

[[Page 27007]]

employed during the previous season in the occupation at the
place of intended employment for which the employer is
applying for registered workers, and has made the
availability of the employer's job opportunities in the
occupation at the place of intended employment known to such
previous worker, unless the worker was terminated from
employment by the employer for a lawful job-related reason or
abandoned the job before the worker completed the period of
employment of the job opportunity for which the worker was
hired.
(9) Assurance of provision of workers compensation.--The
employer shall assure that if the job opportunity is not
covered by the State workers' compensation law, that the
employer will provide, at no cost to the worker, insurance
covering injury and disease arising out of and in the course
of the worker's employment which will provide benefits at
least equal to those provided under the State workers'
compensation law for comparable employment.
(10) Assurance of payment of alien employment user fee.--
The employer shall assure that if the employer receives a
notice of insufficient workers under section 302(c), such
employer shall promptly pay the alien employment user fee
determined under section 404(b)(1)(B) for each job
opportunity to be filled by an eligible alien as required
under such section.
(d) Withdrawal of Applications.--
(1) In general.--An employer may withdraw an application
under subsection (a), except that, if the employer is an
agricultural association, the association may withdraw an
application under subsection (a) with respect to one or more
of its members. To withdraw an application, the employer
shall notify the Secretary in writing, and the Secretary
shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of such withdrawal
notice. An employer who withdraws an application under
subsection (a), or on whose behalf an application is
withdrawn, is relieved of the obligations undertaken in the
application.
(2) Limitation.--An application may not be withdrawn while
any alien provided status under this Act pursuant to such
application is employed by the employer.
(3) Obligations under other statutes.--Any obligation
incurred by an employer under any other law or regulation as
a result of recruitment of United States workers under an
offer of terms and conditions of employment required as a
result of making an application under subsection (a) is
unaffected by withdrawal of such application.
(e) Review of Application.--
(1) In general.--Promptly upon receipt of an application by
an employer under subsection (a), the Secretary shall review
the application for compliance with the requirements of such
subsection.
(2) Approval of applications.--If the Secretary determines
that an application meets the requirements of subsection (a),
and the employer is not ineligible to apply under paragraph
(2), (3), or (4) of section 305(b), the Secretary shall, not
later than 7 days after the receipt of such application,
approve the application and so notify the employer.
(3) Rejection of applications.--If the Secretary determines
that an application fails to meet 1 or more of the
requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary, as
expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than 7 days
after the receipt of such application, shall--
(A) notify the employer of the rejection of the application
and the reasons for such rejection, and provide the
opportunity for the prompt resubmission of an amended
application; and
(B) offer the applicant an opportunity to request an
expedited administrative review or a de novo administrative
hearing before an administrative law judge of the rejection
of the application.
(4) Rejection for program violations.--The Secretary shall
reject the application of an employer under this section if--
(A) the employer has been determined to be ineligible to
employ workers under section 401(b); or
(B) the employer during the previous two-year period
employed H-2A workers or registered workers and the Secretary
of Labor has determined, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, that the employer at any time during that period
substantially violated a material term or condition of the
assurances made with respect to the employment of United
States workers or nonimmigrant workers.
No employer may have applications under this section rejected
for more than 3 years for any violation described in this
paragraph.

SEC. 302. SEARCH OF REGISTRY.

(a) Search Process and Referral to the Employer.--Upon the
approval of an application under section 301(e), the
Secretary shall promptly begin a search of the registry of
the State (or States) in which the work is to be performed to
identify registered United States workers and adjusted aliens
with the qualifications requested by the employer. The
Secretary shall contact such qualified registered workers and
determine, in each instance, whether the worker is ready,
willing, and able to accept the employer's job opportunity
and will make the affirmative commitment to work for the
employer at the time and place needed. The Secretary shall
provide to each worker who commits to work for the employer
the employer's name, address, telephone number, the location
where the employer has requested that employees report for
employment, and a statement disclosing the terms and
conditions of employment.
(b) Deadline for Completing Search Process; Referral of
Workers.--As expeditiously as possible, but not later than 7
days before the date on which an employer desires work to
begin, the Secretary shall complete the search under
subsection (a) and shall transmit to the employer a report
containing the name, address, and social security account
number of each registered worker who has made the affirmative
commitment described in subsection (a) to work for the
employer on the date needed, together with sufficient
information to enable the employer to establish contact with
the worker. The identification of such registered workers in
a report shall constitute a referral of workers under this
section.
(c) Acceptance of Referrals.--H-2A employers shall accept
all qualified United States worker referrals who make a
commitment to report to work at the time and place needed and
to complete the full period of employment offered, and those
adjusted nonimmigrants on the registry of the State in which
the intended employment is located, and the immediately
contiguous States. An employer shall not be required to
accept more referrals than the number of job opportunities
for which the employer applied to the registry.
(d) Notice of Insufficient Workers.--If the report provided
to the employer under subsection (b) does not include
referral of a sufficient number of registered workers to fill
all of the employer's job opportunities in the occupation for
which the employer applied under section 301(a), the
Secretary shall indicate in the report the number of job
opportunities for which registered workers could not be
referred, and shall promptly transmit a copy of the report to
the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, by
electronic or other means ensuring next day delivery.
(e) User Fee for Certification To Employ Alien Workers.--
With respect to each job opportunity for which a notice of
insufficient workers is made, the Secretary shall require the
payment of an alien employment user fee determined under
section 404(b)(1)(B).

SEC. 303. ISSUANCE OF VISAS AND ADMISSION OF ALIENS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Number of admissions.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
Secretary of State shall promptly issue visas to, and the
Attorney General shall admit, as nonimmigrant aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act a sufficient number of eligible aliens
designated by the employer to fill the job opportunities of
the employer--
(A) upon receipt of a copy of the report described in
section 302(c);
(B) upon approval of an application (or copy of an
application under subsection (b));
(C) upon receipt of the report required by subsection
(c)(1)(B); or
(D) upon receipt of a report under subsection (d).
(2) Procedures.--The admission of aliens under paragraph
(1) shall be subject to the procedures of section 218 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act.
(b) Direct Application Upon Failure To Act.--
(1) Application to the secretary of state.--If the employer
has not received a referral of sufficient workers pursuant to
section 302(b) or a report of insufficient workers pursuant
to section 302(c), by the date that is 7 days before the date
on which the work is anticipated to begin, the employer may
submit an application for alien workers directly to the
Secretary of State, with a copy of the application provided
to the Attorney General, seeking the issuance of visas to and
the admission of aliens for employment in the job
opportunities for which the employer has not received
referral of registered workers. Such an application shall
include a copy of the employer's application under section
301(a), together with evidence of its timely submission. The
Secretary of State may consult with the Secretary of Labor in
carrying out this paragraph.
(2) Expedited consideration by secretary of state.--The
Secretary of State shall, as expeditiously as possible, but
not later than 5 days after the employer files an application
under paragraph (1), issue visas to, and the Attorney General
shall admit, a sufficient number of eligible aliens
designated by the employer to fill the job opportunities for
which the employer has applied under that paragraph, if the
employer has met the requirements of sections 301 and 302.
The employer shall be subject to the alien employment user
fee determined under section 404(b)(1)(B) with respect to
each job opportunity for which the Secretary of State
authorizes the issuance of a visa pursuant to paragraph (2).
(c) Redetermination of Need.--
(1) Requests for redetermination.--
(A) In general.--An employer may file a request for a
redetermination by the Secretary of the employer's need for
workers if--

[[Page 27008]]

(i) a worker referred from the registry is not at the place
of employment on the date of need shown on the application,
or the date the work for which the worker is needed has
begun, whichever is later;
(ii) the worker is not ready, willing, able, or qualified
to perform the work required; or
(iii) the worker abandons the employment or is terminated
for a lawful job-related reason.
(B) Additional authorization of admissions.--The Secretary
shall expeditiously, but in no case later than 72 hours after
a redetermination is requested under subparagraph (A), submit
a report to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General
providing notice of a need for workers under this subsection,
if the employer has met the requirements of sections 301 and
302 and the conditions described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Job-related requirements.--An employer shall not be
required to initially employ a worker who fails to meet
lawful job-related employment criteria, nor to continue the
employment of a worker who fails to meet lawful, job-related
standards of conduct and performance, including failure to
meet minimum production standards after a 3-day break-in
period.
(d) Emergency Applications.--Notwithstanding subsections
(b) and (c), the Secretary may promptly transmit a report to
the Attorney General and Secretary of State providing notice
of a need for workers under this subsection for an employer--
(1) who has not employed aliens under this Act in the
occupation in question in the prior year's agricultural
season;
(2) who faces an unforeseen need for workers (as determined
by the Secretary); and
(3) with respect to whom the Secretary cannot refer able,
willing, and qualified workers from the registry who will
commit to be at the employer's place of employment and ready
for work within 72 hours or on the date the work for which
the worker is needed has begun, whichever is later.
The employer shall be subject to the alien employment user
fee determined under section 404(b)(1)(B) with respect to
each job opportunity for which a notice of insufficient
workers is made pursuant to this subsection.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of State shall prescribe
regulations to provide for the designation of aliens under
this section.

SEC. 304. EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Required Wages.--
(1) In general.--An employer applying under section 301(a)
for workers shall offer to pay, and shall pay, all workers in
the occupation or occupations for which the employer has
applied for workers from the registry, not less (and is not
required to pay more) than the greater of the prevailing wage
in the occupation in the area of intended employment or the
adverse effect wage rate. No worker shall be paid less than
the greater of the hourly wage prescribed under section
6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.
206(a)(1)), or the applicable State minimum wage.
(2) Payment of prevailing wage determined by a state
employment security agency sufficient.--In complying with
paragraph (1), an employer may request and obtain a
prevailing wage determination from the State employment
security agency. If the employer requests such a
determination, and pays the wage required by paragraph (1)
based upon such a determination, such payment shall be
considered sufficient to meet the requirement of paragraph
(1).
(3) Reliance on wage survey.--In lieu of the procedure of
paragraph (2), an employer may rely on other information,
such as an employer-generated prevailing wage survey that the
Secretary determines meets criteria specified by the
Secretary in regulations.
(4) Alternative methods of payment permitted.--
(A) In general.--A prevailing wage may be expressed as an
hourly wage, a piece rate, a task rate, or other incentive
payment method, including a group rate. The requirement to
pay at least the prevailing wage in the occupation and area
of intended employment does not require an employer to pay by
the method of pay in which the prevailing rate is expressed,
except that, if the employer adopts a method of pay other
than the prevailing rate, the burden of proof is on the
employer to demonstrate that the employer's method of pay is
designed to produce earnings equivalent to the earnings that
would result from payment of the prevailing rate.
(B) Compliance when paying an incentive rate.--In the case
of an employer that pays a piece rate or task rate or uses
any other incentive payment method, including a group rate,
the employer shall be considered to be in compliance with any
applicable hourly wage requirement if the average of the
hourly earnings of the workers, taken as a group, in the
activity for which a piece rate, task rate, or other
incentive payment, including a group rate, is paid, for the
pay period, is at least equal to the required hourly wage,
except that no worker shall be paid less than the hourly wage
prescribed under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) or the applicable State
minimum wage.
(C) Task rate.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``task rate'' means an incentive payment method based on a
unit of work performed such that the incentive rate varies
with the level of effort required to perform individual units
of work.
(D) Group rate.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``group rate'' means an incentive payment method in which the
payment is shared among a group of workers working together
to perform the task.
(b) Requirement To Provide Housing.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Requirement.--An employer applying under section 301(a)
for registered workers shall offer to provide housing at no
cost (except for charges permitted by paragraph (5)) to all
workers employed in job opportunities to which the employer
has applied under that section, and to all other workers in
the same occupation at the place of employment, whose place
of residence is beyond normal commuting distance.
(B) Liability.--An employer not complying with subparagraph
(A) shall be liable to a registered worker for the costs of
housing equivalent to the type of housing required to be
provided under that subparagraph and shall not be liable for
any employment-related obligation solely by reason of such
noncompliance.
(2) Type of housing.--In complying with paragraph (1), an
employer may, at the employer's election, provide housing
that meets applicable Federal standards for temporary labor
camps or secure housing that meets applicable local standards
for rental or public accommodation housing or other
substantially similar class of habitation, or, in the absence
of applicable local standards, State standards for rental or
public accommodation housing or other substantially similar
class of habitation.
(3) Workers engaged in the range production of livestock.--
The Secretary shall issue regulations that address the
specific requirements for the provision of housing to workers
engaged in the range production of livestock.
(4) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to require an employer to provide or secure housing
for persons who were not entitled to such housing under the
temporary labor certification regulations in effect on June
1, 1986.
(5) Charges for housing.--
(A) Utilities and maintenance.--An employer who provides
housing to a worker pursuant to paragraph (1) may charge an
amount equal to the fair market value (but not greater than
the employer's actual cost) for maintenance and utilities, or
such lesser amount as permitted by law.
(B) Security deposit.--An employer who provides housing to
workers pursuant to paragraph (1) may require, as a condition
for providing such housing, a deposit not to exceed $50 from
workers occupying such housing to protect against gross
negligence or willful destruction of property.
(C) Damages.--An employer who provides housing to workers
pursuant to paragraph (1) may require a worker found to have
been responsible for damage to such housing which is not the
result of normal wear and tear related to habitation to
reimburse the employer for the reasonable cost of repair of
such damage.
(6) Housing allowance as alternative.--
(A) In general.--In lieu of offering housing pursuant to
paragraph (1), the employer may provide a reasonable housing
allowance during the 3-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act. After the expiration of that period
such allowance may be provided only if the requirement of
subparagraph (B) is satisfied or, in the case of a
certification under subparagraph (B) that is expired, the
requirement of subparagraph (C) is satisfied. Upon the
request of a worker seeking assistance in locating housing,
the employer shall make a good faith effort to assist the
worker in identifying and locating housing in the area of
intended employment. An employer who offers a housing
allowance to a worker, or assists a worker in locating
housing which the worker occupies, pursuant to this
subparagraph shall not be deemed to be a housing provider
under section 203 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1823) solely by virtue of
providing such housing allowance.
(B) Certification.--The requirement of this subparagraph is
satisfied if the Governor of the State certifies to the
Secretary that there is adequate housing available in an area
of intended employment for migrant farm workers, aliens
provided status pursuant to this Act, or nonimmigrant aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, who are seeking temporary housing while
employed at farm work. Such certification shall expire after
3 years unless renewed by the Governor of the State.
(C) Effect of certification.--Notwithstanding the
expiration of a certification under subparagraph (B) with
respect to an area of intended employment, a housing
allowance described in subparagraph (A) may be offered for up
to one year after the date of expiration.
(D) Amount of allowance.--The amount of a housing allowance
under this paragraph shall be equal to the statewide average
fair market rental for existing housing for nonmetropolitan
counties for the State in which the employment occurs, as
established by

[[Page 27009]]

the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to
section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(c)), based on a 2-bedroom dwelling unit and an
assumption of 2 persons per bedroom.
(c) Reimbursement of Transportation.--
(1) To place of employment.--A worker who is referred to a
job opportunity under section 302(a), or an alien employed
pursuant to this Act, who completes 50 percent of the period
of employment of the job opportunity for which the worker was
hired, shall be reimbursed by the employer for the cost of
the worker's transportation and subsistence from the worker's
permanent place of residence (or place of last employment, if
the worker traveled from such place) to the place of
employment to which the worker was referred under section
302(a).
(2) From place of employment.--A worker who is referred to
a job opportunity under section 302(a), or an alien employed
pursuant to this Act, who completes the period of employment
for the job opportunity involved, shall be reimbursed by the
employer for the cost of the worker's transportation and
subsistence from the place of employment to the worker's
place of residence, or to the place of next employment, if
the worker has contracted with a subsequent employer who has
not agreed to provide or pay for the worker's transportation
and subsistence to such subsequent employer's place of
employment.
(3) Limitation.--
(A) Amount of reimbursement.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the amount of reimbursement provided under
paragraph (1) or (2) to a worker or alien shall not exceed
the lesser of--
(i) the actual cost to the worker or alien of the
transportation and subsistence involved; or
(ii) the most economical and reasonable common carrier
transportation charges and subsistence costs for the distance
involved.
(B) Distance traveled.--No reimbursement under paragraph
(1) or (2) shall be required if the distance traveled is 100
miles or less, or the worker is not residing in employer-
provided housing or housing secured through a voucher as
provided in subsection (b)(6).
(C) Place of recruitment.--For the purpose of the
reimbursement required under paragraph (1) or (2) to aliens
admitted pursuant to this Act, the alien's place of residence
shall be deemed to be the place where the alien was issued
the visa authorizing admission to the United States or, if no
visa was required, the place from which the alien departed
the foreign country to travel to the United States.
(d) Continuing Obligation To Employ United States
Workers.--
(1) In general.--An employer that applies for registered
workers under section 301(a) shall, as a condition for the
approval of such application, continue to offer employment to
qualified, eligible United States workers who are referred
under section 302(b) after the employer receives the report
described in section 302(b).
(2) Limitation.--An employer shall not be obligated to
comply with paragraph (1)--
(A) after 50 percent of the anticipated period of
employment shown on the employer's application under section
301(a) has elapsed; or
(B) during any period in which the employer is employing no
H-2A workers in the occupation for which the United States
worker was referred; or
(C) during any period when the Secretary is conducting a
search of a registry for workers in the occupation and area
of intended employment to which the worker has been referred,
or in other occupations in the area of intended employment
for which the worker that has been referred is qualified and
that offer substantially similar terms and conditions of
employment.
(3) Limitation on requirement to provide housing.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employer
to whom a registered worker is referred pursuant to paragraph
(1) may provide a reasonable housing allowance to such
referred worker in lieu of providing housing if the employer
does not have sufficient housing to accommodate the referred
worker and all other workers for whom the employer is
providing housing or has committed to provide housing.
(4) Referral of workers during 50-percent period.--The
Secretary shall make all reasonable efforts to place a
registered worker in an open job acceptable to the worker,
including available jobs not listed on the registry, before
referring such worker to an employer for a job opportunity
already filled by, or committed to, an alien admitted
pursuant to this Act.

SEC. 305. PROGRAM FOR THE ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2A
WORKERS.

Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1188) is amended to read as follows:

``ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2A WORKERS

``Sec. 218. (a) Procedure for Admission or Extension of
Aliens.--
``(1) Aliens who are outside the united states.--
``(A) Criteria for admissibility.--
``(i) In general.--An alien described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
shall be admissible under this section if the alien is
designated pursuant to section 302 of the Agricultural Job
Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999, otherwise
admissible under this Act, and the alien is not ineligible
under clause (ii).
``(ii) Disqualification.--An alien shall be ineligible for
admission to the United States or being provided status under
this section if the alien has, at any time during the past 5
years--

``(I) violated a material provision of this section,
including the requirement to promptly depart the United
States when the alien's authorized period of admission under
this section has expired; or
``(II) otherwise violated a term or condition of admission
to the United States as a nonimmigrant, including overstaying
the period of authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant.

``(iii) Initial waiver of ineligibility for unlawful
presence.--

``(I) In general.--An alien who has not previously been
admitted to the United States pursuant to this section, and
who is otherwise eligible for admission in accordance with
clauses (i) and (ii), shall not be deemed inadmissible by
virtue of section 212(a)(9)(B). Such an alien shall depart
the United States to be eligible for admission under this
section.
``(II) Termination.--Subclause (I) shall terminate on the
date that is 4 years after the date of the enactment of the
Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of
1999.

``(B) Period of admission.--The alien shall be admitted for
the period requested by the employer not to exceed 10 months,
or the ending date of the anticipated period of employment on
the employer's application for registered workers, whichever
is less, plus an additional period of 14 days, during which
the alien shall seek authorized employment in the United
States. During the 14-day period following the expiration of
the alien's work authorization, the alien is not authorized
to be employed unless an employer who is authorized to employ
such worker has filed an extension of stay on behalf of the
alien pursuant to paragraph (2).
``(C) Abandonment of employment.--
``(i) In general.--An alien admitted or provided status
under this section who abandons the employment which was the
basis for such admission or status shall be considered to
have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status as an alien
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) and shall depart
the United States or be subject to removal under section
237(a)(1)(C)(i).
``(ii) Report by employer.--The employer (or association
acting as agent for the employer) shall notify the Attorney
General within 7 days of an alien admitted or provided status
under this Act pursuant to an application to the Secretary of
Labor under section 302 of the Agricultural Job Opportunity
Benefits and Security Act of 1999 by the employer who
prematurely abandons the alien's employment.
``(iii) Removal by the attorney general.--The Attorney
General shall promptly remove from the United States aliens
admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) who have
failed to maintain nonimmigrant status or who have otherwise
violated the terms of a visa issued under this title.
``(iv) Voluntary termination.--Notwithstanding the
provisions of clause (i), an alien may voluntarily terminate
his or her employment if the alien promptly departs the
United States upon termination of such employment.
``(D) Identification document and identification system.--
``(i) In general.--Each alien admitted under this section
shall, upon receipt of a visa, be given an identification and
employment eligibility document to verify eligibility for
employment in the United States and verify such person's
proper identity.
``(ii) Requirements.--No identification and employment
eligibility document may be issued and no identification
system may be implemented which does not meet the following
requirements:

``(I) The document and system shall be capable of reliably
determining whether--

``(aa) the individual with the identification and
employment eligibility document whose eligibility is being
verified is in fact eligible for employment,
``(bb) the individual whose eligibility is being verified
is claiming the identity of another person, and
``(cc) the individual whose eligibility is being verified
has been properly admitted under this section.

``(II) The document shall be in the form that is resistant
to counterfeiting and to tampering.
``(III) The document and system shall--

``(aa) be compatible with other Immigration and
Naturalization Service databases and other Federal government
databases for the purpose of excluding aliens from benefits
for which they are not eligible and to determine whether the
alien is illegally present in the United States, and
``(bb) be compatible with law enforcement databases to
determine if the alien has been convicted of criminal
offenses.
``(2) Extension of stay of aliens in the united states.--
``(A) Extension of stay.--If an employer with respect to
whom a report or application

[[Page 27010]]

described in section 302(a)(1) of the Agricultural Job
Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999 has been
submitted seeks to employ an alien who has acquired status
under this section and who is lawfully present in the United
States, the employer shall file with the Attorney General an
application for an extension of the alien's stay or a change
in the alien's authorized employment. The application shall
be accompanied by a copy of the appropriate report or
application described in section 302 of the Agricultural Job
Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999.
``(B) Limitation on filing an application for extension of
stay.--An application may not be filed for an extension of an
alien's stay for a period of more than 10 months, or later
than a date which is 3 years from the date of the alien's
last admission to the United States under this section,
whichever occurs first.
``(C) Work authorization upon filing an application for
extension of stay.--An employer may begin employing an alien
who is present in the United States who has acquired status
under this Act on the day the employer files an application
for extension of stay. For the purpose of this requirement,
the term `filing' means sending the application by certified
mail via the United States Postal Service, return receipt
requested, or delivered by guaranteed commercial delivery
which will provide the employer with a documented
acknowledgment of the date of sending and receipt of the
application. The employer shall provide a copy of the
employer's application to the alien, who shall keep the
application with the alien's identification and employment
eligibility document as evidence that the application has
been filed and that the alien is authorized to work in the
United States. Upon approval of an application for an
extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized
employment, the Attorney General shall provide a new or
updated employment eligibility document to the alien
indicating the new validity date, after which the alien is
not required to retain a copy of the application.
``(D) Limitation on employment authorization of aliens
without valid identification and employment eligibility
card.--An expired identification and employment eligibility
document, together with a copy of an application for
extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized
employment that complies with the requirements of
subparagraph (A), shall constitute a valid work authorization
document for a period of not more than 60 days from the date
of application for the extension of stay, after which time
only a currently valid identification and employment
eligibility document shall be acceptable.
``(E) Limitation on an individual's stay in status.--An
alien having status under this section may not have the
status extended for a continuous period longer than 3 years
unless the alien remains outside the United States for an
uninterrupted period of 6 months. An absence from the United
States may break the continuity of the period for which a
nonimmigrant visa issued under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)
is valid. If the alien has resided in the United States 10
months or less, an absence breaks the continuity of the
period if it lasts for at least 2 months. If the alien has
resided in the United States 10 months or more, an absence
breaks the continuity of the period if it lasts for at least
one-fifth the duration of the stay.
``(b) Study by the Attorney General.--The Attorney General
shall conduct a study to determine whether aliens under this
section depart the United States in a timely manner upon the
expiration of their period of authorized stay. If the
Attorney General finds that a significant number of aliens do
not so depart and that withholding a portion of the aliens'
wages to be refunded upon timely departure is necessary as an
inducement to assure such departure, then the Attorney
General shall so report to Congress and make recommendations
on appropriate courses of action.''.
(b) No Family Members Permitted.--Section 101(a)(15)(H) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H))
is amended by striking ``specified in this paragraph'' and
inserting ``specified in this subparagraph (other than in
clause (ii)(a))''.
(c) Range Production of Livestock.--Nothing in this title
shall preclude the Secretary of Labor and the Attorney
General from continuing to apply special procedures to the
employment, admission, and extension of aliens in the range
production of livestock.

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. ENHANCED WORKER PROTECTIONS AND LABOR STANDARDS
ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Enforcement Authority.--
(1) Investigation of complaints.--
(A) Aggrieved person or third party complaints.--The
Secretary shall establish a process for the receipt,
investigation, and disposition of complaints respecting an
employer's failure to meet a condition specified in section
301 or an employer's misrepresentation of material facts in
an application under that section, or violation of the
provisions described in subparagraph (B). Complaints may be
filed by any aggrieved person or any organization (including
bargaining representatives). No investigation or hearing
shall be conducted on a complaint concerning such a failure
or misrepresentation unless the complaint was filed not later
than 12 months after the date of the failure or
misrepresentation, as the case may be. The Secretary shall
conduct an investigation under this paragraph if there is
reasonable cause to believe that such a failure or
misrepresentation has occurred.
(B) Expedited investigation of serious child labor, wage,
and housing violations.--The Secretary shall complete an
investigation and issue a written determination as to whether
or not a violation has been committed within 10 days of the
receipt of a complaint pursuant to subparagraph (A) if there
is reasonable cause to believe that any of the following
serious violations have occurred:
(i) A violation of section 12(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212(c)).
(ii) A failure to make a wage payment, except that
complaints alleging that an amount less than the wages due
has been paid shall be handled pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(iii) A failure to provide the housing allowance required
under section 304(b)(6).
(iv) Providing housing pursuant to section 304(b)(1) that
fails to comply with standards under section 304(b)(2) and
which poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or
death to workers.
(C) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this Act limits the
authority of the Secretary of Labor to conduct any compliance
investigation under any other labor law, including any law
affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers or, in
the absence of a complaint under this paragraph, under this
Act.
(2) Written notice of finding and opportunity for appeal.--
After an investigation has been conducted, the Secretary
shall issue a written determination as to whether or not any
violation described in subsection (b) has been committed. The
Secretary's determination shall be served on the complainant
and the employer, and shall provide an opportunity for an
appeal of the Secretary's decision to an administrative law
judge, who may conduct a de novo hearing.
(3) Ability of alien workers to change employers.--
(A) In general.--Pending the completion of an investigation
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary may permit the
transfer of an aggrieved person who has filed a complaint
under such paragraph to an employer that--
(i) has been approved to employ workers under this Act; and
(ii) agrees to accept the person for employment.
(B) Replacement worker.--An aggrieved person may not be
transferred under subparagraph (A) until such time as the
employer from whom the person is to be transferred receives a
requested replacement worker referred by a registry pursuant
to section 302 of this Act or provided status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(C) Limitation.--An employer from whom an aggrieved person
has been transferred under this paragraph shall have no
obligation to reimburse the person for the cost of
transportation prior to the completion of the period of
employment referred to in section 304(c).
(D) Voluntary transfer.--Notwithstanding this paragraph, an
employer may voluntarily agree to transfer a worker to
another employer that--
(i) has been approved to employ workers under this Act; and
(ii) agrees to accept the person for employment.
(b) Remedies.--
(1) Back wages.--Upon a final determination that the
employer has failed to pay wages as required under this
section, the Secretary may assess payment of back wages due
to any United States worker or alien described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
employed by the employer in the specific employment in
question. The back wages shall be equal to the difference
between the amount that should have been paid and the amount
that actually was paid to such worker.
(2) Failure to pay wages.--Upon a final determination that
the employer has failed to pay the wages required under this
Act, the Secretary may assess a civil money penalty up to
$1,000 for each person for whom the employer failed to pay
the required wage, and may recommend to the Attorney General
the disqualification of the employer from the employment of
aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of time
determined by the Secretary not to exceed 1 year.
(3) Other violations.--If the Secretary, as a result of an
investigation pursuant to a complaint, determines that an
employer covered by an application under section 401(a) has--
(A) filed an application that misrepresents a material
fact;
(B) failed to meet a condition specified in section 401; or
(C) committed a serious violation of subsection (a)(1)(B),

[[Page 27011]]

the Secretary may seek a cease and desist order and assess a
civil money penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each violation
and may recommend to the Attorney General the
disqualification of the employer if the Secretary finds it to
be a substantial misrepresentation or violation of the
requirements for the employment of any United States workers
or aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of time
determined by the Secretary not to exceed 1 year. In
determining the amount of civil money penalty to be assessed
or whether to recommend disqualification of the employer, the
Secretary shall consider the seriousness of the violation,
the good faith of the employer, the size of the business of
the employer being charged, the history of previous
violations by the employer, whether the employer obtained a
financial gain from the violation, whether the violation was
willful, and other relevant factors.
(4) Expanded program disqualification.--
(A) 3 years for second violation.--Upon a second final
determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages
required under this Act, or a second final determination that
the employer has committed another substantial violation
under paragraph (3) in the same category of violations, with
respect to the same alien, the Secretary shall report such
determination to the Attorney General and the Attorney
General shall disqualify the employer from the employment of
aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of 3 years.
(B) Permanent for third violation.--Upon a third final
determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages
required under this section or committed other substantial
violations under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall report
such determination to the Attorney General, and the Attorney
General shall disqualify the employer from any subsequent
employment of aliens described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(c) Role of Associations.--
(1) Violation by a member of an association.--An employer
on whose behalf an application is filed by an association
acting as its agent is fully responsible for such
application, and for complying with the terms and conditions
of this Act, as though the employer had filed the application
itself. If such an employer is determined to have violated a
requirement of this section, the penalty for such violation
shall be assessed against the employer who committed the
violation and not against the association or other members of
the association.
(2) Violation by an association acting as an employer.--If
an association filing an application on its own behalf as an
employer is determined to have committed a violation under
this subsection which results in disqualification from the
program under subsection (b), no individual member of such
association may be the beneficiary of the services of an
alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act in an occupation in which
such alien was employed by the association during the period
such disqualification is in effect, unless such member files
an application as an individual employer or such application
is filed on the employer's behalf by an association with
which the employer has an agreement that the employer will
comply with the requirements of this Act.
(d) Study of Agricultural Labor Standards and
Enforcement.--
(1) Commission on housing migrant agricultural workers.--
(A) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on
Housing Migrant Agricultural Workers (in this paragraph
referred to as the ``Commission'').
(B) Composition.--The Commission shall consist of 12
members, as follows:
(i) Four representatives of agricultural employers and one
representative of the Department of Agriculture, each
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(ii) Four representatives of agricultural workers and one
representative of the Department of Labor, each appointed by
the Secretary of Labor.
(iii) One State or local official knowledgeable about
farmworker housing and one representative of Housing and
Urban Development, each appointed by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development.
(C) Functions.--The Commission shall conduct a study of the
problem of in-season housing for migrant agricultural
workers.
(D) Interim reports.--The Commission may at any time submit
interim reports to Congress describing the findings made up
to that time with respect to the study conducted under
subparagraph (C).
(E) Final report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report
to Congress setting forth the findings of the study conducted
under subparagraph (C).
(F) Termination date.--The Commission shall terminate upon
filing its final report.
(2) Study of relationship between child care and child
labor.--The Secretaries of Labor, Agriculture, and Health and
Human Services shall jointly conduct a study of the issues
relating to child care of migrant agricultural workers. Such
study shall address issues related to the adequacy of
educational and day care services for migrant children and
the relationship, if any, of child care needs and child labor
violations in agriculture. An evaluation of migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs (as defined in section 637(12)
of the Head Start Act) as they relate to these issues shall
be included as a part of the study.
(3) Study of field sanitation.--The Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly conduct a study
regarding current field sanitation standards in agriculture
and evaluate alternative approaches and innovations that may
further compliance with such standards.
(4) Study of coordinated and targeted labor standards
enforcement.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall conduct a study of the most
persistent and serious labor standards violations in
agriculture and evaluate the most effective means of
coordinating enforcement efforts between Federal and State
officials. The study shall place primary emphasis on the
means by which Federal and State authorities, in consultation
with representatives of workers and agricultural employers,
may develop more effective methods of targeting resources at
repeated and egregious violators of labor standards. The
study also shall consider ways of facilitating expanded
education among agricultural employers and workers regarding
compliance with labor standards and evaluate means of
broadening such education on a cooperative basis among
employers and workers.
(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, with respect to each study required to
be conducted under paragraphs (2) through (4), the Secretary
or group of Secretaries required to conduct the study shall
submit to Congress a report setting forth the findings of the
study.

SEC. 402. BILATERAL COMMISSIONS.

The Attorney General is authorized and requested to
establish a bilateral commission between the United States
and each country not less than 10,000 nationals of which are
nonimmigrant aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)). Such bilateral commissions shall
provide a forum to the governments involved to discuss
matters of mutual concern regarding the program for the
admission of aliens under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.

SEC. 403. REGULATIONS.

(a) Regulations of the Attorney General.--The Attorney
General shall consult with the Secretary and the Secretary of
Agriculture on all regulations to implement the duties of the
Attorney General under this Act.
(b) Regulations of the Secretary of State.--The Secretary
of State shall consult with the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture on all
regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary of State
under this Act.
(c) Regulations of the Secretary of Labor.--The Secretary
shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and shall
obtain the approval of the Attorney General on all
regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary under
this Act.
(d) Deadline for Issuance of Regulations.--All regulations
to implement the duties of the Attorney General, the
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Labor shall take
effect on the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 404. DETERMINATION AND USE OF USER FEES.

(a) Schedule of Fees.--The Secretary of Labor shall
establish and periodically adjust a schedule for the registry
user fee and the alien employment user fee imposed under this
Act, and a collection process for such fees from employers
participating in the programs provided under this Act. Such
fees shall be the only fees chargeable to employers for
services provided under this Act.
(b) Determination of Schedule.--
(1) In general.--The schedule under subsection (a) shall
reflect a fee rate based on the number of job opportunities
indicated in an employer's application under section
301(a)(1)(C) and sufficient to provide for the reimbursement
of the direct costs of providing the following services:
(A) Registry user fee.--Services provided through the
agricultural worker registries established under section
301(a), including registration, referral, and validation, but
not including services that would otherwise be provided by
the Secretary of Labor under related or similar programs if
such registries had not been established.
(B) Alien employment user fee.--Services related to an
employer's authorization to employ eligible aliens pursuant
to this Act, including the establishment and certification of
eligible employers, the issuance of documentation, and the
admission of eligible aliens.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--In establishing and adjusting such
schedule, the Secretary of Labor shall comply with Federal
cost accounting and fee setting standards.
(B) Publication and comment.--The Secretary of Labor shall
publish in the Federal Register an initial fee schedule and
associated collection process and the cost data or

[[Page 27012]]

estimates upon which such fee schedule is based, and any
subsequent amendments thereto, pursuant to which public
comment will be sought and a final rule issued.
(c) Use of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--All proceeds resulting from the payment of
registry user fees and alien employment user fees shall be
available without further appropriation and shall remain
available without fiscal year limitation to reimburse the
Secretaries of Labor, State, and Agriculture, and the
Attorney General for the costs of carrying out section 218 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act and the provisions of
this Act.
(2) Limitation on enforcement costs.--In making a
determination of reimbursable costs under paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Labor shall provide that reimbursement of the
costs of enforcement under section 401 shall not exceed 10
percent of the direct costs of the Secretary described in
subsection (b)(1) (A) and (B).

SEC. 405. FUNDING FOR STARTUP COSTS.

If additional funds are necessary to pay the startup costs
of the agricultural worker registries established under
section 301(a), such costs may be paid out of amounts
available to Federal or State governmental entities under the
Wagner--Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.). Proceeds described
in section 404(c) may be used to reimburse the use of such
available amounts.

SEC. 406. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Requirement.--Not later than 4 years after the
effective date under section 408, the Resources, Community
and Economic Development Division, and the Health, Education
and Human Services Division, of the Office of the Comptroller
General of the United States shall jointly prepare and
transmit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate a report describing the results of a review of the
implementation of and compliance with this Act. The report
shall address--
(1) whether the program has ensured an adequate and timely
supply of qualified, eligible workers at the time and place
needed by employers;
(2) whether the program has ensured that aliens admitted
under this program are employed only in authorized
employment, and that they timely depart the United States
when their authorized stay ends;
(3) whether the program has ensured that participating
employers comply with the requirements of the program with
respect to the employment of United States workers and aliens
admitted under this program;
(4) whether the program has ensured that aliens admitted
under this program are not displacing eligible, qualified
United States workers or diminishing the wages and other
terms and conditions of employment of eligible United States
workers;
(5) to the extent practicable, compare the wages and other
terms of employment of eligible United States workers and
aliens employed under this program with the wages and other
terms of employment of agricultural workers who are not
authorized to work in the United States;
(6) whether the housing provisions of this program ensure
that adequate housing is available to workers employed under
this program who are required to be provided housing or a
housing allowance;
(7) recommendations for improving the operation of the
program for the benefit of participating employers, eligible
United States workers, participating aliens, and governmental
agencies involved in administering the program; and
(8) recommendations for the continuation or termination of
the program under this Act.
(b) Advisory Board.--There shall be established an advisory
board to be composed of--
(1) four representatives of agricultural employers to be
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, including
individuals who have experience with the H-2A program; and
(2) four representatives of agricultural workers to be
appointed by the Secretary of Labor, including individuals
who have experience with the H-2A program,

to provide advice to the Comptroller General in the
preparation of the reports required under subsection (a).

SEC. 407. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall become effective on the date that is 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that
described the measures being taken and the progress made in
implementing this Act.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to recognize our Presiding Officer
who is also one of the stalwart advocates of this reform in
agricultural farm labor, as well as the Senator from Oregon who has
given such leadership on this issue.
In my opinion, those voices who you anticipate will decry the
proposals we are making have to carry the burden of defending the
status quo. In my opinion, that is an impossible defense. What has the
status quo led to in this country? It has led to over 600,000 people
who pick the fruits and vegetables upon which American families depend,
upon which much of our agricultural economy is relying--600,000-plus of
those persons ranging between a third and a half of all of the migrant
workers in the country are illegal. They are here without documents.
They are here without any legal status. Can we call the current system
a humane system when it puts 600,000 people in the shadows of our
society because they are without legal status or legal protection? I
think not.
It is also a system which denies benefits, ironically, to U.S.
citizens and U.S. legal permanent residents who work as migrants in
American agriculture, which we make available to non-U.S. citizens who
come here under a temporary work visa that we call a H-2A visa. For
instance, we provide transportation assistance to foreign visa workers
that we do not provide to U.S. citizens. We provide housing benefits to
foreign workers that we do not provide to U.S. citizens. We provide
even a higher wage rate, a higher base salary to foreign visa workers
than we do to U.S. citizens who work as migrant workers in American
agriculture.
We also have a system which is--to say antiquated is to give it a
status that is beyond justification. We are using a system that is
bureaucratic, that does not apply contemporary methods of technology,
communication, which, while it approves some 90 percent of the
petitions that are filed to make it possible for those non-U.S. visa
workers to come into the United States, oftentimes the delay in getting
that ultimate approval is so extended that by the time the approval
arrives the crops have already rotted in the field.
Anyone who wishes to attack our ideas, I think, has the burden of
either attempting to defend a clearly--not broken but smashed status
quo, and then to come forward with their own ideas. A few days ago,
Senator Wyden and the Presiding Officer and myself offered an amendment
to a Department of Labor appropriations bill in which we directed that
the administration should come forward with its ideas as to how to
correct the broken status quo of migrant farm labor in America. We look
forward to receiving that response. We have been asking for that
response for the better part of 2 to 3 years.
I hope now that we are on the verge of introducing legislation, we
will see an engagement by all the parties who have professed an
interest in this issue so we can get their ideas. We do not believe, as
thoughtful as we hope this legislation will be seen, that it came down
from the mountain on plates of stone. It is the product of our best
human effort and we invite others who have their ideas to participate
in this process. But I believe we can all start from the fundamental
position that the status quo is inhumane, illegal, and unacceptable to
the United States of America as a great nation entering the 21st
century.
The legislation we are introducing--and we are actually introducing
two pieces of legislation--the first is the Agricultural Job
Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999, which we intend to
acronym into AG-JOBS, which is the comprehensive bill which includes
all the elements the Presiding Officer outlined in his introductory
remarks. We will then introduce a second bill which will be called the
Farm Worker Adjustment Act of 1999, which will include only those
provisions that relate to the adjustment of status by the some 600,000
undocumented aliens who are currently in the United States.
We invite our colleagues to consider both of these pieces of
legislation. We hope they would be inclined to cosponsor both of these
pieces of legislation.
What would be the consequence of passage of the legislation that we
introduce this evening? What would be the consequences, first, for farm
workers? Farm workers would receive better wages. Instead of having as
the base the minimum wage, the base, as the Presiding Officer
indicated, would be the greater of the minimum wage or the adverse wage
rate plus 5 percent. In my State of Florida, the current calculation of
the adverse wage rate plus

[[Page 27013]]

5 percent would be approximately $7.45, as compared to the current
minimum wage of $5.15.
Second, domestic farm workers, U.S. citizens, and permanent
residents, as well as those who would have the temporary work permits
under the adjustment of status legislation, would all be entitled to
housing, either housing onsite or, if it were determined by the
Governor of the State there was adequate housing in the vicinity of the
agricultural work site, it could be a housing allowance, a voucher
which would allow the farm worker to select their own places to live.
It would also provide for the first time for domestic workers,
citizens, permanent residents, and temporary work permit holders,
access to a transportation allowance. If they had to go more than 100
miles to get from one job to the next, they would be entitled to
compensation for their transportation. They would also receive the
benefits of some modern technology. Just as we currently have a worker
registry system for much of nonagricultural employment in America, this
would provide a computer registry for agricultural workers where they
can indicate: I am prepared to work in the following crops. I am
prepared to work in the following locations and during the following
time periods of the year. They would be permanently registered, so when
a farmer was looking for workers who met those criteria, he would find
this employee's name and a means by which to access that potential
worker.
We would increase worker protection. Farm workers would now be
covered by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
We would not have this shadow workforce of 600,000 people without legal
protection.
There would be stricter penalties for employers who failed to follow
the law. Employers could be barred from the H-2A program, including a
permanent bar for violations of the rights of workers.
The legal status would be available to all of the persons. They would
either be working as a citizen, a permanent resident, a holder of a
temporary work permit, or an H-2A visa. But our goal would be to create
a situation, both legally and economically, in which all of the persons
picking the fruits and vegetables in America's fields would be legal.
How would the farmers benefit? The farmers would have access to this
efficient, modern, streamlined register as a means of determining who
is available to do the work that I need.
They would have assurance that all of their workers were legal. We
have had situations in the last few months in which there were raids on
fields--Vidalia onion fields in Georgia, fruit fields in the Pacific
Northwest where persons who could not show they had documents--and many
could not--were arrested, where the farmer was put into a situation
that his livelihood, his crop for the year was about to be lost because
he would not have the people necessary to harvest the food.
We would also provide to the farmer the assurance that there would be
a streamlined means by which, if necessary, they could access non-U.S.
workers to assure they had a full complement of workers to carry out
the task.
Mr. President, you have stated with force and eloquence the rationale
for this legislation and what we hope to accomplish. I hope in the vein
within which you entered this to ask our colleagues to carefully
consider this legislation, particularly in the context of the
unacceptable status quo. We look forward to engaging with their ideas
and the ideas of others who have an interest in this issue so that this
session of Congress will have as one of its achievements the closure of
a chapter of inhumane abuse of hundreds of thousands of people and a
denial to American agriculture of what it wants--a legal, humanely
treated agricultural workforce to pick the fruits and vegetables upon
which our Nation depends.
I join with you and our colleagues as we start this effort this
evening and will shortly be sending to the desk the legislation on the
adjustment of status of agricultural workers.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I'm pleased to have joined Senators Gordon
Smith, Bob Graham, Max Cleland, and several other colleagues this week
in introducing S. 1814. This bill is a new, improved version of the
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--or, as we
call it, the ``AgJOBS'' bill.
We are facing a growing crisis--for both farm workers and growers.
We want and need a stable, predictable, legal work force in American
agriculture.
Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in
line for available jobs with fair, market wages. We want all workers to
receive decent treatment and equal protection under the law.
Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply.
American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a
government that works.
Yet Americans are being threatened on all these counts, because of a
growing labor shortage in agriculture, while the only program currently
in place to respond, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly
broken.
Last year, the Senate adopted meaningful H-2A reform, on a bipartisan
vote of 68-31. Unfortunately, that bipartisan floor amendment did not
survive the last round of negotiations over the omnibus appropriations
bill last year.
This year, the problem is only growing worse. Therefore, we are
introducing a new, improved bill. The name of the bill says it all--
``AgJOBS''.
Mr. President, our farm workers need this reform bill.
There is no debate about whether many--or most--farm wokers are
aliens.
They are. And they will be, for the foreseeable future. The question
is whether they will be here legally or illegally.
Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they
must work in hiding.
They cannot even claim basic legal rights and protections. They are
vulnerable to predation and exploitation. They sometimes have been
stuffed inhumanly into dangerously enclosed truck trailers and car
trunks, in order to be transported, hidden from the view of the law.
In fact, they have been known to pay ``coyotes''--labor smugglers--
$1,000 and more to be smuggled into this country.
In contrast, legal workers have legal protections.
They can assert wage, safety, and other legal protections. They can
bargain openly and join unions. H-2A workers, in fact, are even
guaranteed housing and transportation.
Clearly, the status quo is broken.
Domestic American workers simply are not being found to fill
agricultural jobs.
Our own General Accounting Office has estimated that 600,000 farm
workers--37 percent of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force--
are not legally authorized to work in this country.
That estimate is low; it's based on self-disclosure by illegal
workers to government interviewers.
Some actually have suggested that there is no labor shortage, because
there are plenty of illegal workers. This is not an acceptable answer.
Congress has shown its commitment over the past few years to improve
the security of our borders, both in the 1996 immigration law and in
subsequent appropriations.
Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration
and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
more and more employers are discovering they have undocumented
employees; and more and more workers here illegally are being
discovered and evicted from their jobs.
Outside of H-2A, employers have no reliable assurance that their
employees are legal.
It's worse than a Catch-22--the law actually punishes the employer
who could be called ``too diligent'' in inquiring into the
identification documents of prospective workers.
The H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It does
nothing

[[Page 27014]]

to recognize the uncertainties farmers face, from changes in the
weather to global market demands.
The H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. DOL's compliance
manual alone is 325 pages.
The current H-2A process is so hard to use, it will place only 34,000
legal guest workers this year--2 percent of the total agricultural work
force.
Finally, the grower can't even count on his or her government to do
its job.
The GAO has found that, in more than 40 percent of the cases in which
employers filed H-2A applications at least 60 days before the date of
need, the DOL missed statutory deadlines in processing them.
The solution we need is the AgJOBS Act of 1999.
Our new, improved AgJOBS bill includes three main parts:
First, it would create a national AgJOBS registry.
This new program would match willing workers anywhere in the U.S.
with available farm work. Workers would be free to work where they want
and for whom they want.
Domestic American workers would be given first preference in job
referrals. Once no domestic worker is available for a job, an
``adjusting'' worker could receive a referral. If no domestic or
adjusting worker is available, an employer could then use the H-2A
program.
This is essentially the same job registry as in last year's bill,
expanded to accommodate the new category of adjusting workers.
Second, it includes much-needed reforms to the H-2A program.
Currently, red tape, regulation, and bureaucracy has rendered the H-
2A program almost completely ineffective.
Our reformed H-2A program would expedite the process and more closely
reflect market reality. Current red tape, delays, and paperwork would
be reduced or eliminated. Growers would be assured of the timely
availability of workers.
Employers still would be required to provide transportation in out of
the U.S., as under the current H-2A program. Employers must provide
either a housing allowance or actual housing to H-2A workers. After 3
years, actual housing would be required, unless the governor of a state
certified a housing shortage. This is a more stringent housing
requirement than last year's bill.
The premium wage guaranteed to H-2A workers--called the Adverse
Economic Wage Rate or ``AEWR''--would be based more accurately on
prevailing wage paid to similar workers in that area. This is similar
to current law, but other jobs, those not closely related, would be
excluded from the calculation of the AEWR. This simply would ensure
that the AEWR more closely reflected prevailing wages for that
particular type of work. In the case of low-wage jobs, a premium would
be added to the wage. This would still mean H-2A wages higher than
virtually all non-H-2A farm worker wages. In other words, current H-2A
workers would still have significant wage protection, and virtually all
new H-2A workers would get a raise.
Third, the bill creates a one-time-only new Category called
``Adjusting'' Workers.
Experienced farm workers who are already in the U.S. would be allowed
to stay if:
--They have worked at least 150 days in agriculture in the 12 months
before the October 27 introduction of this bill;
--They agree to work at least 180 days a year, only in agriculture,
for at least 5 of the next 7 years; during this 5-7 year adjustment
period, they would be in a temproary, non-immigrant status;
--They return to their home country at least 2 months a year (during
the 5-7 year adjustment period. Those with U.S.-born children--i.e.,
children who were already U.S. citizens--could stay year-round, but
must agree to work in agriculture 240 days/year.
``Adjusting'' workers would be earning the right to keep their jobs
or move to other agricultural jobs. Eventually, they could earn the
right to a so-called ``green card''--in other words, permanent
residency.
For one moment, I want to mention, and then dispose of, the ``A-
Word":
This bill is not about amnesty, for several reasons. I have always
been opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. If this were an amnesty
bill, I'd be against it.
This bill is about workers who are already here, for employers who
need them and value their services, earning a right to stay.
Amnesty is a gift; this bill is about earning a right. Amnesty means
one is home free; this bill is about stabilizing the agricultural work
force and conditions residency on a 5-7 year agreement to continue in
farm work.
The level of documentation required to prove a worker already has
been working in the U.S. is much stricter than for any past amnesty
law.
In closing, Mr. President, this is win-win legislation.
It will elevate and protect the rights, working conditions, and
safety of workers. It will help workers--first domestic American
workers, then other workers already here, then foreign guest workers--
find the jobs they want and need.
It will assure growers of a stable, legal supply of workers, within a
program that recognizes market realities. The adjusted-worker
provisions also will give growers one-time assistance in adjusting to
the new labor market realities of the 21st Century.
It will assure all Americans of a safe, consistent, affordable food
supply.
The nation needs the Smith-Graham-Craig-Cleland AgJOBS bill. I invite
the rest of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors; and I urge the
Senate and the House to act promptly to enact this legislation into
law.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 391

At the request of Mr. Kerrey, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 391, a bill to
provide for payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate
medical education programs.

S. 758

At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Burns) was added as a cosponsor 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. 1020

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Jeffords) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1020, a bill to amend
chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to provide for greater
fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle franchise
contracts.

S. 1029

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

S. 1044

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1044, a bill to require
coverage for colorectal cancer screenings.

S. 1288

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1288, a bill to
provide incentives for collaborative forest restoration projects on
National Forest System and other public lands in New Mexico, and for
other purposes.

S. 1488

At the request of Mr. Gorton, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1488, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide for recommendations of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the placement of
automatic external defibrillators in Federal buildings in order to
improve survival rates of individuals who experience cardiac arrest in
such buildings, and to establish protections from civil liability
arising from the emergency use of the devices.

[[Page 27015]]

S. 1666

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1666, a bill to provide
risk education assistance to agricultural producers, and for other
purposes.

S. 1680

At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1680, a bill to provide for
the improvement of the processing of claims for veterans compensation
and pensions, and for other purposes.

S. 1690

At the request of Mr. Mack, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1690, a bill to require the United States to take
action to provide bilateral debt relief, and improve the provision of
multilateral debt relief, in order to give a fresh start to poor
countries.

S. 1733

At the request of Mr. Fitzgerald, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1733, a bill
to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to provide for a national standard
of interoperability and portability applicable to electronic food stamp
benefit transactions.

S. 1750

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Abraham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1750, a bill to reduce the
incidence of child abuse and neglect, and for other purposes.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 58

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution
58, a concurrent resolution urging the United States to seek a global
consensus supporting a moratorium on tariffs and on special, multiple
and discriminatory taxation of electronic commerce.

Senate Resolution 108

At the request of Mr. Robb, his name was added as a cosponsor of
Senate Resolution 108, a resolution designating the month of March each
year as ``National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month.''

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 62--RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE HEROIC
EFFORTS OF THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD'S 109TH AIRLIFT WING AND ITS RESCUE
OF DR. JERRI NIELSEN FROM THE SOUTH POLE

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Moynihan) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

S. Con. Res. 62

Whereas the 109th Airlift Wing of the Air National Guard is
based at Stratton Air National Guard Base in Glenville, New
York;
Whereas the 109th was called upon by the United States
Antarctic Program to undertake a medical evacuation mission
to the South Pole to rescue Dr. Jerri Nielsen, a physician
who diagnosed herself with breast cancer;
Whereas the 109th is the only unit in the world trained and
equipped to attempt such a mission;
Whereas the 10 crew members were pilot Maj. George R.
McAllister Jr., senior mission commander Col. Marion G.
Pritchard, co-pilot Maj. David Koltermann, navigator Lt. Col.
Bryan M. Fennessy, engineer Ch. M. Sgt. Michael T. Cristiano,
loadmasters Sr. M. Sgt. Kurt A. Garrison and T. Sgt. David M.
Vesper, flight nurse Maj. Kimberly Terpening, and medical
technicians Ch. M. Sgt. Michael Casatelli and M. Sgt. Kelly
McDowell;
Whereas the crew departed Stratton Air Base for McMurdo
Station in Antarctica via Christchurch, New Zealand, on
October 6, 1999;
Whereas on October 15, 1999, Aircraft No. 096 departed
McMurdo for the South Pole, where the temperature was
approximately -53 degrees Celsius;
Whereas Major McAllister piloted a 130,000 pound LC-130
Hercules cargo plane equipped with Teflon-coated skis to a
safe landing on an icy runway with visibility barely above
minimums established for safe operations;
Whereas less than 25 minutes later, following an emotional
goodbye and brief medical evaluation, Dr. Nielsen and the
crew headed back to McMurdo Station;
Whereas the mission lasted 9 days and covered 11,410
nautical miles; and
Whereas Major McAllister became the first person ever to
land on a polar ice cap at this time of year: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress recognizes and honors the crew of
the Air National Guard's 109th Airlift Wing for its heroic
efforts in rescuing Dr. Jerri Nielsen from the South Pole.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 207--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING
FAIR ACCESS TO JAPANESE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. Res. 207

Whereas the United States has a deep and sustained interest
in the promotion of deregulation, competition, and regulatory
reform in Japan;
Whereas new and bold measures by the Government of Japan
regarding regulatory reform will help remove the regulatory
and structural impediments to the effective functioning of
market forces in the Japanese economy;
Whereas regulatory reform will increase the efficient
allocation of resources of Japan, which is critical to
returning Japan to a long-term growth path powered by
domestic demand;
Whereas regulatory reform will not only improve market
access for United States business and other foreign firms,
but will also enhance consumer choice and economic prosperity
in Japan;
Whereas a sustained recovery of the Japanese economy is
vital to a sustained recovery of Asian economies;
Whereas the Japanese economy must serve as one of the main
engines of growth for Asia and for the global economy;
Whereas the Governments of the United States and Japan
reconfirmed the critical importance of deregulation,
competition, and regulatory reform when the two governments
established the Enhanced Initiative on Deregulation and
Competition Policy in 1997;
Whereas telecommunications is a critical sector requiring
reform in Japan, where the market is hampered by a history of
laws, regulations, and monopolistic practices that do not
meet the needs of a competitive market;
Whereas as the result of Japan's laws, regulations, and
monopolistic practices, Japanese consumers and Japanese
industry have been denied the broad benefits of innovative
telecommunications services, cutting edge technology, and
lower prices that competition would bring to the market;
Whereas Japan's significant lag in developing broadband and
Internet services, and Japan's lag in the entire area of
electronic commerce, is a direct result of a noncompetitive
telecommunications regulatory structure;
Whereas Japan's lag in developing broadband and Internet
services is evidenced by the following: (1) Japan has only
17,000,000 Internet users, while the United States has
80,000,000 Internet users; (2) Japan hosts fewer than
2,000,000 web sites, while the United States hosts over
30,000,000 web sites; (3) electronic commerce in Japan is
valued at less than $1,000,000,000, while in the United
States electronic commerce is valued at over $30,000,000,000;
and (4) 19 percent Japan's schools are connected to the
Internet, while in the United States 89 percent of schools
are connected; and
Whereas leading edge foreign telecommunications companies,
because of their high level of technology and innovation, are
the key to building the necessary telecommunications
infrastructure in Japan, which will only be able to serve
Japanese consumers and industry if there is a fundamental
change in Japan's regulatory approach to telecommunications:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved; That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the appropriate officials in the executive branch
should implement vigorously the call for Japan to undertake a
major regulatory reform in the telecommunications sector, the
so called ``Telecommunications Big Bang'';
(2) a ``Telecommunications Big Bang'' must address
fundamental legislative and regulatory issues within a
strictly defined timeframe;
(3) the new telecommunications regulatory framework should
put competition first in order to encourage new and
innovative businesses to enter the telecommunications market
in Japan;
(4) the Government of Japan should ensure that Nippen
Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT) and its affiliates
(the NTT Group) are prevented from using their dominant
position in the wired and wireless market in an
anticompetitive manner; and
(5) the Government of Japan should take credible steps to
ensure that competitive

[[Page 27016]]

carriers have reasonable, cost-based, and nondiscriminatory
access to the rights-of-way, facilities, and services
controlled by NTT, the NTT Group, other utilities, and the
Government of Japan, including--
(A) access to interconnection at market-based rates;
(B) unrestricted access to unbundled elements of the
network belonging to NTT and the NTT Group; and
(C) access to public roads for the installation of
facilities.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the history of our Government's effort to
promote deregulation and openness in the Japanese telecommunications
sector goes back over 20 years. Back to the days when Bob Strauss was
the U.S. Trade Representative.
The first agreement involved significant changes in the procurement
policies of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone. Known as NTT, it was then
the government owned, monopoly, domestic telecommunications provider.
This agreement has been revised and renewed seven times--most recently
earlier this year.
There has been a plethora of other bilateral telecommunications
agreements with Japan over the years. On interconnection. On cellular
phones. And on international value added networks.
We have used Section 301 to pry open the Japanese telecommunications
market. We created Section 1377 in the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act to deal
with Japanese telecommunications practices. We have had the MOSS talks
with Japan in the 1980s. And we have also pursued multilateral efforts
through the GATT, the WTO, and the Information Technology Agreement--
the ITA.
I don't think the United States has negotiated more in one sector
with any nation than we have done with Japan over telecommunications.
And we have made progress, from virtually zero sales by Americans to
Japan in this sector twenty years ago to several billion dollars today.
But there is still a long way to go. Japan is the second largest
economy in the world. It is at the cutting edge of most high
technology. Yet its consumption of telecommunications goods and
services fits more closely the model of a second tier economy.
It is true that penetration of cellular phones in Japan is among the
highest in the world. But, Japan has only 17 million Internet users,
while the United States has almost five times as many--80 million
users. Japan hosts fewer than two million web sites, while the United
States hosts over 30 million. Electronic commerce in Japan is valued at
less than one billion dollars, versus at least thirty times as much in
the United States. And only 19 percent of Japan's schools are connected
to the Internet, versus in the United States where 89 percent of
schools are connected.
Why is this?
The answer is simple. Japan maintains a non-competitive regulatory
system that prevents market forces from fully operating in the
telecommunications sector. American telecom service and equipment
providers are still limited in their ability to do business in Japan.
But the system also hurts the Japanese consumer. They can't obtain
the highest quality telecommunications technology at the lowest price.
They are not able to choose from the incredible array of services and
products available around the world. And they pay higher prices than
they should.
Japanese firms also suffer for the same reasons in their
telecommunications purchases. They cannot get the best. And they
overpay for what they can buy. Many modern services are simply
unavailable in Japan.
Earlier this month, the United States Government presented Japan with
its annual deregulation requests in a number of sectors. If the
Japanese government implemented this whole list, they would be on a
path leading to economic growth. To better choice and lower prices for
its consumers. And to increased efficiency for its industry.
I an not naive enough to think that will happen. However, I do know
that Japan's adoption of the USTR requests, a so-called
``Telecommunications Big Bang'', would open the telecommunications
sector to global competition with all the attendant benefits.
Senator Grassley and I are submitting a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution. It simply stresses the need for this significant regulatory
reform in Japan. It calls on USTR vigorously to implement their call
for this change. And it sends the message to Japan that the Senate is
strongly behind this effort.
Such deregulation serves American and International business. It
serves the Japanese economy. It serves the Japanese consumer. It serves
Japanese industry. And it serves the original and global economy which
need so desperately a growing Japan. In the long-run, everyone would
win.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution when it is called up.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this resolution I am offering with
Senator Baucus calls for fair access to Japan's $35 billion
telecommunications equipment market. Telecommunications is one of our
most important exports and one of our most significant areas for future
export growth.
Recently, the United States and Japan reached a new
telecommunications procurement agreement covering procurement by the
successor companies of the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company. This
agreement replaced the 1997 agreement that expired when the Nippon
Telegraph and Telephone Company was restructured.
We have had many difficulties gaining access to Japan's
telecommunicates market in the past, probably not too different from a
lot of sectors as we try to enter our products into Japan. It may be
nothing new in that respect, but this is a new agreement that will be
in effect for 2 years, and we should give it a chance to work. But
history shows we have not made much progress when it comes to
implementing fair bilateral market access agreements with Japan.
You know the usual story: We are always overjoyed, after several
months or even years of negotiating an agreement with the Japanese,
that it has been some major breakthrough; and then down the road a few
months or years, when you expect the agreement to be carried out--not
only according to its word but also according to its spirit--you find
the victory you anticipated and were thankful for at the time it was
signed comes out to be a half a loaf or a quarter of a loaf in
practice. I think that is what we are finding out here a little bit
with this telecommunications agreement.
The Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company and the government in
Japan, which owns 65 percent of the telecommunications group, have
traditionally maintained that Nippon Telegraph and Telephone is a
private company which should not be subject to government interference
but be allowed to make its own procurement decisions.
Our concern is that we need effective bilateral government oversight
so Japan's telecommunications industry does not revert to its
traditional reliance upon domestic suppliers and consequently
circumvent this agreement. That is because Nippon Telegraph and
Telephone's procurement history shows that even nearly two decades
after the first bilateral agreement on this company's procurement,
Japan still tends to make a large portion of its procurement from the
``NTT family'' of Japanese equipment makers; thus, not opening their
markets to products from overseas, including U.S. products. Often, NTT
over-engineers specifications, which in the past were very Japan-
specific or company-specific--another nontariff trade barrier to keep
out products from the United States and other countries.
World telecommunications trade is growing very rapidly, but global
market access is not keeping pace with the fast pace of technology
development. The Baucus-Grassley resolution expresses the sense of the
Senate that the only effective way for the United States to achieve
significant market access in Japan is through Japan staying with
serious and sustained deregulation and consequently having market
opportunities for imports from other countries, including the United
States.
This resolution carriers a message that ought to be heard loud and
clear in the runup to the World Trade Organization Ministerial
Conference that will take place in Seattle at the end of November. So
I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.

____________________

[[Page 27017]]

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

______

LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT NO. 2331

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy
for sub-Sahara Africa; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR ALBANIA.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Albania has been found to be in full compliance with
the freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the
Trade Act of 1974.
(2) Since its emergence from communism, Albania has made
progress toward democratic rule and the creation of a free-
market economy.
(3) Albania has concluded a bilateral investment treaty
with the United States.
(4) Albania has demonstrated a strong desire to build a
friendly relationship with the United States and has been
very cooperative with NATO and the international community
during and after the Kosova crisis.
(5) The extension of unconditional normal trade relations
treatment to the products of Albania will enable the United
States to avail itself of all rights under the World Trade
Organization with respect to Albania when that country
becomes a member of the World Trade Organization.
(b) Termination of Application of Title IV of the Trade Act
of 1974 to Albania.--
(1) Presidential determinations and extensions of
nondiscriminatory treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision
of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et
seq.), the President may--
(A) determine that such title should no longer apply to
Albania; and
(B) after making a determination under subparagraph (A)
with respect to Albania, proclaim the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations
treatment) to the products of that country.
(2) Termination of application of title iv.--On or after
the effective date of the extension under paragraph (1)(B) of
nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Albania, title
IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to that
country.
______

LOTT AMENDMENT NO. 2332

Mr. LOTT proposed an amendment to amendment No. 2325 proposed by Mr.
Roth to the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

Strike all after ``Section'' and add the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trade and
Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Statement of policy.
Sec. 104. Sub-Saharan Africa defined.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

Sec. 111. Eligibility for certain benefits.
Sec. 112. Treatment of certain textiles and apparel.
Sec. 113. United States-sub-Saharan African trade and economic
cooperation forum.
Sec. 114. United States-sub-Saharan Africa free trade area.
Sec. 115. Reporting requirement.

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and policy.
Sec. 203. Definitions.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 211. Temporary provisions to provide additional trade benefits to
certain beneficiary countries.
Sec. 212. Adequate and effective protection for intellectual property
rights.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

Sec. 221. Suspension of limitation on cover over of tax on distilled
spirits.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

Sec. 301. Extension of duty-free treatment under generalized system of
preferences.
Sec. 302. Entry procedures for foreign trade zone operations.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 401. Trade adjustment assistance.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Modification of installment method and repeal of installment
method for accrual method taxpayers.
Sec. 502. Limitations on welfare benefit funds of 10 or more employer
plans.
Sec. 503. Treatment of gain from constructive ownership transactions.
Sec. 504. Limitation on use of nonaccrual experience method of
accounting.
Sec. 505. Allocation of basis on transfers of intangibles in certain
nonrecognition transactions.
Sec. 506. Increase in elective withholding rate for nonperiodic
distributions from deferred compensation plans.

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``African Growth and
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) it is in the mutual interest of the United States and
the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to promote stable and
sustainable economic growth and development in sub-Saharan
Africa;
(2) the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa form a region
richly endowed with both natural and human resources;
(3) sub-Saharan Africa represents a region of enormous
economic potential and of enduring political significance to
the United States;
(4) the region has experienced a rise in both economic
development and political freedom as countries in sub-Saharan
Africa have taken steps toward liberalizing their economies
and encouraged broader participation in the political
process;
(5) the countries of sub-Saharan Africa have made progress
toward regional economic integration that can have positive
benefits for the region;
(6) despite those gains, the per capita income in sub-
Saharan Africa averages less than $500 annually;
(7) United States foreign direct investment in the region
has fallen in recent years and the sub-Saharan African region
receives only minor inflows of direct investment from around
the world;
(8) trade between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa,
apart from the import of oil, remains an insignificant part
of total United States trade;
(9) trade and investment, as the American experience has
shown, can represent powerful tools both for economic
development and for building a stable political environment
in which political freedom can flourish;
(10) increased trade and investment flows have the greatest
impact in an economic environment in which trading partners
eliminate barriers to trade and capital flows and encourage
the development of a vibrant private sector that offers
individual African citizens the freedom to expand their
economic opportunities and provide for their families;
(11) offering the countries of sub-Saharan Africa enhanced
trade preferences will encourage both higher levels of trade
and direct investment in support of the positive economic and
political developments under way throughout the region; and
(12) encouraging the reciprocal reduction of trade and
investment barriers in Africa will enhance the benefits of
trade and investment for the region as well as enhance
commercial and political ties between the United States and
sub-Saharan Africa.

SEC. 103. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

Congress supports--
(1) encouraging increased trade and investment between the
United States and sub-Saharan Africa;
(2) reducing tariff and nontariff barriers and other
obstacles to sub-Saharan African and United States trade;
(3) expanding United States assistance to sub-Saharan
Africa's regional integration efforts;
(4) negotiating reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade
agreements, including the possibility of establishing free
trade areas that serve the interests of both the United
States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa;
(5) focusing on countries committed to accountable
government, economic reform, and the eradication of poverty;
(6) strengthening and expanding the private sector in sub-
Saharan Africa;
(7) supporting the development of civil societies and
political freedom in sub-Saharan Africa; and
(8) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan African
Economic Cooperation Forum.

[[Page 27018]]

SEC. 104. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEFINED.

In this title, the terms ``sub-Saharan Africa'', ``sub-
Saharan African country'', ``country in sub-Saharan Africa'',
and ``countries in sub-Saharan Africa'' refer to the
following:
(1) Republic of Angola (Angola).
(2) Republic of Botswana (Botswana).
(3) Republic of Burundi (Burundi).
(4) Republic of Cape Verde (Cape Verde).
(5) Republic of Chad (Chad).
(6) Democratic Republic of Congo.
(7) Republic of the Congo (Congo).
(8) Republic of Djibouti (Djibouti).
(9) State of Eritrea (Eritrea).
(10) Gabonese Republic (Gabon).
(11) Republic of Ghana (Ghana).
(12) Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Guinea-Bissau).
(13) Kingdom of Lesotho (Lesotho).
(14) Republic of Madagascar (Madagascar).
(15) Republic of Mali (Mali).
(16) Republic of Mauritius (Mauritius).
(17) Republic of Namibia (Namibia).
(18) Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria).
(19) Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome
and Principe).
(20) Republic of Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone).
(21) Somalia.
(22) Kingdom of Swaziland (Swaziland).
(23) Republic of Togo (Togo).
(24) Republic of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe).
(25) Republic of Benin (Benin).
(26) Burkina Faso (Burkina).
(27) Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon).
(28) Central African Republic.
(29) Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros (Comoros).
(30) Republic of Cote d'Ivoire (Cote d'Ivoire).
(31) Republic of Equatorial Guinea (Equatorial Guinea).
(32) Ethiopia.
(33) Republic of the Gambia (Gambia).
(34) Republic of Guinea (Guinea).
(35) Republic of Kenya (Kenya).
(36) Republic of Liberia (Liberia).
(37) Republic of Malawi (Malawi).
(38) Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania).
(39) Republic of Mozambique (Mozambique).
(40) Republic of Niger (Niger).
(41) Republic of Rwanda (Rwanda).
(42) Republic of Senegal (Senegal).
(43) Republic of Seychelles (Seychelles).
(44) Republic of South Africa (South Africa).
(45) Republic of Sudan (Sudan).
(46) United Republic of Tanzania (Tanzania).
(47) Republic of Uganda (Uganda).
(48) Republic of Zambia (Zambia).

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 111. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506 the following new
section:

``SEC. 506A. DESIGNATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR
CERTAIN BENEFITS.

``(a) Authority To Designate.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the President is authorized to designate a country
listed in section 104 of the African Growth and Opportunity
Act as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country eligible for
the benefits described in subsection (b), if the President
determines that the country--
``(A) has established, or is making continual progress
toward establishing--
``(i) a market-based economy, where private property rights
are protected and the principles of an open, rules-based
trading system are observed;
``(ii) a democratic society, where the rule of law,
political freedom, participatory democracy, and the right to
due process and a fair trial are observed;
``(iii) an open trading system through the elimination of
barriers to United States trade and investment and the
resolution of bilateral trade and investment disputes; and
``(iv) economic policies to reduce poverty, increase the
availability of health care and educational opportunities,
expand physical infrastructure, and promote the establishment
of private enterprise;
``(B) does not engage in gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights or provide support
for acts of international terrorism and cooperates in
international efforts to eliminate human rights violations
and terrorist activities; and
``(C) subject to the authority granted to the President
under section 502 (a), (d), and (e), otherwise satisfies the
eligibility criteria set forth in section 502.
``(2) Monitoring and review of certain countries.--The
President shall monitor and review the progress of each
country listed in section 104 of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1) in order to determine the current or potential
eligibility of each country to be designated as a beneficiary
sub-Saharan African country for purposes of subsection (a).
The President shall include the reasons for the President's
determinations in the annual report required by section 115
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
``(3) Continuing compliance.--If the President determines
that a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country is not making
continual progress in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1), the President shall terminate the designation
of that country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country
for purposes of this section, effective on January 1 of the
year following the year in which such determination is made.
``(b) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
``(1) In general.--The President may provide duty-free
treatment for any article described in section 503(b)(1) (B)
through (G) (except for textile luggage) that is the growth,
product, or manufacture of a beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country described in subsection (a), if, after receiving the
advice of the International Trade Commission in accordance
with section 503(e), the President determines that such
article is not import-sensitive in the context of imports
from beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
``(2) Rules of origin.--The duty-free treatment provided
under paragraph (1) shall apply to any article described in
that paragraph that meets the requirements of section
503(a)(2), except that--
``(A) if the cost or value of materials produced in the
customs territory of the United States is included with
respect to that article, an amount not to exceed 15 percent
of the appraised value of the article at the time it is
entered that is attributed to such United States cost or
value may be applied toward determining the percentage
referred to in subparagraph (A) of section 503(a)(2); and
``(B) the cost or value of the materials included with
respect to that article that are produced in one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries shall be applied in
determining such percentage.
``(c) Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries, etc.--For
purposes of this title, the terms `beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country' and `beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries' mean a country or countries listed in section 104
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act that the President
has determined is eligible under subsection (a) of this
section.''.
(b) Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation.--Section
503(c)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(c)(2)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Least-developed beneficiary developing countries and
beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any least-developed beneficiary developing
country or any beneficiary sub-Saharan African country.''.
(c) Termination.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506A, as added by
subsection (a), the following new section:

``SEC. 506B. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES.

``In the case of a country listed in section 104 of the
African Growth and Opportunity Act that is a beneficiary
developing country, duty-free treatment provided under this
title shall remain in effect through September 30, 2006.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents for title V
of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 505 the following new items:

``506A. Designation of sub-Saharan African countries for certain
benefits.
``506B. Termination of benefits for sub-Saharan African countries.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000.

SEC. 112. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TEXTILES AND APPAREL.

[[Page 27019]]

Schedule of the United States but for the fact that the
articles were subjected to stone-washing, enzyme-washing,
acid washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, bleaching,
garment-dyeing, or other similar processes.
(2) Apparel articles cut and assembled in beneficiary sub-
saharan african countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or
more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric
wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed
in the United States, if such articles are assembled in one
or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries with thread
formed in the United States.
(3) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of a beneficiary
sub-Saharan African country or countries that is certified as
such by the competent authority of such beneficiary country
or countries. For purposes of this paragraph, the President,
after consultation with the beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country or countries concerned, shall determine which, if
any, particular textile and apparel goods of the country (or
countries) shall be treated as being handloomed, handmade, or
folklore goods.
(c) Penalties for Transshipments.--
(1) Penalties for exporters.--If the President determines,
based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter has engaged in
transshipment with respect to textile or apparel products
from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, then the
President shall deny all benefits under this section and
section 506A of the Trade Act of 1974 to such exporter, any
successor of such exporter, and any other entity owned or
operated by the principal of the exporter for a period of 2
years.
(2) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subsection has occurred when preferential
treatment for a textile or apparel article under subsection
(a) has been claimed on the basis of material false
information concerning the country of origin, manufacture,
processing, or assembly of the article or any of its
components. For purposes of this paragraph, false information
is material if disclosure of the true information would mean
or would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for
preferential treatment under subsection (a).
(d) Technical Assistance.--The Customs Service shall
provide technical assistance to the beneficiary sub-Saharan
African countries for the implementation of the requirements
set forth in subsection (a) (1) and (2).
(e) Monitoring and Reports to Congress.--The Customs
Service shall monitor and the Commissioner of Customs shall
submit to Congress, not later than March 31 of each year that
this section is in effect, a report on the effectiveness of
the anti-circumvention systems described in this section and
on measures taken by countries in sub-Saharan Africa which
export textiles or apparel to the United States to prevent
circumvention as described in article 5 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing.
(f) Safeguard.--The President shall have the authority to
impose appropriate remedies, including restrictions on or the
removal of quota-free and duty-free treatment provided under
this section, in the event that textile and apparel articles
from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country are being
imported in such increased quantities as to cause serious
damage, or actual threat thereof, to the domestic industry
producing like or directly competitive articles. The
President shall exercise his authority under this subsection
consistent with the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agreement on textiles and clothing.--The term
``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
(2) Beneficiary sub-saharan african country, etc.--The
terms ``beneficiary sub-Saharan African country'' and
``beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries'' have the same
meaning as such terms have under section 506A(c) of the Trade
Act of 1974.
(3) Customs service.--The term ``Customs Service'' means
the United States Customs Service.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000 and shall remain in effect
through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 113. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN TRADE AND
ECONOMIC COOPERATION FORUM.

(a) Declaration of Policy.--The President shall convene
annual meetings between senior officials of the United States
Government and officials of the governments of sub-Saharan
African countries in order to foster close economic ties
between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa.
(b) Establishment.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President, after consulting
with the officials of interested sub-Saharan African
governments, shall establish a United States-Sub-Saharan
African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum (in this section
referred to as the ``Forum'').
(c) Requirements.--In creating the Forum, the President
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) First meeting.--The President shall direct the
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Secretary of State, and the United States Trade
Representative to invite their counterparts from interested
sub-Saharan African governments and representatives of
appropriate regional organizations to participate in the
first annual meeting to discuss expanding trade and
investment relations between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa.
(2) Nongovernmental organizations.--
(A) In general.--The President, in consultation with
Congress, shall invite United States nongovernmental
organizations to host meetings with their counterparts from
sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with meetings of the Forum
for the purpose of discussing the issues described in
paragraph (1).
(B) Private sector.--The President, in consultation with
Congress, shall invite United States representatives of the
private sector to host meetings with their counterparts from
sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with meetings of the Forum
for the purpose of discussing the issues described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Annual meetings.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall meet with the
heads of the governments of interested sub-Saharan African
countries for the purpose of discussing the issues described
in paragraph (1).

SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA FREE TRADE AREA.

(a) In General.--The President shall examine the
feasibility of negotiating a free trade agreement (or
agreements) with interested sub-Saharan African countries.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a
report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
regarding the President's conclusions on the feasibility of
negotiating such agreement (or agreements). If the President
determines that the negotiation of any such free trade
agreement is feasible, the President shall provide a detailed
plan for such negotiation that outlines the objectives,
timing, any potential benefits to the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa, and the likely economic impact of any such
agreement.

SEC. 115. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter for 4 years, the President shall
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of this
title.

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``United States-Caribbean
Basin Trade Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (referred to
in this title as ``CBERA'') represents a permanent commitment
by the United States to encourage the development of strong
democratic governments and revitalized economies in
neighboring countries in the Caribbean Basin.
(2) Thirty-four democratically elected leaders agreed at
the 1994 Summit of the Americas to conclude negotiation of a
Free Trade Area of the Americas (referred to in this title as
``FTAA'') by the year 2005.
(3) The economic security of the countries in the Caribbean
Basin will be enhanced by the completion of the FTAA.
(4) Offering temporary benefits to Caribbean Basin
countries will enhance trade between the United States and
the Caribbean Basin, encourage development of trade and
investment policies that will facilitate participation of
Caribbean Basin countries in the FTAA, preserve the United
States commitment to Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries,
help further economic development in the Caribbean Basin
region, and accelerate the trend toward more open economies
in the region.
(5) Promotion of the growth of free enterprise and economic
opportunity in the Caribbean Basin will enhance the national
security interests of the United States.
(6) Increased trade and economic activity between the
United States and Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries will
create expanding export opportunities for United States
businesses and workers.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
(1) offer Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries willing to
prepare to become a party to the FTAA or a comparable trade
agreement, tariff treatment essentially equivalent to that
accorded to products of NAFTA countries for certain products
not currently eligible for duty-free treatment under the
CBERA; and
(2) seek the participation of Caribbean Basin beneficiary
countries in the FTAA or a trade agreement comparable to the
FTAA at the earliest possible date, with the goal of
achieving full participation in such agreement not later than
2005.

[[Page 27020]]

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Beneficiary country.--The term ``beneficiary country''
has the meaning given the term in section 212(a)(1)(A) of the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C.
2702(a)(1)(A)).
(2) CBTEA.--The term ``CBTEA'' means the United States-
Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act.
(3) NAFTA.--The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American
Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States,
Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
(4) NAFTA country.--The term ``NAFTA country'' means any
country with respect to which the NAFTA is in force.
(5) WTO and wto member.--The terms ``WTO'' and ``WTO
member'' have the meanings given those terms in section 2 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 211. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRADE
BENEFITS TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES.

(a) Temporary Provisions.--Section 213(b) of the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) Import-Sensitive Articles.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5),
the duty-free treatment provided under this title does not
apply to--
``(A) textile and apparel articles which were not eligible
articles for purposes of this title on January 1, 1994, as
this title was in effect on that date;
``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective
date of this title as eligible articles for the purpose of
the generalized system of preferences under title V of the
Trade Act of 1974;
``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in
airtight containers;
``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum,
provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets,
and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to,
mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches
or watch parts contain any material which is the product of
any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty
apply; or
``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under
subsection (h).
``(2) Transition period treatment of certain textile and
apparel articles.--
``(A) Products covered.--During the transition period, the
preferential treatment described in subparagraph (B) shall
apply to the following products:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled in a cbtea beneficiary
country.--Apparel articles assembled in a CBTEA beneficiary
country from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United
States, from yarns wholly formed in the United States that
are--

``(I) entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
``(II) entered under chapter 61 or 62 of the HTS, if, after
such assembly, the articles would have qualified for entry
under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS but for the fact that
the articles were subjected to stone-washing, enzyme-washing,
acid washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, bleaching,
garment-dyeing, or other similar processes.

``(ii) Apparel articles cut and assembled in a cbtea
beneficiary country.--Apparel articles cut in a CBTEA
beneficiary country from fabric wholly formed in the United
States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, if such
articles are assembled in such country with thread formed in
the United States.
``(iii) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of a CBTEA
beneficiary country identified under subparagraph (C) that is
certified as such by the competent authority of such
beneficiary country.
``(iv) Textile luggage.--Textile luggage--

``(I) assembled in a CBTEA beneficiary country from fabric
wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly
formed in the United States, that is entered under subheading
9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
``(II) assembled from fabric cut in a CBTEA beneficiary
country from fabric wholly formed in the United States from
yarns wholly formed in the United States, if such luggage is
assembled in such country with thread formed in the United
States.

``(B) Preferential treatment.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (E), during the transition period, the articles
described in subparagraph (A) shall enter the United States
free of duty and free of any quantitative limitations.
``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles
defined.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), the
President, after consultation with the CBTEA beneficiary
country concerned, shall determine which, if any, particular
textile and apparel goods of the country shall be treated as
being handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind
described in section 2.3 (a), (b), or (c) or Appendix
3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
``(D) Penalties for transshipments.--
``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President
determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter
has engaged in transshipment with respect to textile or
apparel products from a CBTEA beneficiary country, then the
President shall deny all benefits under this title to such
exporter, and any successor of such exporter, for a period of
2 years.
``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President
finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has
occurred, the President shall request that the CBTEA
beneficiary country or countries through whose territory the
transshipment has occurred take all necessary and appropriate
actions to prevent such transshipment. If the President
determines that a country is not taking such actions, the
President shall reduce the quantities of textile and apparel
articles that may be imported into the United States from
such country by the quantity of the transshipped articles
multiplied by 3.
``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential
treatment for a textile or apparel article under subparagraph
(B) has been claimed on the basis of material false
information concerning the country of origin, manufacture,
processing, or assembly of the article or any of its
components. For purposes of this clause, false information is
material if disclosure of the true information would mean or
would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for
preferential treatment under subparagraph (B).
``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral
emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of
the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported from a
CBTEA beneficiary country if the application of tariff
treatment under subparagraph (B) to such article results in
conditions that would be cause for the taking of such actions
under such section 4 with respect to a like article described
in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported
from Mexico.
``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For
purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this
subparagraph--

``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the
Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
``(II) the term `transition period' in section 4 of the
Annex shall have the meaning given that term in paragraph
(5)(D) of this subsection; and
``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4
of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the President
requests consultations with the beneficiary country in
question and the country does not agree to consult within the
time period specified under section 4.

``(3) Transition period treatment of certain other articles
originating in beneficiary countries.--
``(A) Equivalent tariff treatment.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the tariff
treatment accorded at any time during the transition period
to any article referred to in any of subparagraphs (B)
through (F) of paragraph (1) that originates in the territory
of a CBTEA beneficiary country shall be identical to the
tariff treatment that is accorded at such time under Annex
302.2 of the NAFTA to an article described in the same 8-
digit subheading of the HTS that is a good of Mexico and is
imported into the United States.
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to any article
accorded duty-free treatment under U.S. Note 2(b) to
subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS.
``(B) Relationship to subsection (h) duty reductions.--If
at any time during the transition period the rate of duty
that would (but for action taken under subparagraph (A)(i) in
regard to such period) apply with respect to any article
under subsection (h) is a rate of duty that is lower than the
rate of duty resulting from such action, then such lower rate
of duty shall be applied for the purposes of implementing
such action.
``(4) Customs procedures.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential
treatment under paragraph (2) or (3) shall comply with
customs procedures similar in all material respects to the
requirements of Article 502(1) of the NAFTA as implemented
pursuant to United States law, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(ii) Determination.--

``(I) In general.--In order to qualify for the preferential
treatment under paragraph (2) or (3) and for a Certificate of
Origin to be valid with respect to any article for which such
treatment is claimed, there shall be in effect a
determination by the President that each country described in
subclause (II)--

``(aa) has implemented and follows, or
``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing
and following,

procedures and requirements similar in all material respects
to the relevant procedures and requirements under chapter 5
of the NAFTA.
``(II) Country described.--A country is described in this
subclause if it is a CBTEA beneficiary country--

``(aa) from which the article is exported, or

[[Page 27021]]

``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the
article originate or in which the article or such materials
undergo production that contributes to a claim that the
article is eligible for preferential treatment.
``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) CBTEA beneficiary country.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA beneficiary country'
means any `beneficiary country', as defined by section
212(a)(1)(A) of this title, which the President determines
has demonstrated a commitment to--

``(I) undertake its obligations under the WTO on or ahead
of schedule;
``(II) participate in negotiations toward the completion of
the FTAA or a comparable trade agreement; and
``(III) undertake other steps necessary for that country to
become a party to the FTAA or a comparable trade agreement.

``(ii) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination under clause (i), the President may consider
the criteria in section 212 (b) and (c) and other appropriate
criteria, including--

``(I) the extent to which the country follows accepted
rules of international trade provided for under the
agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;

``(II) the extent to which the country provides protection
of intellectual property rights--

``(aa) in accordance with standards established in the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights described in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;
``(bb) in accordance with standards established in chapter
17 of the NAFTA; and
``(cc) by granting the holders of copyrights the ability to
control the importation and sale of products that embody
copyrighted works, extending the period set forth in Article
1711(6) of NAFTA for protecting test data for agricultural
chemicals to 10 years, protecting trademarks regardless of
their subsequent designation as geographic indications, and
providing enforcement against the importation of infringing
products at the border;
``(III) the extent to which the country provides
protections to investors and investments of the United States
substantially equivalent to those set forth in chapter 11 of
the NAFTA;
``(IV) the extent to which the country provides the United
States and other WTO members nondiscriminatory, equitable,
and reasonable market access with respect to the products for
which benefits are provided under paragraphs (2) and (3), and
in other relevant product sectors as determined by the
President;
``(V) the extent to which the country provides
internationally recognized worker rights, including--
``(aa) the right of association,
``(bb) the right to organize and bargain collectively,
``(cc) prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or
compulsory labor,
``(dd) a minimum age for the employment of children, and
``(ee) acceptable conditions of work with respect to
minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and
health;

``(VI) whether the country has met the counter-narcotics
certification criteria set forth in section 490 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) for
eligibility for United States assistance;
``(VII) the extent to which the country becomes a party to
and implements the Inter-American Convention Against
Corruption, and becomes party to a convention regarding the
extradition of its nationals;
``(VIII) the extent to which the country--

``(aa) supports the multilateral and regional objectives of
the United States with respect to government procurement,
including the negotiation of government procurement
provisions as part of the FTAA and conclusion of a WTO
transparency agreement as provided in the declaration of the
WTO Ministerial Conference held in Singapore on December 9
through 13, 1996, and
``(bb) applies transparent and competitive procedures in
government procurement equivalent to those contained in the
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (described in section
101(d)(17) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act);

``(IX) the extent to which the country follows the rules on
customs valuation set forth in the WTO Agreement on
Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (described in
section 101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act);
``(X) the extent to which the country affords to products
of the United States which the President determines to be of
commercial importance to the United States with respect to
such country, and on a nondiscriminatory basis to like
products of other WTO members, tariff treatment that is no
less favorable than the most favorable tariff treatment
provided by the country to any other country pursuant to any
free trade agreement to which such country is a party, other
than the Central American Common Market or the Caribbean
Community and Common Market.

``(C) CBTEA originating good.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA originating good' means
a good that meets the rules of origin for a good set forth in
chapter 4 of the NAFTA as implemented pursuant to United
States law.
``(ii) Application of chapter 4.--In applying chapter 4
with respect to a CBTEA beneficiary country for purposes of
this subsection--

``(I) no country other than the United States and a CBTEA
beneficiary country may be treated as being a party to the
NAFTA;
``(II) any reference to trade between the United States and
Mexico shall be deemed to refer to trade between the United
States and a CBTEA beneficiary country;
``(III) any reference to a party shall be deemed to refer
to a CBTEA beneficiary country or the United States; and
``(IV) any reference to parties shall be deemed to refer to
any combination of CBTEA beneficiary countries or to the
United States and a CBTEA beneficiary country (or any
combination thereof).

[[Page 27022]]

and inserting ``Not later than January 31, 2001''.
(d) International Trade Commission Reports.--
(1) Section 215(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers and on the economy of the
beneficiary countries.
``(2) First report.--The first report shall be submitted
not later than September 30, 2001.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(2) Section 206(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3204(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers, and, in conjunction with other
agencies, the effectiveness of this title in promoting drug-
related crop eradication and crop substitution efforts of the
beneficiary countries.
``(2) Submission.--During the period that this title is in
effect, the report required by paragraph (1) shall be
submitted on December 31 of each year that the report
required by section 215 of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act is not submitted.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Section 211 of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2701) is amended by inserting ``(or other
preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
(B) Section 213(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``and except as provided in subsection (b) (2) and (3),''
after ``Tax Reform Act of 1986,''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 212(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade
Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(E) The terms `WTO' and `WTO member' have the meanings
given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).''.

SEC. 212. ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Section 212(c) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(19 U.S.C. 2702(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following flush sentence:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
may determine that a country is not providing adequate and
effective protection of intellectual property rights under
paragraph (9), even if the country is in compliance with the
country's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in section
101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3511(d)(15)).''.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

SEC. 221. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON
DISTILLED SPIRITS.

(a) In General.--Section 7652(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on cover over of tax on
distilled spirits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to articles that are
tax-determined after June 30, 1999, and before October 1,
1999.''
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall
apply to articles that are tax-determined after June 30,
1999.
(2) Special rule.--
(A) In general.--The treasury of Puerto Rico shall make a
Conservation Trust Fund transfer within 30 days after the
date of each cover over payment (made to such treasury under
section 7652(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to
which section 7652(f) of such Code does not apply by reason
of the last sentence thereof.
(B) Conservation trust fund transfer.--
(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``Conservation Trust Fund transfer'' means a transfer to the
Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund of an amount equal to 50
cents per proof gallon of the taxes imposed under section
5001 or section 7652 of such Code on distilled spirits that
are covered over to the treasury of Puerto Rico under section
7652(e) of such Code.
(ii) Treatment of transfer.--Each Conservation Trust Fund
transfer shall be treated as principal for an endowment, the
income from which to be available for use by the Puerto Rico
Conservation Trust Fund for the purposes for which the Trust
Fund was established.
(iii) Result of nontransfer.--

(I) In general.--Upon notification by the Secretary of the
Interior that a Conservation Trust Fund transfer has not been
made by the treasury of Puerto Rico as required by
subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall, except
as provided in subclause (II), deduct and withhold from the
next cover over payment to be made to the treasury of Puerto
Rico under section 7652(e) of such Code an amount equal to
the appropriate Conservation Trust Fund transfer and interest
thereon at the underpayment rate established under section
6621 of such Code as of the due date of such transfer. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer such amount deducted
and withheld, and the interest thereon, directly to the
Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund.
(II) Good cause exception.--If the Secretary of the
Interior finds, after consultation with the Governor of
Puerto Rico, that the failure by the treasury of Puerto Rico
to make a required transfer was for good cause, and notifies
the Secretary of the Treasury of the finding of such good
cause before the due date of the next cover over payment
following the notification of nontransfer, then the Secretary
of the Treasury shall not deduct the amount of such
nontransfer from any cover over payment.

(C) Puerto rico conservation trust fund.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term ``Puerto Rico Conservation Trust
Fund'' means the fund established pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the United States Department of the
Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated December
24, 1968.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT UNDER GENERALIZED
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

(a) In General.--Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2465) is amended by striking ``June 30, 1999'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section applies
to articles entered on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Retroactive application for certain liquidations and
reliquidations.--
(A) General rule.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, and subject
to paragraph (3), any entry--
(i) of an article to which duty-free treatment under title
V of the Trade Act of 1974 would have applied if such entry
had been made on June 30, 1999, and
(ii) that was made--

(I) after June 30, 1999, and
(II) before the date of enactment of this Act,

shall be liquidated or reliquidated as free of duty, and the
Secretary of the Treasury shall refund any duty paid with
respect to such entry.
(B) Entry.--As used in this paragraph, the term ``entry''
includes a withdrawal from warehouse for consumption.
(3) Requests.--Liquidation or reliquidation may be made
under paragraph (2) with respect to an entry only if a
request therefore is filed with the Customs Service, within
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that
contains sufficient information to enable the Customs
Service--
(A) to locate the entry, or
(B) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.

SEC. 302. ENTRY PROCEDURES FOR FOREIGN TRADE ZONE OPERATIONS.

[[Page 27023]]

``(A) use an electronic data interchange approved by the
Customs Service--
``(i) to file the entries described in paragraph (1); and
``(ii) to pay the applicable duties, fees, and taxes with
respect to the entries; and
``(B) satisfy the Customs Service that accounting,
transportation, and other controls over the merchandise are
adequate to protect the revenue and meet the requirements of
other Federal agencies.
``(3) Exception.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not
apply to merchandise the entry of which is prohibited by law
or merchandise for which the filing of an entry summary is
required before the merchandise is released from customs
custody.
``(4) Foreign trade zone; zone.--In this subsection, the
terms `foreign trade zone' and `zone' mean a zone established
pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the
Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 401. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance for Workers.--Section 245 of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``June 30, 1999'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2001''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``June 30, 1999'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2001''.
(b) NAFTA Transitional Program.--Section 250(d)(2) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(2)) is amended by
striking ``the period beginning October 1, 1998, and ending
June 30, 1999, shall not exceed $15,000,000'' and inserting
``the period beginning October 1, 1998, and ending September
30, 2001, shall not exceed $30,000,000 for any fiscal year''.
(c) Adjustment for Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking ``June 30,
1999'' and inserting ``September 30, 2001''.
(d) Termination.--Section 285(c) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2271 note preceding) is amended by striking ``June
30, 1999'' each place it appears and inserting ``September
30, 2001''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on July 1, 1999.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. MODIFICATION OF INSTALLMENT METHOD AND REPEAL OF
INSTALLMENT METHOD FOR ACCRUAL METHOD
TAXPAYERS.

(a) Repeal of Installment Method for Accrual Basis
Taxpayers.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 453 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to installment
method) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Use of Installment Method.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, income from an installment sale shall be taken into
account for purposes of this title under the installment
method.
``(2) Accrual method taxpayer.--The installment method
shall not apply to income from an installment sale if such
income would be reported under an accrual method of
accounting without regard to this section. The preceding
sentence shall not apply to a disposition described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (l)(2).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Sections 453(d)(1), 453(i)(1),
and 453(k) are each amended by striking ``(a)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(a)(1)''.
(b) Modification of Pledge Rules.--Paragraph (4) of section
453A(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
pledges, etc., of installment obligations) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``A payment shall be treated
as directly secured by an interest in an installment
obligation to the extent an arrangement allows the taxpayer
to satisfy all or a portion of the indebtedness with the
installment obligation.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales or other dispositions occurring on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 502. LIMITATIONS ON WELFARE BENEFIT FUNDS OF 10 OR MORE
EMPLOYER PLANS.

(a) Benefits to Which Exception Applies.--Section 419A(f
)(6)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
exception for 10 or more employer plans) is amended to read
as follows:
``(A) In general.--This subpart shall not apply to a
welfare benefit fund which is part of a 10 or more employer
plan if the only benefits provided through the fund are one
or more of the following:
``(i) Medical benefits.
``(ii) Disability benefits.
``(iii) Group term life insurance benefits which do not
provide directly or indirectly for any cash surrender value
or other money that can be paid, assigned, borrowed, or
pledged for collateral for a loan.
The preceding sentence shall not apply to any plan which
maintains experience-rating arrangements with respect to
individual employers.''.
(b) Limitation on Use of Amounts for Other Purposes.--
Section 4976(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining disqualified benefit) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Special rule for 10 or more employer plans exempted
from prefunding limits.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C),
if--
``(A) subpart D of part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 does
not apply by reason of section 419A(f )(6) to contributions
to provide one or more welfare benefits through a welfare
benefit fund under a 10 or more employer plan, and
``(B) any portion of the welfare benefit fund attributable
to such contributions is used for a purpose other than that
for which the contributions were made,
then such portion shall be treated as reverting to the
benefit of the employers maintaining the fund.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions paid or accrued after June 9,
1999, in taxable years ending after such date.

SEC. 503. TREATMENT OF GAIN FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP
TRANSACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter P of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules
for determining capital gains and losses) is amended by
inserting after section 1259 the following new section:

``SEC. 1260. GAINS FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP TRANSACTIONS.

[[Page 27024]]

``(J) a REMIC.
``(d) Constructive Ownership Transaction.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The taxpayer shall be treated as having
entered into a constructive ownership transaction with
respect to any financial asset if the taxpayer--
``(A) holds a long position under a notional principal
contract with respect to the financial asset,
``(B) enters into a forward or futures contract to acquire
the financial asset,
``(C) is the holder of a call option, and is the grantor of
a put option, with respect to the financial asset and such
options have substantially equal strike prices and
substantially contemporaneous maturity dates, or
``(D) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, enters into one or more other transactions (or
acquires one or more positions) that have substantially the
same effect as a transaction described in any of the
preceding subparagraphs.
``(2) Exception for positions which are marked to market.--
This section shall not apply to any constructive ownership
transaction if all of the positions which are part of such
transaction are marked to market under any provision of this
title or the regulations thereunder.
``(3) Long position under notional principal contract.--A
person shall be treated as holding a long position under a
notional principal contract with respect to any financial
asset if such person--
``(A) has the right to be paid (or receive credit for) all
or substantially all of the investment yield (including
appreciation) on such financial asset for a specified period,
and
``(B) is obligated to reimburse (or provide credit for) all
or substantially all of any decline in the value of such
financial asset.
``(4) Forward contract.--The term `forward contract' means
any contract to acquire in the future (or provide or receive
credit for the future value of) any financial asset.
``(e) Net Underlying Long-Term Capital Gain.--For purposes
of this section, in the case of any constructive ownership
transaction with respect to any financial asset, the term
`net underlying long-term capital gain' means the aggregate
net capital gain that the taxpayer would have had if--
``(1) the financial asset had been acquired for fair market
value on the date such transaction was opened and sold for
fair market value on the date such transaction was closed,
and
``(2) only gains and losses that would have resulted from
the deemed ownership under paragraph (1) were taken into
account.
The amount of the net underlying long-term capital gain with
respect to any financial asset shall be treated as zero
unless the amount thereof is established by clear and
convincing evidence.
``(f ) Special Rule Where Taxpayer Takes Delivery.--Except
as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if a
constructive ownership transaction is closed by reason of
taking delivery, this section shall be applied as if the
taxpayer had sold all the contracts, options, or other
positions which are part of such transaction for fair market
value on the closing date. The amount of gain recognized
under the preceding sentence shall not exceed the amount of
gain treated as ordinary income under subsection (a). Proper
adjustments shall be made in the amount of any gain or loss
subsequently realized for gain recognized and treated as
ordinary income under this subsection.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations--
``(1) to permit taxpayers to mark to market constructive
ownership transactions in lieu of applying this section, and
``(2) to exclude certain forward contracts which do not
convey substantially all of the economic return with respect
to a financial asset.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IV
of subchapter P of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 1260. Gains from constructive ownership transactions.''.

SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.

(a) In General.--Section 448(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for services) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``in fields described in paragraph
(2)(A)'' after ``services by such person'', and
(2) by inserting ``certain personal'' before ``services''
in the heading.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
over a period (not greater than 4 taxable years) beginning
with such first taxable year.

SEC. 505. ALLOCATION OF BASIS ON TRANSFERS OF INTANGIBLES IN
CERTAIN NONRECOGNITION TRANSACTIONS.

(a) Transfers to Corporations.--Section 351 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to transfer to corporation
controlled by transferor) is amended by redesignating
subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by inserting after
subsection (g) the following new subsection:
``(h) Treatment of Transfers of Intangible Property.--
``(1) Transfers of less than all substantial rights.
``(A) In general.--A transfer of an interest in intangible
property (as defined in section 936(h)(3)(B)) shall be
treated under this section as a transfer of property even if
the transfer is of less than all of the substantial rights of
the transferor in the property.
``(B) Allocation of basis.--In the case of a transfer of
less than all of the substantial rights of the transferor in
the intangible property, the transferor's basis immediately
before the transfer shall be allocated among the rights
retained by the transferor and the rights transferred on the
basis of their respective fair market values.
``(2) Nonrecognition not to apply to intangible property
developed for transferee.--This section shall not apply to a
transfer of intangible property developed by the transferor
or any related person if such development was pursuant to an
arrangement with the transferee.''.
(b) Transfers to Partnerships.--Subsection (d) of section
721 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read
as follows:
``(d) Transfers of Intangible Property.--
``(1) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of section
351(h) shall apply for purposes of this section.
``(2) Transfers to foreign partnerships.--For regulatory
authority to treat intangibles transferred to a partnership
as sold, see section 367(d)(3).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transfers on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 506. INCREASE IN ELECTIVE WITHHOLDING RATE FOR
NONPERIODIC DISTRIBUTIONS FROM DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS.

(a) In General.--Section 3405(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to withholding) is amended by striking
``10 percent'' and inserting ``15 percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
Amend the title so as to read: ``To authorize a new trade
and investment policy for sub-Saharan Africa, expand trade
benefits to the countries in the Caribbean Basin, renew the
generalized system of preferences, and reauthorize the trade
adjustment assistance programs.''.
______

LOTT AMENDMENT NO. 2333

Mr. LOTT proposed an amendment to amendment No. 2332 proposed by him
to the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

Strike all after ``1'' and add the following

SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trade and
Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Statement of policy.
Sec. 104. Sub-Saharan Africa defined.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and policy.
Sec. 203. Definitions.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 211. Temporary provisions to provide additional trade benefits to
certain beneficiary countries.

[[Page 27025]]

Sec. 212. Adequate and effective protection for intellectual property
rights.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

Sec. 221. Suspension of limitation on cover over of tax on distilled
spirits.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

Sec. 301. Extension of duty-free treatment under generalized system of
preferences.
Sec. 302. Entry procedures for foreign trade zone operations.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 401. Trade adjustment assistance.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``African Growth and
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

SEC. 103. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

SEC. 104. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEFINED.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 111. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506 the following new
section:

``SEC. 506A. DESIGNATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR
CERTAIN BENEFITS.

[[Page 27026]]

each country to be designated as a beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country for purposes of subsection (a). The President
shall include the reasons for the President's determinations
in the annual report required by section 115 of the African
Growth and Opportunity Act.
``(3) Continuing compliance.--If the President determines
that a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country is not making
continual progress in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1), the President shall terminate the designation
of that country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country
for purposes of this section, effective on January 1 of the
year following the year in which such determination is made.
``(b) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
``(1) In general.--The President may provide duty-free
treatment for any article described in section 503(b)(1) (B)
through (G) (except for textile luggage) that is the growth,
product, or manufacture of a beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country described in subsection (a), if, after receiving the
advice of the International Trade Commission in accordance
with section 503(e), the President determines that such
article is not import-sensitive in the context of imports
from beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
``(2) Rules of origin.--The duty-free treatment provided
under paragraph (1) shall apply to any article described in
that paragraph that meets the requirements of section
503(a)(2), except that--
``(A) if the cost or value of materials produced in the
customs territory of the United States is included with
respect to that article, an amount not to exceed 15 percent
of the appraised value of the article at the time it is
entered that is attributed to such United States cost or
value may be applied toward determining the percentage
referred to in subparagraph (A) of section 503(a)(2); and
``(B) the cost or value of the materials included with
respect to that article that are produced in one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries shall be applied in
determining such percentage.
``(c) Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries, etc.--For
purposes of this title, the terms `beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country' and `beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries' mean a country or countries listed in section 104
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act that the President
has determined is eligible under subsection (a) of this
section.''.
(b) Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation.--Section
503(c)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(c)(2)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Least-developed beneficiary developing countries and
beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any least-developed beneficiary developing
country or any beneficiary sub-Saharan African country.''.
(c) Termination.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506A, as added by
subsection (a), the following new section:

``SEC. 506B. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES.

SEC. 112. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TEXTILES AND APPAREL.

(a) Preferential Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, textile and apparel articles described in
subsection (b) (including textile luggage) imported from a
beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, described in section
506A(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, shall enter the United
States free of duty and free of any quantitative limitations,
if--
(1) the country adopts an efficient visa system to guard
against unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel goods
and the use of counterfeit documents; and
(2) the country enacts legislation or promulgates
regulations that would permit United States Customs Service
verification teams to have the access necessary to
investigate thoroughly allegations of transshipment through
such country.
(b) Products Covered.--The preferential treatment described
in subsection (a) shall apply only to the following textile
and apparel products:
(1) Apparel articles assembled in beneficiary sub-saharan
african countries.--Apparel articles assembled in one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabrics wholly
formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly formed
in the United States that are--
(A) entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States; or
(B) entered under chapter 61 or 62 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, if, after such assembly, the
articles would have qualified for entry under subheading
9802.00.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States but for the fact that the articles were subjected to
stone-washing, enzyme-washing, acid washing, perma-pressing,
oven-baking, bleaching, garment-dyeing, or other similar
processes.
(2) Apparel articles cut and assembled in beneficiary sub-
saharan african countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or
more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric
wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed
in the United States, if such articles are assembled in one
or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries with thread
formed in the United States.
(3) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of a beneficiary
sub-Saharan African country or countries that is certified as
such by the competent authority of such beneficiary country
or countries. For purposes of this paragraph, the President,
after consultation with the beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country or countries concerned, shall determine which, if
any, particular textile and apparel goods of the country (or
countries) shall be treated as being handloomed, handmade, or
folklore goods.
(c) Penalties for Transshipments.--
(1) Penalties for exporters.--If the President determines,
based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter has engaged in
transshipment with respect to textile or apparel products
from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, then the
President shall deny all benefits under this section and
section 506A of the Trade Act of 1974 to such exporter, any
successor of such exporter, and any other entity owned or
operated by the principal of the exporter for a period of 2
years.
(2) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subsection has occurred when preferential
treatment for a textile or apparel article under subsection
(a) has been claimed on the basis of material false
information concerning the country of origin, manufacture,
processing, or assembly of the article or any of its
components. For purposes of this paragraph, false information
is material if disclosure of the true information would mean
or would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for
preferential treatment under subsection (a).
(d) Technical Assistance.--The Customs Service shall
provide technical assistance to the beneficiary sub-Saharan
African countries for the implementation of the requirements
set forth in subsection (a) (1) and (2).
(e) Monitoring and Reports to Congress.--The Customs
Service shall monitor and the Commissioner of Customs shall
submit to Congress, not later than March 31 of each year that
this section is in effect, a report on the effectiveness of
the anti-circumvention systems described in this section and
on measures taken by countries in sub-Saharan Africa which
export textiles or apparel to the United States to prevent
circumvention as described in article 5 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing.
(f) Safeguard.--The President shall have the authority to
impose appropriate remedies, including restrictions on or the
removal of quota-free and duty-free treatment provided under
this section, in the event that textile and apparel articles
from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country are being
imported in such increased quantities as to cause serious
damage, or actual threat thereof, to the domestic industry
producing like or directly competitive articles. The
President shall exercise his authority under this subsection
consistent with the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agreement on textiles and clothing.--The term
``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
(2) Beneficiary sub-saharan african country, etc.--The
terms ``beneficiary sub-Saharan African country'' and
``beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries'' have the same
meaning as such terms have under section 506A(c) of the Trade
Act of 1974.
(3) Customs service.--The term ``Customs Service'' means
the United States Customs Service.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000 and shall remain in effect
through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 113. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN TRADE AND
ECONOMIC COOPERATION FORUM.

[[Page 27027]]

officials of interested sub-Saharan African governments,
shall establish a United States-Sub-Saharan African Trade and
Economic Cooperation Forum (in this section referred to as
the ``Forum'').
(c) Requirements.--In creating the Forum, the President
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) First meeting.--The President shall direct the
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Secretary of State, and the United States Trade
Representative to invite their counterparts from interested
sub-Saharan African governments and representatives of
appropriate regional organizations to participate in the
first annual meeting to discuss expanding trade and
investment relations between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa.
(2) Nongovernmental organizations.--
(A) In general.--The President, in consultation with
Congress, shall invite United States nongovernmental
organizations to host meetings with their counterparts from
sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with meetings of the Forum
for the purpose of discussing the issues described in
paragraph (1).
(B) Private sector.--The President, in consultation with
Congress, shall invite United States representatives of the
private sector to host meetings with their counterparts from
sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with meetings of the Forum
for the purpose of discussing the issues described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Annual meetings.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall meet with the
heads of the governments of interested sub-Saharan African
countries for the purpose of discussing the issues described
in paragraph (1).

SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA FREE TRADE AREA.

SEC. 115. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter for 4 years, the President shall
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of this
title.

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``United States-Caribbean
Basin Trade Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 211. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRADE
BENEFITS TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES.

[[Page 27028]]

the country shall be treated as being handloomed, handmade,
or folklore goods of a kind described in section 2.3 (a),
(b), or (c) or Appendix 3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
``(D) Penalties for transshipments.--
``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President
determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter
has engaged in transshipment with respect to textile or
apparel products from a CBTEA beneficiary country, then the
President shall deny all benefits under this title to such
exporter, and any successor of such exporter, for a period of
2 years.
``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President
finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has
occurred, the President shall request that the CBTEA
beneficiary country or countries through whose territory the
transshipment has occurred take all necessary and appropriate
actions to prevent such transshipment. If the President
determines that a country is not taking such actions, the
President shall reduce the quantities of textile and apparel
articles that may be imported into the United States from
such country by the quantity of the transshipped articles
multiplied by 3.
``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential
treatment for a textile or apparel article under subparagraph
(B) has been claimed on the basis of material false
information concerning the country of origin, manufacture,
processing, or assembly of the article or any of its
components. For purposes of this clause, false information is
material if disclosure of the true information would mean or
would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for
preferential treatment under subparagraph (B).
``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral
emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of
the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported from a
CBTEA beneficiary country if the application of tariff
treatment under subparagraph (B) to such article results in
conditions that would be cause for the taking of such actions
under such section 4 with respect to a like article described
in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported
from Mexico.
``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For
purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this
subparagraph--

``(aa) has implemented and follows, or
``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing
and following,

``(aa) from which the article is exported, or
``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the
article originate or in which the article or such materials
undergo production that contributes to a claim that the
article is eligible for preferential treatment.
``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--for purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) CBTEA beneficiary country.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA beneficiary country'
means any `beneficiary country', as defined by section
212(a)(1)(A) of this title, which the President determines
has demonstrated a commitment to--

``(ii) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination under clause (i), the President may consider
the criteria in section 212 (b) and (c) and other appropriate
criteria, including--

``(I) the extent to which the country follows accepted
rules of international trade provided for under the
agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;

``(II) the extent to which the country provides protection
of intellectual property rights--

``(IX) the extent to which the country follows the rules on
customs valuation set forth in the WTO Agreement on
Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (described in

[[Page 27029]]

section 101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act);
``(X) the extent to which the country affords to products
of the United States which the President determines to be of
commercial importance to the United States with respect to
such country, and on a nondiscriminatory basis to like
products of other WTO members, tariff treatment that is no
less favorable than the most favorable tariff treatment
provided by the country to any other country pursuant to any
free trade agreement to which such country is a party, other
than the Central American Common Market or the Caribbean
Community and Common Market.

``(D) Transition period.--The term `transition period'
means, with respect to a CBTEA beneficiary country, the
period that begins on October 1, 2000, and ends on the
earlier of--
``(i) December 31, 2004, or
``(ii) the date on which the FTAA or a comparable trade
agreement enters into force with respect to the United States
and the CBTEA beneficiary country.
``(E) CBTEA.--The term `CBTEA' means the United States-
Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act.
``(F) FTAA.--The term `FTAA' means the Free Trade Area of
the Americas.''.
(b) Determination Regarding Retention of Designation.--
Section 212(e) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(19 U.S.C. 2702(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(B) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
(C) by striking ``would be barred'' and all that follows
through the end period and inserting: ``no longer satisfies
one or more of the conditions for designation as a
beneficiary country set forth in subsection (b) or such
country fails adequately to meet one or more of the criteria
set forth in subsection (c).''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The President may, after the requirements of
subsection (a)(2) and paragraph (2) have been met--
``(i) withdraw or suspend the designation of any country as
a CBTEA beneficiary country, or
``(ii) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of
preferential treatment under section 213(b) (2) and (3) to
any article of any country, if, after such designation, the
President determines that as a result of changed
circumstances, the performance of such country is not
satisfactory under the criteria set forth in section
213(b)(5)(B).''; and
(2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) If preferential treatment under section 213(b) (2)
and (3) is withdrawn, suspended, or limited with respect to a
CBTEA beneficiary country, such country shall not be deemed
to be a `party' for the purposes of applying section
213(b)(5)(C) to imports of articles for which preferential
treatment has been withdrawn, suspended, or limited with
respect to such country.''.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Section 212(f) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2001, and
every 2 years thereafter during the period this title is in
effect, the United States Trade Representative shall submit
to Congress a report regarding the operation of this title,
including--
``(A) with respect to subsections (b) and (c), the results
of a general review of beneficiary countries based on the
considerations described in such subsections; and
``(B) the performance of each beneficiary country or CBTEA
beneficiary country, as the case may be, under the criteria
set forth in section 213(b)(5)(B)(ii).
``(2) Public comment.--Before submitting the report
described in paragraph (1), the United States Trade
Representative shall publish a notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on whether beneficiary countries
are meeting the criteria listed in section 213(b)(5)(B)(i),
and on the performance of each beneficiary country or CBTEA
beneficiary country, as the case may be, with respect to the
criteria listed in section 213(b)(5)(B)(ii).''.
(2) Section 203(f) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3202(f)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Triennial Report'' in the heading and
inserting ``Report''; and
(B) by striking ``On or before'' and all that follows
through ``enactment of this title'' and inserting ``Not later
than January 31, 2001''.
(d) International Trade Commission Reports.--
(1) Section 215(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers and on the economy of the
beneficiary countries.
``(2) First report.--The first report shall be submitted
not later than September 30, 2001.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(2) Section 206(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3204(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers, and, in conjunction with other
agencies, the effectiveness of this title in promoting drug-
related crop eradication and crop substitution efforts of the
beneficiary countries.
``(2) Submission.--During the period that this title is in
effect, the report required by paragraph (1) shall be
submitted on December 31 of each year that the report
required by section 215 of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act is not submitted.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Section 211 of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2701) is amended by inserting ``(or other
preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
(B) Section 213(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``and except as provided in subsection (b) (2) and (3),''
after ``Tax Reform Act of 1986,''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 212(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade
Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(E) The terms `WTO' and `WTO member' have the meanings
given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).''.

SEC. 212. ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Section 212(c) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(19 U.S.C. 2702(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following flush sentence:

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
may determine that a country is not providing adequate and
effective protection of intellectual property rights under
paragraph (9), even if the country is in compliance with the
country's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in section
101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3511(d)(15)).''.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

SEC. 221. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON
DISTILLED SPIRITS.

``The preceding sentence shall not apply to articles that are
tax-determined after June 30, 1999, and before October 1,
1999.''
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall
apply to articles that are tax-determined after June 30,
1999.
(2) Special rule.--
(A) In general.--The treasury of Puerto Rico shall make a
Conservation Trust Fund transfer within 30 days after the
date of each cover over payment (made to such treasury under
section 7652(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to
which section 7652(f) of such Code does not apply by reason
of the last sentence thereof.

[[Page 27030]]

(B) Conservation trust fund transfer.--
(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``Conservation Trust Fund transfer'' means a transfer to the
Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund of an amount equal to 50
cents per proof gallon of the taxes imposed under section
5001 or section 7652 of such Code on distilled spirits that
are covered over to the treasury of Puerto Rico under section
7652(e) of such Code.
(ii) Treatment of transfer.--Each Conservation Trust Fund
transfer shall be treated as principal for an endowment, the
income from which to be available for use by the Puerto Rico
Conservation Trust Fund for the purposes for which the Trust
Fund was established.
(iii) Result of nontransfer.--

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT UNDER GENERALIZED
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

(I) after June 30, 1999, and
(II) before the date of enactment of this Act,

SEC. 302. ENTRY PROCEDURES FOR FOREIGN TRADE ZONE OPERATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1484) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i) Special Rule For Foreign Trade Zone Operations.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and except as provided in paragraph (3), all merchandise
(including merchandise of different classes, types, and
categories), withdrawn from a foreign trade zone during any
7-day period, shall, at the option of the operator or user of
the zone, be the subject of a single estimated entry or
release filed on or before the first day of the 7-day period
in which the merchandise is to be withdrawn from the zone.
The estimated entry or release shall be treated as a single
entry and a single release of merchandise for purposes of
section 13031(a)(9)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(9)(A)) and all
fee exclusions and limitations of such section 13031 shall
apply, including the maximum and minimum fee amounts provided
for under subsection (b)(8)(A)(i) of such section. The entry
summary for the estimated entry or release shall cover only
the merchandise actually withdrawn from the foreign trade
zone during the 7-day period.
``(2) Other requirements.-- The Secretary of the Treasury
may require that the operator or user of the zone--
``(A) use an electronic data interchange approved by the
Customs Service--
``(i) to file the entries described in paragraph (1); and
``(ii) to pay the applicable duties, fees, and taxes with
respect to the entries; and
``(B) satisfy the Customs Service that accounting,
transportation, and other controls over the merchandise are
adequate to protect the revenue and meet the requirements of
other Federal agencies.
``(3) Exception.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not
apply to merchandise the entry of which is prohibited by law
or merchandise for which the filing of an entry summary is
required before the merchandise is released from customs
custody.
``(4) Foreign trade zone; zone.--In this subsection, the
terms `foreign trade zone' and `zone' mean a zone established
pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the
Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 401. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. MODIFICATION OF INSTALLMENT METHOD AND REPEAL OF
INSTALLMENT METHOD FOR ACCRUAL METHOD
TAXPAYERS.

SEC. 502. LIMITATIONS ON WELFARE BENEFIT FUNDS OF 10 OR MORE
EMPLOYER PLANS.

[[Page 27031]]

for any cash surrender value or other money that can be paid,
assigned, borrowed, or pledged for collateral for a loan.

The preceding sentence shall not apply to any plan which
maintains experience-rating arrangements with respect to
individual employers.''.
(b) Limitation on Use of Amounts for Other Purposes.--
Section 4976(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining disqualified benefit) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Special rule for 10 or more employer plans exempted
from prefunding limits.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C),
if--
``(A) subpart D of part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 does
not apply by reason of section 419A(f )(6) to contributions
to provide one or more welfare benefits through a welfare
benefit fund under a 10 or more employer plan, and
``(B) any portion of the welfare benefit fund attributable
to such contributions is used for a purpose other than that
for which the contributions were made,

then such portion shall be treated as reverting to the
benefit of the employers maintaining the fund.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions paid or accrued after June 9,
1999, in taxable years ending after such date.

SEC. 503. TREATMENT OF GAIN FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP
TRANSACTIONS.

``SEC. 1260. GAINS FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP TRANSACTIONS.

``(a) In General.--If the taxpayer has gain from a
constructive ownership transaction with respect to any
financial asset and such gain would (without regard to this
section) be treated as a long-term capital gain--
``(1) such gain shall be treated as ordinary income to the
extent that such gain exceeds the net underlying long-term
capital gain, and
``(2) to the extent such gain is treated as a long-term
capital gain after the application of paragraph (1), the
determination of the capital gain rate (or rates) applicable
to such gain under section 1(h) shall be determined on the
basis of the respective rate (or rates) that would have been
applicable to the net underlying long-term capital gain.
``(b) Interest Charge on Deferral of Gain Recognition.--
``(1) In general.--If any gain is treated as ordinary
income for any taxable year by reason of subsection (a)(1),
the tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year shall
be increased by the amount of interest determined under
paragraph (2) with respect to each prior taxable year during
any portion of which the constructive ownership transaction
was open. Any amount payable under this paragraph shall be
taken into account in computing the amount of any deduction
allowable to the taxpayer for interest paid or accrued during
such taxable year.
``(2) Amount of interest.--The amount of interest
determined under this paragraph with respect to a prior
taxable year is the amount of interest which would have been
imposed under section 6601 on the underpayment of tax for
such year which would have resulted if the gain (which is
treated as ordinary income by reason of subsection (a)(1))
had been included in gross income in the taxable years in
which it accrued (determined by treating the income as
accruing at a constant rate equal to the applicable Federal
rate as in effect on the day the transaction closed). The
period during which such interest shall accrue shall end on
the due date (without extensions) for the return of tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which such
transaction closed.
``(3) Applicable federal rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the applicable Federal rate is the applicable Federal
rate determined under 1274(d) (compounded semiannually) which
would apply to a debt instrument with a term equal to the
period the transaction was open.
``(4) No credits against increase in tax.--Any increase in
tax under paragraph (1) shall not be treated as tax imposed
by this chapter for purposes of determining--
``(A) the amount of any credit allowable under this
chapter, or
``(B) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
``(c) Financial Asset.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `financial asset' means--
``(A) any equity interest in any pass-thru entity, and
``(B) to the extent provided in regulations--
``(i) any debt instrument, and
``(ii) any stock in a corporation which is not a pass-thru
entity.
``(2) Pass-thru entity.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `pass-thru entity' means--
``(A) a regulated investment company,
``(B) a real estate investment trust,
``(C) an S corporation,
``(D) a partnership,
``(E) a trust,
``(F) a common trust fund,
``(G) a passive foreign investment company (as defined in
section 1297 without regard to subsection (e) thereof),
``(H) a foreign personal holding company,
``(I) a foreign investment company (as defined in section
1246(b)), and
``(J) a REMIC.
``(d) Constructive Ownership Transaction.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The taxpayer shall be treated as having
entered into a constructive ownership transaction with
respect to any financial asset if the taxpayer--
``(A) holds a long position under a notional principal
contract with respect to the financial asset,
``(B) enters into a forward or futures contract to acquire
the financial asset,
``(C) is the holder of a call option, and is the grantor of
a put option, with respect to the financial asset and such
options have substantially equal strike prices and
substantially contemporaneous maturity dates, or
``(D) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, enters into one or more other transactions (or
acquires one or more positions) that have substantially the
same effect as a transaction described in any of the
preceding subparagraphs.
``(2) Exception for positions which are marked to market.--
This section shall not apply to any constructive ownership
transaction if all of the positions which are part of such
transaction are marked to market under any provision of this
title or the regulations thereunder.
``(3) Long position under notional principal contract.--A
person shall be treated as holding a long position under a
notional principal contract with respect to any financial
asset if such person--
``(A) has the right to be paid (or receive credit for) all
or substantially all of the investment yield (including
appreciation) on such financial asset for a specified period,
and
``(B) is obligated to reimburse (or provide credit for) all
or substantially all of any decline in the value of such
financial asset.
``(4) Forward contract.--The term `forward contract' means
any contract to acquire in the future (or provide or receive
credit for the future value of) any financial asset.
``(e) Net Underlying Long-Term Capital Gain.--For purposes
of this section, in the case of any constructive ownership
transaction with respect to any financial asset, the term
`net underlying long-term capital gain' means the aggregate
net capital gain that the taxpayer would have had if--
``(1) the financial asset had been acquired for fair market
value on the date such transaction was opened and sold for
fair market value on the date such transaction was closed,
and
``(2) only gains and losses that would have resulted from
the deemed ownership under paragraph (1) were taken into
account.

The amount of the net underlying long-term capital gain with
respect to any financial asset shall be treated as zero
unless the amount thereof is established by clear and
convincing evidence.
``(f ) Special Rule Where Taxpayer Takes Delivery.--Except
as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if a
constructive ownership transaction is closed by reason of
taking delivery, this section shall be applied as if the
taxpayer had sold all the contracts, options, or other
positions which are part of such transaction for fair market
value on the closing date. The amount of gain recognized
under the preceding sentence shall not exceed the amount of
gain treated as ordinary income under subsection (a). Proper
adjustments shall be made in the amount of any gain or loss
subsequently realized for gain recognized and treated as
ordinary income under this subsection.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations--
``(1) to permit taxpayers to mark to market constructive
ownership transactions in lieu of applying this section, and
``(2) to exclude certain forward contracts which do not
convey substantially all of the economic return with respect
to a financial asset.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IV
of subchapter P of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 1260. Gains from constructive ownership transactions.''.

SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.

[[Page 27032]]

(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
over a period (not greater than 4 taxable years) beginning
with such first taxable year.

SEC. 505. ALLOCATION OF BASIS ON TRANSFERS OF INTANGIBLES IN
CERTAIN NONRECOGNITION TRANSACTIONS.

SEC. 506. INCREASE IN ELECTIVE WITHHOLDING RATE FOR
NONPERIODIC DISTRIBUTIONS FROM DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS.

(a) In General.--Section 3405(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to withholding) is amended by striking
``10 percent'' and inserting ``15 percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to distributions after December 30, 2000.
Amend the title so as to read: ``To authorize a new trade
and investment policy for sub-Saharan Africa, expand trade
benefits to the countries in the Caribbean Basin, renew the
generalized system of preferences, and reauthorize the trade
adjustment assistance programs.''.
______

LOTT AMENDMENT NO. 2334

Mr. LOTT proposed an amendment to the motion to recommit proposed by
him to the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

At the end of the instructions, add the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trade and
Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Statement of policy.
Sec. 104. Sub-Saharan Africa defined.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and policy.
Sec. 203. Definitions.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 211. Temporary provisions to provide additional trade benefits to
certain beneficiary countries.
Sec. 212. Adequate and effective protection for intellectual property
rights.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

Sec. 221. Suspension of limitation on cover over of tax on distilled
spirits.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

Sec. 301. Extension of duty-free treatment under generalized system of
preferences.
Sec. 302. Entry procedures for foreign trade zone operations.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 401. Trade adjustment assistance.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``African Growth and
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

SEC. 103. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

[[Page 27033]]

(3) expanding United States assistance to sub-Saharan
Africa's regional integration efforts;
(4) negotiating reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade
agreements, including the possibility of establishing free
trade areas that serve the interests of both the United
States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa;
(5) focusing on countries committed to accountable
government, economic reform, and the eradication of poverty;
(6) strengthening and expanding the private sector in sub-
Saharan Africa;
(7) supporting the development of civil societies and
political freedom in sub-Saharan Africa; and
(8) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan African
Economic Cooperation Forum.

SEC. 104. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEFINED.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 111. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506 the following new
section:

``SEC. 506A. DESIGNATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR
CERTAIN BENEFITS.

``(b) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
``(1) In general.--The President may provide duty-free
treatment for any article described in section 503(b)(1) (B)
through (G) (except for textile luggage) that is the growth,
product, or manufacture of a beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country described in subsection (a), if, after receiving the
advice of the International Trade Commission in accordance
with section 503(e), the President determines that such
article is not import-sensitive in the context of imports
from beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
``(2) Rules of origin.--The duty-free treatment provided
under paragraph (1) shall apply to any article described in
that paragraph that meets the requirements of section
503(a)(2), except that--
``(A) if the cost or value of materials produced in the
customs territory of the United States is included with
respect to that article, an amount not to exceed 15 percent
of the appraised value of the article at the time it is
entered that is attributed to such United States cost or
value may be applied toward determining the percentage
referred to in subparagraph (A) of section 503(a)(2); and
``(B) the cost or value of the materials included with
respect to that article that are produced in one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries shall be applied in
determining such percentage.
``(c) Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries, etc.--For
purposes of this title, the terms `beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country' and `beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries' mean a country or countries listed in section 104
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act that the President
has determined is eligible under subsection (a) of this
section.''.
(b) Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation.--Section
503(c)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(c)(2)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Least-developed beneficiary developing countries and
beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any least-developed beneficiary developing
country or any beneficiary sub-Saharan African country.''.
(c) Termination.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506A, as added by
subsection (a), the following new section:

``SEC. 506B. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES.

SEC. 112. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TEXTILES AND APPAREL.

[[Page 27034]]

(b) Products Covered.--The preferential treatment described
in subsection (a) shall apply only to the following textile
and apparel products:
(1) Apparel articles assembled in beneficiary sub-saharan
african countries.--Apparel articles assembled in one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabrics wholly
formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly formed
in the United States that are--
(A) entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States; or
(B) entered under chapter 61 or 62 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, if, after such assembly, the
articles would have qualified for entry under subheading
9802.00.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States but for the fact that the articles were subjected to
stone-washing, enzyme-washing, acid washing, perma-pressing,
oven-baking, bleaching, garment-dyeing, or other similar
processes.
(2) Apparel articles cut and assembled in beneficiary sub-
saharan african countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or
more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric
wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed
in the United States, if such articles are assembled in one
or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries with thread
formed in the United States.
(3) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of a beneficiary
sub-Saharan African country or countries that is certified as
such by the competent authority of such beneficiary country
or countries. For purposes of this paragraph, the President,
after consultation with the beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country or countries concerned, shall determine which, if
any, particular textile and apparel goods of the country (or
countries) shall be treated as being handloomed, handmade, or
folklore goods.
(c) Penalties for Transshipments.--
(1) Penalties for exporters.--If the President determines,
based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter has engaged in
transshipment with respect to textile or apparel products
from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, then the
President shall deny all benefits under this section and
section 506A of the Trade Act of 1974 to such exporter, any
successor of such exporter, and any other entity owned or
operated by the principal of the exporter for a period of 2
years.
(2) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subsection has occurred when preferential
treatment for a textile or apparel article under subsection
(a) has been claimed on the basis of material false
information concerning the country of origin, manufacture,
processing, or assembly of the article or any of its
components. For purposes of this paragraph, false information
is material if disclosure of the true information would mean
or would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for
preferential treatment under subsection (a).
(d) Technical Assistance.--The Customs Service shall
provide technical assistance to the beneficiary sub-Saharan
African countries for the implementation of the requirements
set forth in subsection (a) (1) and (2).
(e) Monitoring and Reports to Congress.--The Customs
Service shall monitor and the Commissioner of Customs shall
submit to Congress, not later than March 31 of each year that
this section is in effect, a report on the effectiveness of
the anti-circumvention systems described in this section and
on measures taken by countries in sub-Saharan Africa which
export textiles or apparel to the United States to prevent
circumvention as described in article 5 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing.
(f) Safeguard.--The President shall have the authority to
impose appropriate remedies, including restrictions on or the
removal of quota-free and duty-free treatment provided under
this section, in the event that textile and apparel articles
from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country are being
imported in such increased quantities as to cause serious
damage, or actual threat thereof, to the domestic industry
producing like or directly competitive articles. The
President shall exercise his authority under this subsection
consistent with the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agreement on textiles and clothing.--The term
``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
(2) Beneficiary sub-saharan african country, etc.--The
terms ``beneficiary sub-Saharan African country'' and
``beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries'' have the same
meaning as such terms have under section 506A(c) of the Trade
Act of 1974.
(3) Customs service.--The term ``Customs Service'' means
the United States Customs Service.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000 and shall remain in effect
through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 113. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN TRADE AND
ECONOMIC COOPERATION FORUM.

SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA FREE TRADE AREA.

SEC. 115. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter for 4 years, the President shall
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of this
title.

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``United States-Caribbean
Basin Trade Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

[[Page 27035]]

Basin beneficiary countries will create expanding export
opportunities for United States businesses and workers.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
(1) offer Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries willing to
prepare to become a party to the FTAA or a comparable trade
agreement, tariff treatment essentially equivalent to that
accorded to products of NAFTA countries for certain products
not currently eligible for duty-free treatment under the
CBERA; and
(2) seek the participation of Caribbean Basin beneficiary
countries in the FTAA or a trade agreement comparable to the
FTAA at the earliest possible date, with the goal of
achieving full participation in such agreement not later than
2005.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 211. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRADE
BENEFITS TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES.

[[Page 27036]]

``(ii) Determination.--

``(aa) has implemented and follows, or
``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing
and following,

``(aa) from which the article is exported, or
``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the
article originate or in which the article or such materials
undergo production that contributes to a claim that the
article is eligible for preferential treatment.
``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) CBTEA beneficiary country.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA beneficiary country'
means any `beneficiary country', as defined by section
212(a)(1)(A) of this title, which the President determines
has demonstrated a commitment to--

``(ii) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination under clause (i), the President may consider
the criteria in section 212 (b) and (c) and other appropriate
criteria, including--

``(I) the extent to which the country follows accepted
rules of international trade provided for under the
agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;

``(II) the extent to which the country provides protection
of intellectual property rights--

[[Page 27037]]

``(B) the performance of each beneficiary country or CBTEA
beneficiary country, as the case may be, under the criteria
set forth in section 213(b)(5)(B)(ii).
``(2) Public comment.--Before submitting the report
described in paragraph (1), the United States Trade
Representative shall publish a notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on whether beneficiary countries
are meeting the criteria listed in section 213(b)(5)(B)(i),
and on the performance of each beneficiary country or CBTEA
beneficiary country, as the case may be, with respect to the
criteria listed in section 213(b)(5)(B)(ii).''.
(2) Section 203(f) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3202(f)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Triennial Report'' in the heading and
inserting ``Report''; and
(B) by striking ``On or before'' and all that follows
through ``enactment of this title'' and inserting ``Not later
than January 31, 2001''.
(d) International Trade Commission Reports.--
(1) Section 215(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers and on the economy of the
beneficiary countries.
``(2) First report.--The first report shall be submitted
not later than September 30, 2001.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(2) Section 206(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3204(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers, and, in conjunction with other
agencies, the effectiveness of this title in promoting drug-
related crop eradication and crop substitution efforts of the
beneficiary countries.
``(2) Submission.--During the period that this title is in
effect, the report required by paragraph (1) shall be
submitted on December 31 of each year that the report
required by section 215 of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act is not submitted.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Section 211 of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2701) is amended by inserting ``(or other
preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
(B) Section 213(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``and except as provided in subsection (b) (2) and (3),''
after ``Tax Reform Act of 1986,''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 212(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade
Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(E) The terms `WTO' and `WTO member' have the meanings
given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).''.

SEC. 212. ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

SEC. 221. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON
DISTILLED SPIRITS.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT UNDER GENERALIZED
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

(I) after June 30, 1999, and
(II) before the date of enactment of this Act,

SEC. 302. ENTRY PROCEDURES FOR FOREIGN TRADE ZONE OPERATIONS.

[[Page 27038]]

the subject of a single estimated entry or release filed on
or before the first day of the 7-day period in which the
merchandise is to be withdrawn from the zone. The estimated
entry or release shall be treated as a single entry and a
single release of merchandise for purposes of section
13031(a)(9)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(9)(A)) and all
fee exclusions and limitations of such section 13031 shall
apply, including the maximum and minimum fee amounts provided
for under subsection (b)(8)(A)(i) of such section. The entry
summary for the estimated entry or release shall cover only
the merchandise actually withdrawn from the foreign trade
zone during the 7-day period.
``(2) Other requirements.-- The Secretary of the Treasury
may require that the operator or user of the zone--
``(A) use an electronic data interchange approved by the
Customs Service--
``(i) to file the entries described in paragraph (1); and
``(ii) to pay the applicable duties, fees, and taxes with
respect to the entries; and
``(B) satisfy the Customs Service that accounting,
transportation, and other controls over the merchandise are
adequate to protect the revenue and meet the requirements of
other Federal agencies.
``(3) Exception.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not
apply to merchandise the entry of which is prohibited by law
or merchandise for which the filing of an entry summary is
required before the merchandise is released from customs
custody.
``(4) Foreign trade zone; zone.--In this subsection, the
terms `foreign trade zone' and `zone' mean a zone established
pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the
Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 401. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. MODIFICATION OF INSTALLMENT METHOD AND REPEAL OF
INSTALLMENT METHOD FOR ACCRUAL METHOD
TAXPAYERS.

SEC. 502. LIMITATIONS ON WELFARE BENEFIT FUNDS OF 10 OR MORE
EMPLOYER PLANS.

SEC. 503. TREATMENT OF GAIN FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP
TRANSACTIONS.

``SEC. 1260. GAINS FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP TRANSACTIONS.

[[Page 27039]]

``(i) any debt instrument, and
``(ii) any stock in a corporation which is not a pass-thru
entity.
``(2) Pass-thru entity.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `pass-thru entity' means--
``(A) a regulated investment company,
``(B) a real estate investment trust,
``(C) an S corporation,
``(D) a partnership,
``(E) a trust,
``(F) a common trust fund,
``(G) a passive foreign investment company (as defined in
section 1297 without regard to subsection (e) thereof),
``(H) a foreign personal holding company,
``(I) a foreign investment company (as defined in section
1246(b)), and
``(J) a REMIC.
``(d) Constructive Ownership Transaction.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The taxpayer shall be treated as having
entered into a constructive ownership transaction with
respect to any financial asset if the taxpayer--
``(A) holds a long position under a notional principal
contract with respect to the financial asset,
``(B) enters into a forward or futures contract to acquire
the financial asset,
``(C) is the holder of a call option, and is the grantor of
a put option, with respect to the financial asset and such
options have substantially equal strike prices and
substantially contemporaneous maturity dates, or
``(D) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, enters into one or more other transactions (or
acquires one or more positions) that have substantially the
same effect as a transaction described in any of the
preceding subparagraphs.
``(2) Exception for positions which are marked to market.--
This section shall not apply to any constructive ownership
transaction if all of the positions which are part of such
transaction are marked to market under any provision of this
title or the regulations thereunder.
``(3) Long position under notional principal contract.--A
person shall be treated as holding a long position under a
notional principal contract with respect to any financial
asset if such person--
``(A) has the right to be paid (or receive credit for) all
or substantially all of the investment yield (including
appreciation) on such financial asset for a specified period,
and
``(B) is obligated to reimburse (or provide credit for) all
or substantially all of any decline in the value of such
financial asset.
``(4) Forward contract.--The term `forward contract' means
any contract to acquire in the future (or provide or receive
credit for the future value of) any financial asset.
``(e) Net Underlying Long-Term Capital Gain.--For purposes
of this section, in the case of any constructive ownership
transaction with respect to any financial asset, the term
`net underlying long-term capital gain' means the aggregate
net capital gain that the taxpayer would have had if--
``(1) the financial asset had been acquired for fair market
value on the date such transaction was opened and sold for
fair market value on the date such transaction was closed,
and
``(2) only gains and losses that would have resulted from
the deemed ownership under paragraph (1) were taken into
account.
The amount of the net underlying long-term capital gain with
respect to any financial asset shall be treated as zero
unless the amount thereof is established by clear and
convincing evidence.
``(f ) Special Rule Where Taxpayer Takes Delivery.--Except
as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if a
constructive ownership transaction is closed by reason of
taking delivery, this section shall be applied as if the
taxpayer had sold all the contracts, options, or other
positions which are part of such transaction for fair market
value on the closing date. The amount of gain recognized
under the preceding sentence shall not exceed the amount of
gain treated as ordinary income under subsection (a). Proper
adjustments shall be made in the amount of any gain or loss
subsequently realized for gain recognized and treated as
ordinary income under this subsection.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations--
``(1) to permit taxpayers to mark to market constructive
ownership transactions in lieu of applying this section, and
``(2) to exclude certain forward contracts which do not
convey substantially all of the economic return with respect
to a financial asset.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IV
of subchapter P of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 1260. Gains from constructive ownership transactions.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transactions entered into after July 11, 1999.

SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.

SEC. 505. ALLOCATION OF BASIS ON TRANSFERS OF INTANGIBLES IN
CERTAIN NONRECOGNITION TRANSACTIONS.

SEC. 506. INCREASE IN ELECTIVE WITHHOLDING RATE FOR
NONPERIODIC DISTRIBUTIONS FROM DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS.

(a) In General.--Section 3405(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to withholding) is amended by striking
``10 percent'' and inserting ``15 percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to distributions after December 29, 2000.
Amend the title so as to read: ``To authorize a new trade
and investment policy for sub-Saharan Africa, expand trade
benefits to the countries in the Caribbean Basin, renew the
generalized system of preferences, and reauthorize the trade
adjustment assistance programs.''.
______

LOTT AMENDMENT NO. 2335

Mr. LOTT proposed an amendment to amendment No. 2334 proposed by him
to the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

Strike all after ``section'' and add the following:

1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trade and
Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Statement of policy.
Sec. 104. Sub-Saharan Africa defined.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

Sec. 111. Eligibility for certain benefits.

[[Page 27040]]

Sec. 112. Treatment of certain textiles and apparel.
Sec. 113. United States-sub-Saharan African trade and economic
cooperation forum.
Sec. 114. United States-sub-Saharan Africa free trade area.
Sec. 115. Reporting requirement.

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and policy.
Sec. 203. Definitions.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

Sec. 211. Temporary provisions to provide additional trade benefits to
certain beneficiary countries.
Sec. 212. Adequate and effective protection for intellectual property
rights.

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

Sec. 221. Suspension of limitation on cover over of tax on distilled
spirits.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

Sec. 301. Extension of duty-free treatment under generalized system of
preferences.
Sec. 302. Entry procedures for foreign trade zone operations.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 401. Trade adjustment assistance.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TRADE BENEFITS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``African Growth and
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

SEC. 103. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

SEC. 104. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEFINED.

Subtitle B--Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa

SEC. 111. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506 the following new
section:

``SEC. 506A. DESIGNATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR
CERTAIN BENEFITS.

[[Page 27041]]

``(iv) economic policies to reduce poverty, increase the
availability of health care and educational opportunities,
expand physical infrastructure, and promote the establishment
of private enterprise;
``(B) does not engage in gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights or provide support
for acts of international terrorism and cooperates in
international efforts to eliminate human rights violations
and terrorist activities; and
``(C) subject to the authority granted to the President
under section 502 (a), (d), and (e), otherwise satisfies the
eligibility criteria set forth in section 502.
``(2) Monitoring and review of certain countries.--The
President shall monitor and review the progress of each
country listed in section 104 of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1) in order to determine the current or potential
eligibility of each country to be designated as a beneficiary
sub-Saharan African country for purposes of subsection (a).
The President shall include the reasons for the President's
determinations in the annual report required by section 115
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
``(3) Continuing compliance.--If the President determines
that a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country is not making
continual progress in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1), the President shall terminate the designation
of that country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country
for purposes of this section, effective on January 1 of the
year following the year in which such determination is made.

``SEC. 506B. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES.

SEC. 112. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TEXTILES AND APPAREL.

[[Page 27042]]

same meaning as such terms have under section 506A(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974.
(3) Customs service.--The term ``Customs Service'' means
the United States Customs Service.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000 and shall remain in effect
through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 113. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN TRADE AND
ECONOMIC COOPERATION FORUM.

SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA FREE TRADE AREA.

SEC. 115. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter for 4 years, the President shall
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of this
title.

TITLE II--TRADE BENEFITS FOR CARIBBEAN BASIN

Subtitle A--Trade Policy for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``United States-Caribbean
Basin Trade Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

Subtitle B--Trade Benefits for Caribbean Basin Countries

SEC. 211. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRADE
BENEFITS TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES.

``(I) assembled in a CBTEA beneficiary country from fabric
wholly formed and cut

[[Page 27043]]

in the United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United
States, that is entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the
HTS; or
``(II) assembled from fabric cut in a CBTEA beneficiary
country from fabric wholly formed in the United States from
yarns wholly formed in the United States, if such luggage is
assembled in such country with thread formed in the United
States.

``(aa) has implemented and follows, or
``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing
and following,

``(aa) from which the article is exported, or
``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the
article originate or in which the article or such materials
undergo production that contributes to a claim that the
article is eligible for preferential treatment.
``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) CBTEA beneficiary country.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA beneficiary country'
means any `beneficiary country', as defined by section
212(a)(1)(A) of this title, which the President determines
has demonstrated a commitment to--

``(ii) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination under clause (i), the President may consider
the criteria in section 212 (b) and (c) and other appropriate
criteria, including--

``(I) the extent to which the country follows accepted
rules of international trade provided for under the
agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;

``(II) the extent to which the country provides protection
of intellectual property rights--

[[Page 27044]]

SEC. 212. ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

[[Page 27045]]

Subtitle C--Cover Over of Tax on Distilled Spirits

SEC. 221. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON
DISTILLED SPIRITS.

TITLE III--GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT UNDER GENERALIZED
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

(I) after June 30, 1999, and
(II) before the date of enactment of this Act,

SEC. 302. ENTRY PROCEDURES FOR FOREIGN TRADE ZONE OPERATIONS.

TITLE IV--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 401. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

TITLE V--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. MODIFICATION OF INSTALLMENT METHOD AND REPEAL OF
INSTALLMENT METHOD FOR ACCRUAL METHOD
TAXPAYERS.

[[Page 27046]]

by adding at the end the following: ``A payment shall be
treated as directly secured by an interest in an installment
obligation to the extent an arrangement allows the taxpayer
to satisfy all or a portion of the indebtedness with the
installment obligation.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales or other dispositions occurring on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 502. LIMITATIONS ON WELFARE BENEFIT FUNDS OF 10 OR MORE
EMPLOYER PLANS.

SEC. 503. TREATMENT OF GAIN FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP
TRANSACTIONS.

``SEC. 1260. GAINS FROM CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP TRANSACTIONS.

[[Page 27047]]

``(2) to exclude certain forward contracts which do not
convey substantially all of the economic return with respect
to a financial asset.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IV
of subchapter P of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 1260. Gains from constructive ownership transactions.''.

SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.

SEC. 505. ALLOCATION OF BASIS ON TRANSFERS OF INTANGIBLES IN
CERTAIN NONRECOGNITION TRANSACTIONS.

SEC. 506. INCREASE IN ELECTIVE WITHHOLDING RATE FOR
NONPERIODIC DISTRIBUTIONS FROM DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS.

(a) In General.--Section 3405(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to withholding) is amended by striking
``10 percent'' and inserting ``15 percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to distributions after December 28, 2000.
Amend the title so as to read: ``To authorize a new trade
and investment policy for sub-Saharan Africa, expand trade
benefits to the countries in the Caribbean Basin, renew the
generalized system of preferences, and reauthorize the trade
adjustment assistance programs.''.
______

REID AMENDMENT NO. 2336

Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment No. 2334 proposed by Mr.
Lott to the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE
LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

HATCH AMENDMENTS NOS. 2337-2338

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. HATCH submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to
amendment No. 2325 proposed by Mr. Roth to the bill, H.R. 434, supra;
as follows:

Amendment No. 2337

On page 21, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(d) HIV/AIDS Effect on the sub-Saharan African Workforce.--
In selecting issues of common interest to the United States-
Sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, the
President shall instruct the United States delegates to the
Forum to promote a review by the Forum of the HIV/AIDS
epidemic in each sub-Saharan African country and the effect
of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on human and social development in
each country.
____

Amendment No. 2338

On page 21, at the end of line 23, insert the following:
``The report shall also include the President's
recommendations for bilateral debt relief for sub-Saharan
African countries and the President's recommendations for new
loan, credit, and guarantee programs and procedures for such
countries.''.
______

WELLSTONE AMENDMENT NO. 2339

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. WELLSTONE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. EVALUATION OF OUTCOME OF WELFARE REFORM AND FORMULA
FOR BONUSES TO HIGH PERFORMANCE STATES.

(a) Additional Measures of State Performance.--Section
403(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(4)(C)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Not later'';
(2) by inserting ``The formula shall provide for the
awarding of grants under this paragraph based on criteria
contained in clause (ii) and in accordance with clauses (iii)
and (iv).'' after the period; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Formula criteria.--The grants awarded under this
paragraph shall be based on the following:

``(I) Employment-related measures.--Employment-related
measures, including work force entries, job retention,
increases in earnings of recipients of assistance under the
State program funded under this title, and measures of
utilization of resources available under welfare-to-work
grants under paragraph (5) and title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), including
the implementation of programs (as defined in subclause
(VII)(bb)) to increase the number of individuals training
for, and placed in, nontraditional employment.
``(II) Measures of changes in income or number of children
below half of poverty.--For a sample of recipients of
assistance under the State program funded under this title,
longitudinal measures of annual changes in income (or
measures of changes in the proportion of children in families
with income below \1/2\ of the poverty line), including
earnings and the value of benefits received under that State
program and food stamps.
``(III) Food stamps measures.--The change since 1995 in the
proportion of children in working poor families that receive
food stamps to the total number of children in the State (or,
if possible, to the estimated number of children in working
families with incomes low enough to be eligible for food
stamps).
``(IV) Medicaid and schip measures.--The percentage of
members of families who are former recipients of assistance
under the State program funded under this title (who have
ceased to receive such assistance for approximately 6 months)
who currently receive medical assistance under the State plan
approved under title XIX or the child health assistance under
title XXI.
``(V) Child care measures.--In the case of a State that
pays child care rates that are equal to at least the 75th
percentile of market rates, based on a market rate survey
that is not more than 2 years old, measures of the State's
success in providing child care, as measured by the
percentage of children in families with incomes below 85
percent of

[[Page 27048]]

the State's median income who receive subsidized child care
in the State, and by the amount of the State's expenditures
on child care subsidies divided by the estimated number of
children younger than 13 in families with incomes below 85
percent of the State's median income.
``(VI) Measures of addressing domestic violence.--In the
case of a State that has adopted the option under the State
plan relating to domestic violence set forth in section
402(a)(7) and that reports the proportion of eligible
recipients of assistance under this title who disclose their
status as domestic violence victims or survivors, measures of
the State's success in addressing domestic violence as a
barrier to economic self-sufficiency, as measured by the
proportion of such recipients who are referred to and receive
services under a service plan developed by an individual
trained in domestic violence pursuant to section 260.55(c) of
title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
``(VII) Definitions.--In this clause:

``(aa) Domestic violence.--The term `domestic violence' has
the meaning given the term `battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty' in section 408(a)(7)((C)(iii).
``(bb) Implementation of programs.--The term
`implementation of programs' means activities conducted
pursuant to section 134(a)(3)(A)(vi)(II) of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2864(a)(3)(A)(vi)(II)),
placement of recipients in nontraditional employment, as
reported to the Department of Labor pursuant to section
185(d)(1)(C) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2935(d)(1)(C)), and the
performance of the State on other measures such as the
provision of education, training, and career development
assistance for nontraditional employment developed pursuant
to section 136(b)(2) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2871(b)(2))).
``(cc) Nontraditional employment.--The term `nontraditional
employment' means occupations or fields of work, including
careers in computer science, technology, and other emerging
high skill occupations, for which individuals from 1 gender
comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in
each such occupation or field of work.
``(dd) Working poor families.--The term `working poor
families' means families that receive earnings at least equal
to a comparable amount that would be received by an
individual working a half-time position for minimum wage.
``(iii) Employment, earning, and income related measures.--
$100,000,000 of the amount appropriated for a fiscal year
under subparagraph (F) shall be used to award grants to
States under this paragraph for that fiscal year based on the
measures of employment, earnings, and income described in
subclauses (I), (II), and (V) of clause (ii), including
scores for the criteria described in those items.
``(iv) Measures of support for working families.--
$100,000,000 of the amount appropriated for a fiscal year
under subparagraph (F) shall be used to award grants to
States under this paragraph for that fiscal year based on
measures of support for working families, including scores
for the criteria described in subclauses (III), (IV) and (VI)
of clause (ii).
``(v) Limitation on applying for only 1 bonus.--To qualify
under any one of the employment, earnings, food stamp, or
health coverage criteria described in subclauses (I), (III),
or (IV) of clause (ii), a State must submit the data required
to compete for all of the criteria described in those
subclauses.
(b) Data Collection and Reporting.--Section 411(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(8) Report on outcome of welfare reform for states not
participating in bonus grants under section 403(a)(4).--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a State which does not
participate in the procedure for awarding grants under
section 403(a)(4) pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, the report required by paragraph (1) for a fiscal
quarter shall include data regarding the characteristics and
well-being of former recipients of assistance under the State
program funded under this title for an appropriate period of
time after such recipient has ceased receiving such
assistance.
``(B) Contents.--The data required under subparagraph (A)
shall consist of information regarding former recipients,
including--
``(i) employment status;
``(ii) job retention;
``(iii) changes in income or resources;
``(iv) poverty status, including the number of children in
families of such former recipients with income below \1/2\ of
the poverty line;
``(v) receipt of food stamps, medical assistance under the
State plan approved under title XIX or child health
assistance under title XXI, or subsidized child care;
``(vi) accessibility of child care and child care cost;
``(vii) the percentage of families in poverty receiving
child care subsidies;
``(viii) measures of hardship, including lack of medical
insurance and difficulty purchasing food; and
``(ix) the availability of the option under the State plan
in section 402(a)(7)(relating to domestic violence) and the
difficulty accessing services for victims of domestic
violence.
``(C) Sampling.--A State may comply with this paragraph by
using a scientifically acceptable sampling method approved by
the Secretary.
``(D) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to ensure that--
``(i) data reported under this paragraph is in such a form
as to promote comparison of data among States;
``(ii) a State reports, for each measure, changes in data
over time and comparisons in data between such former
recipients and comparable groups of current recipients; and
``(iii) a State that is already conducting a scientifically
acceptable study of former recipients that provides
sufficient data required under subparagraph (A) may use the
results of such study to satisfy the requirements of this
paragraph.''.
(c) Report of Currently Collected Data.--
(1) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2000, and annually
thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
transmit to Congress a report regarding characteristics of
former and current recipients of assistance under the State
program funded under this part, based on information
currently being received from States.
(2) Characteristics.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
characteristics shall include earnings, employment, and, to
the extent possible, income (including earnings, the value of
benefits received under the State program funded under this
title, and food stamps), the ratio of income to poverty,
receipt of food stamps, and other family resources.
(3) Basis of report.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
be based on longitudinal data of employer reported earnings
for a sample of States, which represents at least 80 percent
of the population of the United States, including separate
data for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2000 regarding--
(A) a sample of former recipients;
(B) a sample of current recipients; and
(C) a sample of food stamp recipients.
(d) Report on Development of Measures.--Not later than July
1, 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
transmit to Congress--
(1) a report regarding the development of measures required
under subclauses (II) and (V) of section 403(a)(4)(C)(ii) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)(C)(ii)), as
added by this Act, regarding subsidized child care and
changes in income; and
(2) a report, prepared in consultation with domestic
violence organizations, regarding the domestic violence
criteria required under subclause (VI) of such section.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) Additional measures of state performance.--The
amendments made by subsection (a) apply to each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2003, except that the income change (or
extreme child poverty) criteria described in section
403(a)(4)(C)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(4)(C)(ii)(II)) shall not apply to grants awarded under
section 403(a)(4) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) for
fiscal year 2001.
(2) Data collection and reporting.--The amendment made by
subsection (b) shall apply to reports submitted in fiscal
years beginning with fiscal year 2001.
______

ASHCROFT (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2340

Mr. LOTT (for Mr. Ashcroft (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Robb,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Helms, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thomas, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Grams, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Crapo))
proposed an amendment to amendment No. 2334 proposed by Mr. LOTT to the
bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. . CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

HATCH AMENDMENTS NOS. 2341-2342

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

[[Page 27049]]

Mr. HATCH submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to
amendment No. 2325 proposed by Mr. Roth to the bill, H.R. 434, supra;
as follows:

Amendment No. 2341

On page 22, line 5, insert the following: ``The report
shall include the President's recommendations regarding
bilateral debt relief for sub-Saharan African countries and
the President's recommendations for new loan, credit, and
guarantee programs and procedures for such countries.''.
____

Amendment No. 2342

On page 22, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new
section:

SEC. 116. HIV/AIDS EFFECT ON THE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
WORKFORCE.

In selecting issues of common interest to the United
States-Sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation
Forum, the President shall instruct the United States
delegates to the Forum to promote a review by the Forum of
the HIV/AIDS epidemic in each sub-Saharan African country and
the effect of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on human and social
development in each country.
______

REED AMENDMENTS NOS. 2343-2344

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. REED submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, H.R. 434, supra; as follows:

Amendment No. 2343

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. MARKING OF IMPORTED JEWELRY.

(a) Marking Requirement.--Not later than the date that is 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall prescribe and implement regulations
that require that all jewelry described in subsection (b)
that enters the customs territory of the United States have
the English name of the country of origin indelibly marked in
a conspicuous place on such jewelry by cutting, die-sinking,
engraving, stamping, or some other permanent method to the
same extent as such marking is required for Native American-
style jewelry under section 134.43 of title 19, Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on October 1, 1998.
(b) Jewelry.--The jewelry described in this subsection
means any article described in heading 7117 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``enters
the customs territory of the United States'' means enters, or
is withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, in the customs
territory of the United States.
____

Amendment No. 2344

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. MARKING OF IMPORTED JEWELRY BOXES.

(a) Marking Requirement.--Not later than the date that is 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall prescribe and implement regulations
that require that all jewelry boxes described in subsection
(b) that enter the customs territory of the United States
have the English name of the country of origin indelibly
marked in a conspicuous place on such jewelry boxes by
cutting, die-sinking, engraving, stamping, or some other
permanent method to the same extent as such marking is
required for Native American-style jewelry under section
134.43 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect
on October 1, 1998.
(b) Jewelry.--The jewelry boxes referred to in subsection
(a) are jewelry boxes provided for in headings 4202.92.60,
4202.92.90, and 4202.99.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``enter
the customs territory of the United States'' means enter, or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, in the customs
territory of the United States.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on armed services

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
October 27, 1999, in open session, to consider the nominations of
General Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to be commander-in-chief, U.S. Forces, Europe and Supreme Allied
Commander, Europe; General Richard B. Meyers, USAF, commander-in-chief,
U.S. Space Command to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
General Thomas A. Schwartz, USA, Commander of U.S. Army Forces to be
commander-in-chief, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/
Commander, U.S. Forces, Korea; and General Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF,
commander, Air Combat Command to be commander-in-chief, U.S. Space
Command.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

Mr. LOTT. 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 Wednesday, October 27, 1999, to conduct a
hearing on ``The Changing Face of Capital Markets: What Is the Impact
of ECN's''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LOTT. 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 Wednesday, October 27, for purposes of
conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to
begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider
pending calendar business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, October 27, 1999 at 10:30 am and 3:00 pm to hold
two hearings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, October 27, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. to mark up
pending legislation to be followed by a hearing on the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act Reauthorization (ESEA).
The meeting/hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary requests
unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 27, 1999
beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on criminal justice oversight

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice Oversight requests unanimous consent to conduct a
hearing on Wednesday, October 27, 1999 beginning at 2:30 p.m. in
Dirksen Room 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on
Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October
27, 1999, in open and closed sessions, to receive testimony on the
agricultural biological weapons threat to the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

HONORING THE LIFE OF JACK LYNCH

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today, I learned of the
passing of Jack Lynch, the former Prime Minister of Ireland. I was
deeply saddened to hear of Prime Minister Lynch's passing and would
like to reflect for just a few moments on his life and enormous
contributions to peace in Ireland.
While Prime Minister Lynch's achievements were many, he is best
remembered for encouraging a more tolerant Irish attitude toward
British sovereignty in the Protestant-dominated North; a change in
attitude that made the Good Friday peace accords possible. In 1969,
during his tenure as Prime Minister, Jack Lynch showed remarkable
restraint in his dealings with the North, resisting pressure from his
party and many citizens of Ireland to send troops across the border to
protect Catholics in Londonderry from attacks by Protestant
paramilitaries and

[[Page 27050]]

local police forces. This desire for peace further manifested itself in
the late 1970s, when Prime Minister Lynch began traveling to Belfast to
discuss peace with British officials. These efforts cumulated in a
historic dialogue about peace and tolerance with then-British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, a dialogue which began the gradual process
of trust-building necessary for a lasting peace.
Another reminder of the enduring achievements of Prime Minister Lynch
is Irish membership in the European Union. In 1973, Ireland was a
country with a failing economy, a high unemployment rate, and rampant
emigration. In an effort to rekindle the faltering economy and
reconnect Ireland with the European continent, Jack Lynch entered
Ireland into the European Economic Community. Today, billions of
dollars of European aid and investment have helped Ireland become one
of the world's 25 wealthiest nations, unemployment has dropped to half
the European Union average, and people are returning to their ancestral
homes. It is mainly due to Prime Minister Lynch's foresight in
negotiating Irish entry into the E.E.C. that this economic turnaround
has occurred.
These accomplishments only begin to illustrate the many professional
successes of Peter Lynch. He was a man who was able to look past
historic prejudice and heat-of-the-moment emotions to bring individuals
with very different viewpoints together in meaningful dialogue. He was
a visionary who saw the need for economic modernization and was
unafraid to seek help from his European neighbors. And, in the end, he
was a leader. As current Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern has said,
his firm leadership saw Ireland through a period of great turbulence
and his outstanding work to gain Irish membership in the E.E.C. changed
forever the way Ireland sees itself as a nation. And for this, Mr.
President, people of Irish descent, such as myself, thank him.

____________________

THE PEOPLE'S CREED

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the
following document, written by one of my constituents, Mr. Terry
Harris. The People's Creed, which Mr. Harris hopes will serve as a tool
to those learning about the U.S. Constitution, is on display this week
in the Utah State Capitol. I ask that it be printed in the Record.
The material follows:

The People's Creed

(By Terry Harris)

The People's Creed, set forth in the United States of
America, for the people of the United States of America and
all those who desire and respect liberty, freedom, justice
and the pursuit of happiness; on Sunday the fourth of July
nineteen hundred and ninety-nine.
For this creed was written with the intention to include
Every Woman, Man and Child regardless of his or her race,
content or creed, For we are all the people of the United
States of America.
For together we stand proud as one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
We the people of the United States of America (every woman,
man and child/all nationalities to be included), share a
foundation bound by democracy, freedom, justice, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. This foundation has caused us to be
united as one nation under God.
We the people of the United States of America have been
blessed and recognized with freedom of speech and of the
press.
We the people of the United States of America understand
that freedom has a price, and we must maintain that which was
set forth by the founding fathers of this great country and
by those who have paid the ultimate price for freedom.
We the people of the United States of America must respect
the laws of this great nation, and when we find ourselves
outside of this realm, must act swiftly to make necessary
corrections.
We the people of the United States are protected against
unreasonable search and seizure.
We the people of the United States of America are all
subject to due process of law and equal protection of the
law.
We the people of the United States of America are protected
against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
We the people of the United States retain all rights not
specifically granted to the States or by the Constitution.
We the people of the United States of America recognize
that slavery is wrong and hereby denounce and abolish it.
We the people of the United States of America (woman & man)
have been granted the right to vote, regardless of race,
color or previous condition of servitude.
We the people of the United States of America understand
that this country may not be without faults, yet we will
strive to do the best that we can to ensure the right to
democracy, freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness for all to enjoy.
We the people of the United States of America realize that
this country is made up of different cultures, sexes beliefs
and religions that may not necessarily be our own; however,
we must respect and practice tolerance for one another. For
it is diversity that serves as an important link which holds
the foundation of this great country together.
We the people of the United States of America hold at the
very core of our foundation that democracy is vital and
necessary for the people and by the people. For democracy
must never be threatened by forces from within or without
these United States of America.
From the pages of the Magna Carta, to Puritan New England
let liberty ring.
From the Virginia House of Burgesses, to the Washington
Monument let liberty ring.
Let liberty ring from Williamsburg to Philadelphia.
From the waters of the Delaware to the Golden Gate Bridge,
let liberty ring.
From the sparkling, sandy beaches of Miami to Stone
Mountain Georgia, let liberty ring.
From the green pastures of New Hampshire, to the deserts of
Arizona, let liberty ring.
From Alabama to Alaska, let liberty ring.
From the Oregon forests to the New Mexico desert, let
liberty ring.
From the flat lands of Indiana, to the farm lands of
Arkansas, let liberty ring.
From the Colorado Rocky Mountains to the clear Connecticut
waters, let liberty ring.
From Seattle to Independence Hall, let liberty ring.
From the Florida Atlantic to the shores of Hawaii, let
liberty ring.
From Stone Mountain Georgia to Mt. Rushmore, let liberty
ring.
From the Iowa Woodlands to the mighty Missouri River, let
liberty ring.
From the Bluegrass Heartlands of Kentucky, to the Flint
Hills of Kansas, let liberty ring.
From the potato fields of Idaho, to the dairy lands of
Iowa, let liberty ring.
From the golden country side of Kansas to Bourbon Street,
let liberty ring
Let Liberty ring from Freedom Trail Boston to Old town
Alexandria.
From the cold waters of Maine to the green Montana
mountains let liberty ring.
From the great lakes of Michigan to the mighty Mississippi
River, let liberty ring
From Historic New Jersey to the Statue of Liberty let
liberty ring.
From the sandy mountains of New Mexico to the Alamo, let
liberty ring
Let Liberty ring from Industry, Ohio to the steel mills of
Pittsburgh.
From the banks of Rhode Island to the historic Carolinas
let liberty ring.
From Baltimore's inner harbors to Minnesota's Thousand
lakes, let liberty ring.
From the subtly colored sandstones of Wisconsin to Mustang,
Wyoming, let liberty ring.
Let liberty ring out from Apollo 13 to the Space Shuttle.
From the heart of Rock-n-roll to the soul of Jazz, let
liberty ring.
My Country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty; of thee I
sing. Land where my fathers died, land of every one's pride,
from every mountain side let liberty ring.
For I am proud to be an American. I will do my best to give
my fellow American my honor and my respect. When my fellow
American is in need of a helping hand, it is I who must reach
out. For it is I who must respect nature that God has placed
for all to enjoy, for we must live with nature as one.
May the mercy of liberty, democracy, freedom and the
pursuit of happiness echo throughout the world, making this
land yours and mine for generations to come.
May God have mercy upon the United States of America and
all that lie within.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MICHIGAN REHABILITATION
ASSOCIATION

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Michigan Rehabilitation Association, a remarkable organization from my
home state of Michigan, which will celebrate its 50th Anniversary on
November 1, 1999.
Over the past five decades, the Michigan Rehabilitation Association
(MRA) has proudly worked to meet the needs of Michigan's disabled
community. While beginning as a professional association for
rehabilitation practitioners, it has quickly grown into one of
Michigan's leading advocates for the welfare and rights of handicapped
people.

[[Page 27051]]

While its scope and purpose have evolved, its members have remained
steadfastly committed to excellence in the delivery of services to the
disabled.
Since its inception in 1949 as the country's first state chapter of
the National Rehabilitation Association, the MRA's far-reaching hand
has helped thousands of Michigan's citizens achieve a higher quality of
life. As it celebrates this important milestone, I am sure its staff,
friends and supporters will have the opportunity to recall its many
successes. I am pleased to join with them in thanking the people of the
Michigan Rehabilitation Association for their efforts while applauding
all the hard work and determination that have resulted in the MRA's
prestigious reputation.
The Michigan Rehabilitation Association can take pride in the many
important achievements of its first fifty years. I know my colleagues
will join me in saluting the accomplishments of MRA's first half
century and in wishing it continued success for the future.

____________________

RED MASS HOMILY

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on Sunday, October 3, 1999, the
Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland, Bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph
area of Missouri, delivered the homily at the Red Mass held at St.
Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, DC. The Red Mass traditionally marks
the opening of the Supreme Court's new term. In his address, Bishop
Boland discusses the idea of having cooperative dialog between the
Church and State in their mutual search for justice and respect.
I ask to have printed in the Record the text of the homily given by
Bishop Raymond J. Boland.
The text follows.

Homily: 1999 Red Mass

(St. Matthew's Cathedral, Washington, DC, Sunday, October 3, 1999, Most
Reverend Raymond J. Boland, D.D., Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph,
Missouri)

I am grateful to Cardinal Hickey for his gracious
invitation to give the homily at this 47th annual Red Mass.
Another legal year, the last of this century, is about to
begin and conscious of our fallibilities we gather in prayer
to beg God's Spirit to give us understanding, courage,
forbearance and, above all else, wisdom. I am also grateful
to the John Carroll Society for sponsoring this annual event
once again. John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic Bishop of
the Republic, played a significant part in defining the role
of the church in an infant nation where religion would have
freedom but not state sponsorship. John's brother, Daniel,
signed the Constitution which gave political and legal shape
to what is now the United States.
Because of a certain anniversary which occurs this year, I
would like to think that a fuller acceptance of the dignity
of the human person may lead to a more productive
understanding of the relationship between church and state in
this country and elsewhere. It augurs well for our individual
freedoms but it is also a delicate balance which may be in
jeopardy.
This year marks the 350th Anniversary of the Toleration Act
of 1649, a significant development for its time which boldly
reaffirmed the right of religious and political freedom in
the Maryland colony. Many of you are familiar with the
monument at St. Mary's City, the first capital of the future
state, which symbolically depicts a man with uplifted
countenance emerging from the confining stone from which he
is sculpted. At his feet three words are carved, Freedom of
Conscience.
The Edict of Toleration provided, ``No person shall from
henceforth be in any ways troubled . . . for or in respect of
his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within
this Province nor any way be compelled to the belief or
exercise of any other against his will.'' (Their Rights and
Liberties, Thomas O'Brien Hanley, S.J. p. 115)
When Jesus enunciated his oft-quoted judgment, ``Give to
Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's.''
(Luke 20:25) Luke tells us that his response ``completely
disconcerted'' his audience ``and reduced them to silence.''
(Luke 20:26) Over the centuries we have not remained silent
but we have continued to remain perplexed. Couched in terms
of black and white the principle is one for the ages but its
complexity intensifies as its application uncovers a
multiplicity of details. All people of faith are citizens and
most citizens are people of faith. Avowed atheists may not
believe in God or any god, as Bishop Fulton Sheen used to
quip, ``they have no invisible means of support,'' but it can
be argued that their secularized or humanistic self-
sufficiency constitutes a belief system of some sort. The
predicament is obvious. The church-goer pays taxes. A devout
Christian can be passionately patriotic. Among our citizens
are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and adherents of many
other religions, all of whom wish to practice their faith in
freedom and many of whom honor forebears who came to this
country precisely for that reason. According to reputable
opinion polls the vast majority of Americans believe in God,
pray with some frequency and articulate their sincerely-held
beliefs by following rituals and disciplines promoted by
their respective churches. These same people are also
participants in the political process. They vote, they seek
political office, they express their opinions, they establish
forums to give wider circulation to their political
philosophies. There is absolutely no way they can prevent the
influence of their religious beliefs from coloring their
public attitudes and forming their political convictions.
Indeed, churches as a whole, convinced that they have much
which is positive to contribute to the public debate, expect
their members to bring their cultural and religious values to
the various arenas where ideas are being generated and laws
being honed. The church, no less than the state, seeks to
meet the challenges of a society where sociological and
technological change seems to be constantly outpacing our
human capacity to keep it within the bounds of comprehension
not to mention control.
There is another dimension to this reality which is even
more important because it comes closer to the cutting edge.
Many citizens, whether they be religious or not, only
participate in the public debate in a limited way. But we are
concerned with the other end of the spectrum--the lawyers,
the judges, the legislators who devote their lives to
enacting and interpreting laws and who will naturally do so
within the context of their own inherited and acquired
religious convictions. When they enter statehouses and
courtrooms they cannot leave their consciences along with
their coats in the cloakroom. Not all matters are charged
with ethical or moral overtones but those which are of most
concern to our populace--rights and liberties, life and
death, war and peace, affluence and poverty, personal freedom
and the common good--are so interlaced with cultural,
religious, scientific and legal implications that wisdom in
all its personifications is called for.
Is it possible to hope that, as we enter a new millennium,
church and state in our land, and even the international
world, may all subscribe to a synthesis of basic principles
which guarantee freedom for all while equally protecting the
rights of believers and unbelievers? Have we been moving in
that direction? Surely such an outcome is desirable. Church
and state have a lot in common in their mutual search for
justice, in promoting respect for all just laws, in their
concern for the common good and this, of necessity, includes
such important areas as education, health care and social
services.
It is difficult to assess what influence Maryland's Edict
of Toleration had on the framers of the Constitution. The
Establishment Clause and, later on, the Free Exercise Clause
have achieved a hallowed place in our national psyche even
though many modern scholars detect inconsistencies in their
application and some straying from their authors' intention
in their interpretation. History certainly indicates that
Congress adopted the two religion clauses as protection for
religion, not protection from religion. English teachers
constantly warn their students that analogies and metaphors
should not be pushed too far. Thomas Jefferson's famous
``Wall of Separation'' metaphor may have suffered this over
extension, something certainly not supported by a complete
examination of his legal philosophy nor of the Constitution
itself. The phrase has become a mantra. How high the wall?
How impenetrable? Nobody denies the need for separation but
such does not exclude cooperation. This vital area of
constitutional law has experienced many twists and turns in
its two centuries of history and more cases are winding their
way upwards from lower courts. Maybe we need the equivalent
of what manufacturers call R and D, Research and Development,
to discover where we've been and to propose new ways of
legally facilitating those who work with Caesar and walk with
God. Instead of tanks and guns and land mines, maybe we have
a great opportunity to offer the world a legal system which
guarantees elementary human rights and yes, religious rights,
and as a result, the potential for peace, justice and
economic growth. We may even get to the stage when the words
of Deuteronomy will be applied to us, ``this great nation is
truly a wise and intelligent people.'' (Deut. 4:6).
In the last century the Church has made extraordinary
strides in its own understanding of pluralism, religious
freedom and political liberty. It was not easy because
theocracies dominated the scene in the western world for so
many centuries. The demise of the Holy Roman Empire and the
disappearance of the Papal States gave the Church both an
opportunity and a challenge to speak to the world with moral
authority unfettered and unprotected by armies, navies or
nuclear weapons.
The high point of this new attitude was enshrined in one of
the shortest documents of the Second Vatican Council, that
world-wide

[[Page 27052]]

meeting of Catholic Bishops in Rome in the mid-sixties. The
document, known as Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on
Religious Liberty, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in
December, 1965 after five drafts and two years of vigorous
debate. Called by the Pope ``one of the major texts of the
Council'' it began with the felicitous observation,
``contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious of the
dignity of the human person'' (Dignitatis Humanae, 1). It is
no secret that one of the most influential framers of this
document was the American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, who
brought with him to the Vatican a deep understanding and a
genuine admiration for the guarantees established by the
United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. It may have
been indirect but there is no doubt that the American
experience, dating back to the Toleration Act of 1649, found
a responsive echo in St. Peter's Basilica.
If there was any question about this new initiative it was
resoundingly dispelled by our new Pope, John Paul II, in 1979
during the very first year of his pontificate. Here was a man
whose only fellow seminarian was snatched in the night and
executed by the Gestapo precisely because he was a Catholic
seminarian. Here was a priest and bishop who later prevailed
over the disabilities imposed upon him and his flock by an
atheistic Communist regime.
In his papal letter Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II would
recall and reaffirm that Vatican Council document and again
declare that the right to religious freedom together with the
right to freedom of conscience is not only a theological
concept but is one also ``reached from the point of view of
natural law, that is to say, from the purely human position,
on the basis of the premises given by man's own experience,
his reason and his sense of human dignity.'' (Redemptor
Hominis, 17)
For over 20 years, on every continent, again and again the
Holy Father has stressed that the human dignity of each
individual is the basis for all law.
Within the last year, in his New Year's message, addressing
people of good will everywhere the Pope reiterated his
conviction that ``when the promotion of the dignity of the
human person is the guiding principle and when the search for
the common good is the overriding commitment'' (World Day of
Peace Message, 1999, 1) the right to life, to religious
freedom, of citizens to participate in the life of their
community, the right of ethnic groups and national minorities
to exist along with those rights to self-fulfilment covering
educational, economic and peace issues become possible.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, intimately
associated with the United Nations Charter, affirms the
innate dignity of all members of the human family along with
the equality and inalienability of their rights. Even though
these ideals are being blatantly ignored in many places
across the globe, here in this land we must not ignore the
unique opportunity we have to solidify the principle
enunciated and developed by our leaders of both church and
state that ``human rights stem from the inherent dignity and
worth of the human person.'' (Cf. In particular the Vienna
Declaration, 1993 Preamble 2).
Crafting principles is easy in comparison to applying them
to the extraordinary complexities of modern life. Mistakes
have been made in the past. On the part of the Church there
have been excesses of evangelistic zeal: in the halls of
justice nobody seems proud of the Dred Scott decision. We
live in an imperfect world and we are not all pious God-
fearing and timid law-abiding clones.
There will always be tension between church and state. This
tension, in many ways, creates a safety valve. It is, after
all, when this tension disappears that we should worry.
In the enactment and administration of civil laws, people
of faith do not expect privileges but they do expect
fairness. George Orwell in his classic, Animal Farm, coined
the phrase that ``all animals are created equal but some are
more equal than others.'' Is there a danger that the devotees
of secularism are ``more equal'' than those who are proud of
the faith they profess? Do secular symbols enjoy more
protection than religious symbols? In every age there are
some who would like to have religion disappear. As religion
has proven itself remarkably durable, the next line of attack
is the attempt to trivialize it into insignificance. It seems
incredible but now and again there are those who maintain
that believers have no right to engage in the public debate.
``To accept the separation of the church from the state did
not mean accepting a passive or marginal status for the
Church in society''. (Responsibilities and Temptations of
Power: A Catholic View. J. Bryan Hehir, Georgetown
University.)
The church by definition has a theological foundation but
it is also a voluntary association within our society with
much to say about social policies. It should be accorded the
same rights in the public debate as associations which
profess no theological leanings.
Even Pope John Paul II expressed his apprehension on this
matter when he accepted the credentials of one of the
esteemed John Carroll Society members, Lindy Boggs, as the
United States Ambassador to the Holy See, a year ago. On that
occasion he declared, ``It would truly be a sad thing if the
religious and moral convictions upon which the American
experiment was founded could now somehow be considered a
danger to free society, such that those who would bring these
convictions to bear upon your nation's public life would be
denied a voice in debating and resolving issues of public
policy. The original separation of church and state in the
United States was certainly not an effort to ban all
religious conviction from the public sphere, a kind of
banishment of God from civil society. Indeed, the vast
majority of Americans, regardless of their religious
persuasion, are convinced that religious conviction and
religiously informed moral argument have a vital role in
public life.''
Religion will endure. Christianity, for one, has its own
inner guarantees revolving around the presence of God's
Spirit and the promises of Christ. They are doomed to
disappointment who constantly predict that the unfolding
discoveries of the many scientific disciplines will make
religion obsolete or, at best, the hollow consolation of the
feeble-minded. On the contrary, the more we reveal the
mysteries of the universe in which we live, and decipher the
minutiae of human existence, the more we come face to face
with the creativity of God. We can partially answer the
``hows'' and the ``whens'' and the ``whats'' but at the end
of the day, there is still the ``why''?
My accent always betrays my origins and on July 12, 1965 I
became an American citizen in the court house of Upper
Marlboro, Maryland, which, coincidentally, is the town where
John Carroll was born. I willingly promised to uphold the
laws of the United States and I acquired the freedom and,
indeed, the expectation to be part of the process which
monitors, implements and sometimes modifies those laws.
During these past thirty something years of my citizenship I
have observed the Constitution endure some severe pressures
and, by and large, I agree with the national consensus that
``the system works''. There is no substitute for the rule of
law.
Across the impressive facade of the Supreme Court Building
are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' If I were the
architect I would have been tempted to add two further words,
``For All.'' Criminals should fear the law: good people whose
means are meager should not be intimidated by either the law
itself or the wealth of those who can retain a bevy of high-
profile lawyers. Claims are sometimes made that those on the
lowest rungs of the economic ladder rarely have access to
adequate legal representation. It is for this reason that I
wish to commend those legal firms and individual lawyers who,
through various pro bono networks, seek to alleviate this
shortcoming. They bring a nobility to their profession which
is beyond value and it is often the only antidote to the
popular cynicism which is foisted upon lawyers in general.
As we usher in a new millennium, and as the world shrinks
around us, we have much to learn from each other. The Church
and the state must protect the freedom and the integrity of
one another within their respective spheres of competence,
and where there is overlapping, the dialogue must be marked
by, as one scholar suggested, (J. Bryan Hehir) technical
competency, civil intelligibility and political courtesy. In
this way the 350 year old vision of the Toleration Act of
1649 will endure.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO RONALD DOBIES' INDUCTION TO THE NEW JERSEY ELECTED
OFFICIALS HALL OF FAME

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mayor
Ronald Dobies of Middlesex Borough on his induction into the New Jersey
Elected Officials Hall of Fame. After nearly 30 years in public service
Mayor Dobies was inducted last January. He was first elected Mayor in
1979, and he has been re-elected four times since. Prior to this
service, Mayor Dobies was a member of the school board for six years,
as well as a four-year member of the Borough Council.
Through these years, Mayor Dobies' administrations have grappled with
some basic suburban dilemmas, such as preserving open space while
attracting development and keeping municipal services up and taxes
down. Among his accomplishments, Mayor Dobies has secured flood-control
measures and ongoing road projects, increased park and recreation
areas, and overseen the construction of the borough's Senior Citizen
Housing complex.
Mayor Dobies is originally from Scranton, Pennsylvania, and attended
the University of Scranton. He graduated with a degree in chemistry and
philosophy, and ultimately joined basic training at Fort Gordon in
Augusta, Georgia. After serving in the military

[[Page 27053]]

police corps overseas, Ronald and his wife Blanche returned to the
United States.
Mayor Dobies has added to his impressive record of community service
by demonstrating his abilities in the business world as well. He is
currently the Director of Analytical Research for Wyeth-Ayerst Research
in Pearl River, New York. While this job is a full-time one, he still
finds the time to devote between 30 and 40 hours each week to his
responsibilities as Mayor. Each Friday night, Mayor Dobies hosts
meetings with his constituents, a tradition he began during his first
term. Mayor Dobies has won the respect of both Republicans and
Democrats in his borough, and his non-contentious style has promoted a
successful bipartisan spirit at all levels of government in Middlesex
Borough. This December, Mayor Dobies will conclude his fifth term, and
he hopes to return for a sixth next year. I look forward to his
continued service in this office, and I extend my congratulations to
him on his honor by the New Jersey Elected Officials Hall of
Fame.

____________________

WORKER SAFETY AWARD FOR FORT JAMES MILL OF OLD TOWN

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that this
past June 2, 1999, the Fort James Corporation Paper Mills 2 was
recognized for its impressive safety record of performance for the
entire year of 1998. The award was presented by the Pulp & Paper
Association, which honored the St. James Mill at its Awards Banquet at
the Association's annual Professional Development Conference in St.
Petersburg, Florida.
The award is the highest honor given for safety performance
throughout the paper industry, and reflects the most improved safety
record in the class of 56 mills working between one and to two million
hours per year. Mr. President, the mill logged over 1.3 million work
hours with an extremely low incidence of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) recordable work injuries--only 21, yielding an
exemplary incident rate of 3.2. This incident rate reflects that very
few employees required any type of medical attention while carrying out
their demanding jobs.
Further, in light of their accomplishments on behalf of the safety of
the community and its people, the City of Old Town issued a resolution
to the Fort James Corporation honoring its employees for their
outstanding commitment. And at a follow-up picnic, mill employees were
given a true Maine ``thank you'' as mill management, along with
corporate environmental and safety leaders as well as local officials,
helped out in cooking and serving a Celebration Picnic to all of the
mill's employees. Each employee was also presented with a gift in
recognition of the worker safety accomplishments.
To the entire workforce and management at the Fort James Mill, I
would like to add my congratulations and a sincere Maine thank you as
well for their efforts in worker safety that have culminated in this
well deserved award, and I thank the Chair.

____________________

10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VERMONT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT UNION

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 10 years ago, Caryl Stewart,
Executive Director of the Vermont Development Credit Union, had a dream
for a grass roots community development ``bank'' to serve low and
moderate income people in Burlington, Vermont. Who would have guessed
them that her dream would become a growing credit union with over $10
million in assets and 5,000 members in 175 Vermont towns?
Through it all, the credit union, with Caryl at its helm, has stayed
true to its vision of serving lower income families and small business
entrepreneurs in Vermont. Not just with loans, but also with the
personal attention and counseling needed to ensure that loan recipients
succeed, whatever their goals. It is that commitment to Vermonters and
the communities they live in that has won the Credit Union the support
and patronage of so many Vermont businesses and organizations.
It has also won the organization support from far beyond Vermont's
borders. From Fannie Mae to the Community Development Financial
Institutions program the Vermont Development Credit Union has received
funding and won national recognition for its innovative lending and
support programs.
Vermont Development came from very small beginnings in a very small
city of our very small State. But like that State, it had very big
ideas and has earned its place as a model for organizations providing
credit and financial assistance to low and moderate income people
throughout the country.
Happy Birthday, Vermont Development Credit Union and congratulations
on 10 years of bringing hope and opportunity to thousands of
Vermonters.

____________________

THE CONSTITUTION IN TODAY'S CLASSROOM

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important
matter brought to my attention by one of my constituents. I recently
received a letter from G. Ross Darnell, and he pointed out the
importance of educating our students about the Constitution. In his
letter, though, he also mentioned that our educational system has not
been performing well in this area. I agree with Mr. Darnell on both
points.
The importance of education in preserving our liberties has been
realized since the founding of our Republic. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson
wrote to James Madison with his reflections on the new Constitution. In
that letter he said, ``I hope the education of the common people will
be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the
most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.''
Jefferson knew if the people were not aware of the freedoms guaranteed
by the Constitution they would be powerless to stop any encroachments
upon them. I'm sure Mr. Jefferson would be quite alarmed at the state
of ignorance today.
While it is a cliche that a generation always finds faults with the
one which follows, there is no denying that in terms of constitutional
knowledge, the level of ignorance is severe. A poll of teenagers last
year illustrates this. Only forty-one percent could name the
constitutionally ordained branches of our government, only twenty-one
percent could say that there were one hundred senators, and only
thirty-six percent knew one of the most important phrases in our
nation's history: ``We the People . . .'' These teenagers are moving
into adulthood, but they are not taking with them a knowledge of our
nation's Constitution.
It is undeniable that our educational system has failed to address
this deficiency. Many experts have documented the fact that most
textbooks do not devote a sufficient amount of space to exploring the
Constitution and the ideas and personalities which shaped it. Even the
national history standards proposed a few years ago failed to address
adequately the importance of this document. The Constitution, along
with the Declaration of Independence, is the very foundation upon which
our nation is built. To not devote sufficient space in textbooks or
time in class to it is a tragedy not only for students but also for the
nation.
It's also troubling to note that when constitutional history is
discussed today, the Founding Fathers are portrayed as racist, sexist
elitists. This caricature of the Founders, which fails to take into
account how the Constitutional Convention tried to balance the idealism
of the Declaration of Independence with the political realities of the
day, is only abetted by the shallowness of the constitutional teaching
in our schools. How can students weigh the competing claims in this
important debate when they don't even know what is in the Constitution?
How should this deficiency be addressed? I'm not here to suggest
another federal program which would impose standards on the state and
local school districts. I have long believed that curriculum is best
determined by local school boards which are much closer to the people
than we are here in Washington, D.C. Instead, I am today using this opportunity in the United States Senate to urge my colleagues to
support states, school districts, and teachers beginning a wholesale
effort to renew in our youth a respect and knowledge for the
Constitution. Our young people need to know the rights guaranteed by
this seminal document. As Thomas Jefferson said, our liberties may
depend on it.

____________________

[[Page 27054]]

CLEANER GASOLINE AND CLEANER AIR FOR CHICAGO

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to
applaud BP/Amoco for its decision to provide cleaner gasoline to the
Chicago Metropolitan Area. BP/Amoco recently announced that it will
begin offering lower sulfur premium gasoline immediately and that it
intends to provide lower sulfur gasoline in all three grades by 2001--
three years ahead of the requirement for lower sulfur gasoline proposed
by EPA.
The average sulfur content of gasoline sold in Chicago today is
approximately 300 ppm. BP/Amoco's decision will reduce the sulfur
content in its gasolines to 30 ppm. As a cosponsor of legislation to
cap the sulfur content of gasoline--S. 172, the Clean Gasoline Act of
1999--I believe reducing sulfur levels in gasoline is an extremely
cost-effective way to improve our nation's air quality.
It is estimated that when fully implemented, lower-sulfur gasoline
offered by BP/Amoco will reduce nitrogen oxide emissions--one of the
precursors to the formation of ozone--by about 3 tons per day. That is
the equivalent of removing 70,000 cars from Chicago's highways every
day.
BP/Amoco's decision to voluntarily reduce the sulfur content of
gasoline sold in Chicago means cleaner, healthier air for the residents
of the Chicago metropolitan area. It demonstrates again that when we
work together we can ensure continued economic growth and protect our
environment.

____________________

GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON WOMEN 35TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate women
in my home state of Vermont. It gives me great pleasure to speak in
recognition of the Governor's Commission on Women of Vermont and to
acknowledge their 35th anniversary.
Over the last 35 years, the Governor's Commission on Women has
accrued a long list of achievements in the state of Vermont. It is a
vibrant and healthy organization, dedicated to ensuring that women's
rights, health, life choices, careers and community service are in
sharp focus for policymakers and citizens alike. Commission members
know how to use their strength of advocacy to empower women and raise
the profile and scope of key issues. To highlight a recent endeavor,
the Commission made it a priority to give all Vermonters a better
understanding of their health benefits by offering a series of
educational materials on managed care plans.
I have often said that community service is the cornerstone of
democracy and I believe that each citizen has a responsibility to
contribute to their community. The Governor's Commission on Women does
just this, by addressing the pressing matters of concern throughout the
state, such as poverty, child care and pay equity. For over three
decades the Commission has taken on the ``tough to tackle'' issues. I
was very pleased to partner with women's groups across Vermont,
including the Commission, in the fight to ratify the Equal Rights
Amendment. Although we suffered defeat on this particular issue, we
knew we were successful in championing the message of equal rights.
Through a combination of their hard work, commitment and vision, the
Vermont Commission has surpassed all expectations and created new, and
I believe lasting, community partnerships. I am proud of what they have
been able to achieve and I hope that others throughout the state and
nation will look to the Commission's accomplishments and be inspired to
act as resourcefully.
I have made it a personal priority to support the Commission's
efforts to reach their goals and, because I am committed to raising
awareness at the federal level about the needs of women, I rely upon
them for guidance. From a woman's right to make her own reproductive
health choices, to supporting efforts to thwart domestic violence, to
addressing the life quality issue of retirement security, I have had
the opportunity to listen, to learn and to act on each of these issues
in Congress. I encourage my colleagues to forge the same relationship
of mutual reliance with any organization representing women in their
respective states. I firmly believe that we can never shy away from
efforts to understand, and eventually ameliorate the impacts of
discrimination, low wages and lack of opportunities.
I extend my best wishes to the Governor's Commission on Women and to
honor their very notable accomplishments over the past 35
years.

____________________

CHILDREN WITH BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURIES

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue
which affects children across the country.
Brachial plexus injuries (BPI), also known as Erb's palsy, occur when
the nerves which control the muscles in the shoulders, arms and hands
are injured. Any or all of the nerves which run from the spine to the
arms and hands may be paralyzed. Often this injury is caused when an
infant's brachial plexus nerves are stretched in the birth canal.
What is devastating about BPI is that the children will have
paralyzed arms and hands which may be misshapen or extending out from
the body at unnatural angles. This can retard a child's physical
development, making everyday tasks such as coloring, drawing, dressing
and going to the bathroom, which their peers can perform with no
trouble, almost impossible. The feeling in the children's arms and
hands is similar to how a non-paralyzed person's arm feels when he or
she sleeps on it. This numbness leads to more serious injuries--
toddlers and young children will accidentally or purposely burn or
mutilate themselves because they lack feeling in their extremities.
Some children can undergo expensive surgery and therapy and, though
never fully recovering, can regain some normal function of their arms
and hands. However, many children suffer permanent, debilitating
paralysis from which they never fully recover.
On Thursday, October 21, I sponsored a meeting between members of the
United Brachial Plexus Network (UBPN), surgeons, occupational
therapists and experts from the Social Security Administration to
discuss why so many families with children with brachial plexus
injuries were being turned down for Supplemental Security Income
despite seeming to meet the qualifications for such payments as laid
out in the Social Security Administration handbook.
The Social Security Administration gave a presentation explaining the
statutory qualifications for receiving SSI. Their presentations were
followed by presentations by surgeons and therapists explaining how
children with BPI function and why they feel children paralyzed by BPI
should be eligible for SSI payments because of their disability.
Most moving were the presentations made by children with BPI and
parents of BPI children. These courageous people talked about their
daily lives and the difficulties children with BPI must endure in
attempting to perform everyday tasks.
I want to commend UBPN board member Kathleen Kennedy from my home
state of Iowa, Iowa State Senator Kitty Rehberg and Sharon Gavagan, who
also sits on the board for UBPN, for their hard work and dedication in
organizing the meeting between the UBPN and the Social Security
Administration. I want to thank the surgeons and therapists who
traveled from Texas to make presentations. I also want to

[[Page 27055]]

commend Susan Daniels, Kenneth Nibali of the Social Security
Administration and the experts from SSA for their willingness to travel
from Baltimore to participate in the meeting. I am encouraged by their
willingness to consider issuing new guidelines to the personnel in the
SSA field offices regarding brachial plexus injuries.
We must work to ensure that everyone who meets the guidelines for
receiving SSI has the opportunity to apply for the benefits and be
given a fair hearing. I look forward to seeing the new guidelines from
SSA, and I am eager to continue working with the Social Security
Administration on this issue.

____________________

SEQUENTIAL REFERRALS--S. 225 AND S. 400

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 225 and S.
400 be sequentially referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs. I further ask consent that if these bills are not
reported out of the Banking Committee by November 2, the bills then be
automatically discharged from the committee and placed on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Lott
relative to the two bills, S. 225 and S. 400, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, October 26, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: We respectfully request that unanimous
consent be sought so that the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs may be granted a sequential referral of the
``Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act Amendments of 1999'' (S. 400) and the ``Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Amendments of
1999'' (S. 255). These bills have been referred to the
Committee on Indian Affairs, although they contain housing
provisions which are under the express jurisdiction of the
Banking Committee.
If S. 400 and S. 225 are not reported out by the Committee
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs by November 2, 1999,
such bills will be automatically discharged from the
Committee.
Thank you for your consideration.
Phil Gramm,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Wayne Allard,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation.
Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs.
Paul Sarbanes,
Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs.
John F. Kerry,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation.
Daniel Inouye,
Vice Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs.

____________________

MULTIDISTRICT, MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM TRIAL JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 341, H.R. 2112.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2112) to amend title 28, United States Code,
to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain
jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for
trial, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of certain
multiparty, multiforum civil actions.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
``or ordered transferred to the transferee or other district
under subsection (i)'' after ``terminated''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any action transferred
under this section by the panel may be transferred, for trial
purposes, by the judge or judges of the transferee district
to whom the action was assigned to the transferee or other
district in the interest of justice and for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses.
``(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under
paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the
determination of compensatory damages to the district court
from which it was transferred, unless the court to which the
action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds,
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice, that the action should be retained for
the determination of compensatory damages.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to
pass S. 1748, the Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999, and H.R.
2112, as amended by the Hatch-Leahy substitute during its consideration
in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Our substitute amendment is the text
of S. 1748, the Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999, which the
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and I, along
with Senators Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, and Schumer, introduced last
week. Our bipartisan legislation is needed by Federal judges across the
country to restore their power to promote the fair and efficient
administration of justice in multi-district litigation.
Current law authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to transfer related cases, pending in multiple Federal
judicial districts, to a single district for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. This makes good sense because
transfers by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation are based
on centralizing those cases to serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and to promote efficient judicial management.
For nearly 30 years, many transferee judges, following circuit and
district court case law, retained these multi-district cases for trial
because the transferee judge and the parties were already familiar with
each other and the facts of the case through the pretrial proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), however, found that this well-established
practice was not authorized by the general venue provisions in the
United States Code. Following the Lexecon ruling, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation must now remand each transferred case to its
original district at the conclusion of the pretrial proceedings, unless
the case is already settled or otherwise terminated. This new process
is costly, inefficient and time consuming.
The Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999 seeks to restore the
power of transferee judges to resolve multi-district cases as
expeditiously and fairly as possible. Our bipartisan bill amends
section 1407 of title 28 of the United States Code to allow a
transferee judge to retain cases for trial or transfer those cases to
another judicial district for trial in the interests of justice and for
the convenience of parties and witnesses. The legislation provides
transferee judges the flexibility they need to administer justice
quickly and efficiently. Indeed, our legislation is supported by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Conference of
the United States and the Department of Justice.
In addition, we have included a section in our bill to ensure
fairness during the determination of compensatory damages by adding the
presumption that the case will be remanded to the transferor court for
this phase of the trial. Specifically, this provision provides that to
the extent a case is tried

[[Page 27056]]

outside of the transferor forum, it would be solely for the purpose of
a consolidated trial on liability, and if appropriate, punitive
damages, and that the case must be remanded to the transferor court for
the purposes of trial on compensatory damages, unless the court to
which the action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds,
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests
of justice, that the action should be retained for the determination of
compensatory damages. This section is identical to a bipartisan
amendment proposed by Representative Berman and accepted by the House
Judiciary Committee during its consideration of similar legislation
earlier this year.
Multi-district litigation generally involves some of the most complex
fact-specific cases, which affect the lives of citizens across the
nation. For example, multi-district litigation entails such national
legal matters as asbestos, silicone gel breast implants, diet drugs
like fen-phen, hemophiliac blood products, Norplant contraceptives and
all major airplane crashes. In fact, as of February 1999, approximately
140 transferee judges were supervising about 160 groups of multi-
district cases, with each group composed of hundreds, or even
thousands, of cases in various stages of trial development.
But the efficient case management of these multi-district cases is a
risk after the Lexecon ruling. Judge John F. Nangle, Chairman of the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, recently testified before
Congress that: ``Since Lexecon, significant problems have arisen that
have hindered the sensible conduct of multi-district litigation.
Transferee judges throughout the United States have voiced their
concern to me about the urgent need to enact this legislation.''
Mr. President, Congress should listen to the concerned voices of our
Federal Judiciary and swiftly send the Multi-District Jurisdiction Act
of 1999 to the President for his signature into law.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee substitute was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 2112), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1999

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30
a.m. on Thursday, October 28. I further ask unanimous consent that on
Thursday, 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 proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators
permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following
exceptions: Senator Durbin, or designee, 9:30 to 10 a.m.; Senator
Thomas, or designee, 10 to 10:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the
African trade bill. As a reminder, cloture has been filed on the
substitute amendment to the trade bill and, therefore, all first-degree
amendments must be filed to the substitute by 1 p.m. tomorrow. Also,
pursuant to rule XXII, that cloture vote will occur 1 hour after the
Senate convenes on Friday, unless an agreement is made between the two
leaders.
Currently, Senator Ashcroft's amendment to establish the position of
chief agriculture negotiator is pending. It is hoped that an agreement
regarding further amendments can be made so the Senate can complete
action on this important legislation.
The Senate may also consider any legislative or executive items
cleared for action during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

____________________

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object. I say to my colleague from
Idaho, I believe the junior Senator from Washington also wishes to make
a statement after the Senator from Oregon. And I wish to make a
statement after the junior Senator from Washington.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I amend my unanimous consent request and
ask unanimous consent that following the comments of the Senator from
Oregon, Senator Murray from the State of Washington be allowed to
speak, followed by the Senator from Florida, who would make the final
remarks of the evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.

____________________

MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, and colleagues, this is the seventh time I
have come to the floor of the Senate in recent days to talk about the
issue of Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. The reason I do so
is I think it is so important that before we wrap up our work in this
session of Congress, we take action on this matter, given how many
vulnerable senior citizens there are in this country who simply cannot
afford their prescriptions.
There is just one bipartisan bill with respect to prescription drug
coverage now before the Senate. It is a piece of legislation known as
the SPICE Act, the Senior Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act.
It is a bipartisan bill on which I have teamed with Senator Olympia
Snowe of Maine; and it is one that the two of us are very hopeful this
Congress will act on before we conclude our work.
There are some who think this issue is too controversial and too
difficult to tackle before the next election. I would note that it is
going to be more than a year until the next election. We are going to
have a lot of senior citizens who are walking on an economic tightrope,
every week balancing their food costs against their fuel costs, and
their fuel costs against their medical bills, who are not going to be
able to pay for their prescriptions and their necessities if the Senate
decides to duck this issue and put it off until after the next
election. I think the reason we are sent here is to tackle issues and
not just put them off until after the election.
Over the last few months, Senator Snowe and I have worked with senior
citizen groups; we have worked with people in the pharmaceutical
sector, in the insurance sector, various public- and private-sector
organizations; and we believe the SPICE legislation that we have
crafted is the kind of bill that Members of the Senate can support.
In fact, as part of the budget, Senator Snowe and I teamed up, and we
offered a specific funding plan. And 54 Members of the Senate are now
on record--they are now specifically on record--with respect to the
Snowe-Wyden funding plan for paying for prescription drug benefits. So
we are now in a position, it seems to me, colleagues, to take specific
action.
One of the reasons I have come to the floor tonight is my hope that
we can really show how urgent this need is.
What I have done, as the poster next to me says, is urge senior
citizens to send in copies of their prescription drug bills, directly
to their Senator, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. I have decided I am
going to, in my discussions on the floor each evening, read a

[[Page 27057]]

portion of the letters I am receiving from seniors at home in Oregon.
I read about one group in the newspaper the other day who said it is
not really that urgent a need. More than 20 percent of the Nation's
senior citizens are spending over $1,000 a year out of pocket for their
prescription medicine.
I read a couple of nights ago about an elderly woman from southern
Oregon whose income is just over $1,000 a month in Social Security. She
spends more than half of it on her prescriptions.
Those are the kinds of accounts we are hearing again and again and
again. The fact is, our senior citizens are getting shellacked twice.
First, Medicare doesn't cover prescriptions. That is the way the
program began in 1965. I was director of the Gray Panthers at home for
about 7 years before I was elected to Congress. The need was very acute
back then for prescription drug coverage. But today it is even more
important, for two reasons.
First, the senior citizen, who not only gets no Medicare coverage for
their prescriptions, is now subsidizing the big buyers such as the
health maintenance organizations that are in a position to negotiate
big discounts. These big buyers, the health maintenance organizations,
have real bargaining power and clout. They go out and negotiate a
discount; they get a break. If you are a senior citizen, for example,
in Myrtle Creek, OR, or Philomath--I will read from those letters in a
moment--you end up subsidizing those big buyers. I don't think that is
right.
In addition, since the days when we began to push, with the Gray
Panthers, for prescription drug coverage, a lot of the new, important
prescriptions are preventive in nature. I described several days ago an
important anticoagulant drug that can help with a variety of ailments
relating to strokes. The cost of that anticoagulant drug is in the
vicinity of about $1,000 a year. You have a full-scale stroke that can
come about if you don't get the medicine, and the cost can be $100,000
a year.
When people ask me, can this country afford to cover prescription
drugs under Medicare, my view is, our country cannot afford not to do
it. As part of this campaign we have launched in the Senate to have
seniors send in, as this poster says, copies of their prescription drug
bills, Senator Snowe and I have teamed up on a bipartisan kind of plan.
I am going to read from these letters. I will take just a couple of
minutes for that tonight.
Just a couple of days ago, I heard from a woman in Philomath, OR, who
wrote me about her mother. Her mother had recently spent more than
$2,220 on prescription drugs. The daughter said--this was particularly
poignant, in my view--the only way her mother was able to, in effect,
cover her prescription needs was that her mother was getting samples
from the doctor. The fact that she spent more than $2,220 on
prescription drugs and the year isn't even over yet is dramatized by
the fact that the cost would be much greater were it not for the fact
that she was getting samples to supplement what she was paying for.
That is the kind of account we are hearing from seniors in Oregon, as
they, as this poster says, send in copies of their prescription drug
bills. I hope we will get more of that.
We need to deal with this issue on a bipartisan basis. Senator Snowe
and I have chosen to model our program after the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Plan. The SPICE proposal we introduced is sort of a
senior citizens version of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
The elderly population, of course, is different from that of the
Federal workforce, but the model of trying to offer choices and options
and alternatives to make sure there is competition in health care of
the kind Senator Graham has advocated in the past is very sensible. If
it is good enough for Members of Congress, it certainly ought to be the
kind of thing we look at to cover older people. It is especially
important because it can be a model that prevents cost shifting on to
other groups of citizens.
There are other proposals, for example, that in effect have Medicare
sort of buying up all the prescription drugs and taking the lead as the
purchaser. What concerns me about that approach is, I think you will
have massive cost shifting on to other groups of individuals. Nobody in
the Congress intentionally would want to see a proposal developed that
would, in effect, give a discount to folks on Medicare and then just
have the cost shifted over to somebody who was 27 years old and had a
couple of kids and was working hard and doing their best to get ahead
in life. We have to use marketplace forces to develop and implement
this benefit.
The proposal I have introduced with Senator Snowe is one that uses
those marketplace forces. It would give seniors the kind of bargaining
power a health maintenance organization and a big buying group would
have, but it wouldn't involve a lot of price controls. It wouldn't
involve a lot of micromanagement. It wouldn't be sort of one-size-fits-
all health care.
As we go ahead with this bipartisan campaign, the bill on which
Senator Snowe and I have teamed up is, in fact, the only bipartisan
measure now before the Senate. I am going to come to this floor as
often as I can and urge seniors to send in copies of their prescription
drug bills directly to their Senator and just keep bringing to our
colleagues' attention the need for action on this issue.
The second letter I want to describe tonight comes from an elderly
couple from my hometown in Portland who said they have already spent
$1,750-plus on their prescription drug costs so far this year. They
wrote: We have saved all our life, never knowing what health problems
would befall us. We are glad to pay our fair share, but the cost of
prescription drugs is eating up our savings.
Finally, a constituent from Myrtle Creek has written that recently
they spent $700 on prescription medicines. This exceeds the so-called
average many of the experts in the beltway are talking about as not
being that big a deal for senior citizens. This is a bill incurred by
an older person from Myrtle Creek. We hear the same thing from
Portland, OR. We hear the same thing from Philomath, OR. This is what
we are hearing all across this country.
It would be a terrible shame, in my view, for the Senate to say we
are not going to act, we are going to let this become a big campaign
issue in the 2000 election, and Democrats and Republicans can engage in
a lot of finger pointing and, in effect, sort of put out that the other
side doesn't care, the other side isn't interested. We will end up
seeing this issue drag on well into the next century.
I believe the Snowe-Wyden legislation, the only bipartisan bill now
before the Senate on prescription drugs, may not be the last word on
this issue. It is not going to be enacted into law with every I dotted
and every T crossed, as it has been proposed thus far, but I do believe
it can serve as a model.
It is bipartisan. Fifty-four Members in the Senate are already on
record as having cast a vote for the specific plan we have to fund this
program. And so the opportunity to make the lives of older people in
this country better, to help those who are scrimping and not taking
their drugs the way they ought to, to be able to do it in a way that
uses marketplace kinds of forces and provides choices and options, just
the way our families get, seems to be an opportunity we cannot afford
to pass up.
I know Senator Graham, who has done good work on the health care
issue and the prescription issue as a member of the Finance Committee,
is here to talk. The hour is late. But I intend to keep coming to the
floor of the U.S. Senate and pushing for action on this issue. There is
a bipartisan bill before the Senate now. This would be the kind of
issue that could be a legacy for this session of the Congress. I intend
to keep coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate, reading from the
letters I am getting from home, urging seniors to do as this poster
says: Send in copies of your prescription drug bills.
I intend to come back to this floor again and again and again, until
we get action on this matter. For years, since the days when I was
director of the Oregon Gray Panthers at home, I have

[[Page 27058]]

had a dream that the U.S. Congress would make sure that older people
who aren't taking their medicines because they can't afford it would be
able to get this coverage.
The opportunity to team up with Senator Snowe has been a real
pleasure for me. She has been speaking out on this issue. I will
continue to speak out on it, and we are going to do everything we can
to make sure the U.S. Senate acts on this question and does it in this
session of the Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND JOHN CHAFEE

The National Park System

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor two visionary
statesmen--President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator John Chafee. Today,
October 27, 1999, we celebrate what would have been President Theodore
Roosevelt's 141st birthday. Last Friday, we celebrated John Chafee's
77th--and much to our sadness his last.
Working at opposite ends of the 20th century, these two outstanding
leaders contributed greatly to the cause of preserving our precious
natural resources for this and especially for future generations.
President Roosevelt was born on October 27, 1858, in New York City.
He is remembered as one of our finest Presidents. He is honored as such
by being the only 20th century President to join Presidents Washington,
Jefferson, and Lincoln at Mount Rushmore.
In 1901, after the assassination of President McKinley, Theodore
Roosevelt became America's youngest President. As a child, Roosevelt
was faced with poor health and asthma. To escape the pollution of New
York City, Roosevelt's father would often take him to Long Island for
extended visits. It was there that Roosevelt began his lifelong
devotion to the outdoors and to vigorous exercise. His dedication to
the ``strenuous life'' was a hallmark of his career.
In 1884, his first wife, Alice Lee Roosevelt, and his mother died on
the same day. Roosevelt spent much of the next two years on his ranch,
the Elkhorn, located in the Badlands of the Dakota Territory.
Today, a portion of this ranch is included in the national park named
in his honor--the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota.
History shows Roosevelt to be a true visionary as one reviews his many
accomplishments. The Panama Canal, one of the world's engineering
marvels, would not have been complete without President Roosevelt's
tenacious leadership. He is remembered by business and labor as a
``trust buster'' who spearheaded the dissolution of a large railroad
monopoly in the Northwest using the Sherman Antitrust Act.
In 1905, Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating an end to
the Russo-Japanese War.
But perhaps his greatest contribution to future generations of
Americans
was his passionate advocacy of conservationism. The history of our
Nation is marked by activism on public lands issues. The beginning of
the 19th century was marked by President Thomas Jefferson's purchase of
the Louisiana Territory. That one purchase added almost 530 million
acres to the United States. The Louisiana Purchase changed America from
an eastern coastal Nation to a continental empire.
Roosevelt set the tone for public lands issues at the beginning of
the 20th century. His words and his actions created a new call to
America's environmental ethic. Theodore Roosevelt said, ``We must ask
ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an environment that
is as good, or better, than what we found.''
He lived up to his challenge. Mr. President, listen to what Theodore
Roosevelt contributed to the public lands legacy of the United States.
During his period in the White House, from 1901 to 1909, Theodore
Roosevelt designated 150 national forests; the first 51 Federal bird
reservations; 5 national parks; the first 18 national monuments; the
first 4 national game preserves; and the first 21 reclamation projects.
Theodore Roosevelt also established the National Wildlife Refuge
System, beginning with Pelican Island in Florida, which was designated
in 1903. Together, these projects equaled Federal protection for almost
230 million acres--a land area equivalent to that of all the east coast
States from Maine to Florida and just under one-half of the area of the
Louisiana Purchase.
Theodore Roosevelt's contributions to the public land trust cannot be
equaled. Perhaps even greater was his contagious passion for the ethic
of conservation that he managed to instill for the first time in
America's consciousness, the idea of conservation and environmental
protection as goals worthy of pursuit.
Mr. President, Senator John Chafee was a leader in the Theodore
Roosevelt model. Senator Chafee was a major participant in every piece
of environmental legislation that passed the Congress since the early
1980s. He authored the Superfund program, created in 1980 to direct and
fund the cleanup of hazardous waste dump sites and leaking underground
storage tanks.
In 1982, he sponsored the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, a law that
resulted in the preservation of thousands of acres of coastline
throughout the Nation.
He led major reform of the Clean Water Act in 1986, introducing more
thorough controls on industrial pollution and a new emphasis on non-
point source pollution.
He created the National Estuary Program to protect coastal resources
and steered the bill to enactment over a Presidential veto in 1987.
In the 1980s, Senator Chafee turned his attention to the air, leading
efforts to adopt the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, taking steps to
control acid rain and toxic chemical emissions.
In 1993, Senator Chafee wrote the law establishing the nation's first
indoor air hazard research and response program.
With his clear head, methodical mind, and ability to broker a
compromise, Senator Chafee led us through these legislative battles to
today's result--a legal infrastructure of environmental law that
ensures our own health and safety and preserves the public land trust
established by Theodore Roosevelt.
On this day, as we celebrate the 141st anniversary of the birth of
Theodore Roosevelt and pay tribute to the work of Senator John Chafee,
we must ask ourselves, ``Can we meet the challenge posed by Theodore
Roosevelt and leave an environment for future generations that is as
good or better than it was when we found it?'' Are we worthy inheritors
of the legacy of John Chafee?
Senator Chafee leaves us with his model to follow as a member of this
body which took Roosevelt's challenge to heart and led the Environment
and Public Works Committee to take actions on the environment that have
left us better off than when he arrived in the Senate.
Sadly, I argue that we, the Senate, are struggling with a backlog of
neglect and are ill prepared to assure the well being of one of the
most prominent examples of America's environmental heritage: our
national parks.
In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service ``. . . 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.''
My friend and colleague, the Presiding Officer, and I have the
privilege of living in two of our States which have been especially
blessed by God and blessed by preceding generations willing to take the
steps to protect the beauties of the Yellowstone, or of an Everglades.
The challenge that we have is worthy of the standard that has been set
by Theodore Roosevelt and the others who have made it possible for us
to enjoy those wonders of nature.
Today, the ``unimpaired'' status of our national parks is at-risk.
On April 22, 1999, the National Parks and Conservation Association
identified this year's ten-most endangered parks.

[[Page 27059]]

In his opening remarks, Mr. Tom Kiernan, president of the NPCA,
stated that these parks were chosen not because they are the only parks
with endangered resources, but because they demonstrate the resource
damages that are occurring at all of our parks.
These parks demonstrate the breadth of the threats facing our park
system.
For example, Chaco Culture National Historical Park in Chaco Canyon,
New Mexico, contains the remains of thirteen major structures that
represent the highest point of Pueblo pre-Columbian civilization.
What is the status of this great world treasure?
In the words of the NPCA, 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 structures.
Another example: 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 led to loss
of significant quantities of Florida's water supply to tide each day, a
90-percent decline in the wading bird population, invasion of non-
native plants and animals, and shrinking wildlife habitat.
Mr. President, you will be particularly interested and saddened by
what the National Park 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 has 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.
I recently had an opportunity to visit yet another example of
neglect, Ellis Island National Monument in New York Harbor. The state
of the historical resources in this important part of the history and
heritage of America--the space through which millions of people first
gained their exposure and appreciation and commitment to America--is
unconscionable.
While there are a handful of buildings that have been restored to
their previous level of majesty, over 30 buildings where immigrants
came to the United States lie abandoned, in disrepair, and
deteriorating.
Particularly troubling was damage to the hospital buildings, which,
when restored, will be a valuable tool in recreating an important era
in our nation's history.
The hospital on Ellis Island provided care for immigrants who were
detained temporarily for medical reasons.
This marked one of our country's earliest efforts at providing for
public health and disease control and prevention.
Broken windows and leaky roofs have allowed the elements to wreak
havoc on these buildings and trees are sprouting from the floorboards
of what was once an immigrant dormitory.
Lead paint flakes fall from the walls and rats scurry down historic
hallways.
There are efforts being made to block further deterioration, but the
existing damage is extensive.
Small scale actions to prevent further destruction are wholly
inadequate in the face of the extensive damage to these buildings which
are so important to our nation's history.
Mr. President, the sad circumstances of Chaco Canyon, of the
Everglades, of Yellowstone, of Ellis Island, the sad circumstances of
these few examples by no means mean that they are the extent of the
challenge of our national parks.
In fact, estimates of the maintenance backlog at our national parks
reach as high as $3.5 billion. The National Park Service has now
developed a 5-year plan to meet this requirement based on its ability
to execute funds and the priorities of the National Park System.
This year the National Park Service requested $194 million in order
to commence the process of meeting this accumulated backlog of
maintenance needs.
I am pleased to say, Mr. President, that I believe Members of
Congress should take some pride in the fact that as a result of this
year's appropriations process the House and Senate have modified the
National Park Service request of $194 million and increased it to
$224.5 million. This is a very commendable step forward.
I am proud of the actions of the appropriations committees. I know
that there is likely to be further executive and legislative
considerations of the budget of the National Park Service before we
complete our action. But I hope that we will continue to maintain this
level of commitment to meeting the backlog of urgent maintenance needs
in our national parks.
Although these actions demonstrate a willingness to work to meet the
needs of the National Park Service, I believe we cannot adequately
address the extent of needs, including the needs of natural resources
within the Park System and the external threats to those natural
resources with a piecemeal approach.
There is a limit to what we can do with the tools we have today. The
Senate is working to fund 21st century needs for construction and
natural resource preservation using a 19th century, year-to-year annual
appropriations process. What the National Park Service needs is a
sustained, reliable funding source that will allow it to develop
intelligent plans based on a prioritization of needs with confidence
that the funds will be available when they are necessary to complete
those plans. This approach will allow common sense to prevail when
projects are prioritized for funding.
Let me use the example which is closest to me. That is the effort
about to be launched for restoration of the Florida Everglades. We are
now over half a century into man's major manipulation of the Florida
Everglades, a manipulation which has had many positive effects in terms
of protecting millions of people from the ravages of flooding but has
also very fundamentally changed the character of the Florida
Everglades. The Corps of Engineers has presented to the Congress its
recommendation of how to remedy the scars that have been imposed on the
Everglades. If authorized by this Congress, the Everglades restoration
plan of the Corps of Engineers will be the most extensive restoration
of an environmental system ever undertaken in our Nation's history and,
in all probability, in the history of the world. It will be an effort
at the beginning of the 21st century of the scale, boldness, and
challenge that the Panama Canal was at the beginning of the 20th
century.
This is also going to be a project which will challenge America
financially. The estimate is that over the 20 years to complete this
project, the total cost will be approximately $8 billion. The State of
Florida will pay half; the Federal Government will pay half. The math
indicates that for each year for the next 20 years, the average demand
on Federal resources for this restoration project will be approximately
$200 million.
I think it is critical before we begin this restoration we have the
maximum assurance of the resources necessary to complete the
restoration. I use the analogy of open-heart surgery. If one is going
to open up a system and take a great knife and begin to cleave the
changes that have occurred in the Everglades over the last 50 years so
that at the conclusion of this operation we will have a healthier, more
natural system, it is incumbent upon those who start the surgery to be
assured they will have the resources to complete the operation. Failure
to have those resources at any stage throughout this 20-year process
will certainly result in the death of the patient.
We have taken some steps to attempt to assure a more reliable source
of funds for the National Park Service. Your colleague, Senator Thomas,
led the way to reform with his landmark legislation on the National
Park Service called Vision 2000. 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

[[Page 27060]]

the fee demonstration program. The fee demonstration program allows
individual parks to charge entrance fees and to use a portion of the
proceeds for maintenance backlog and natural resource projects. This
action generated about $100 million annually for the Park System.
Now it is time to take the next step. Earlier this year with Senators
Reid and my colleague, Senator Mack, we introduced legislation entitled
``The National Park Preservation Act.'' This legislation 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 within the National Park
Service.
This legislation would allocate funds derived from the use of a
nonrenewable resource, our offshore drilling in the outer continental
shelf, to recover the American resource of oil and gas. We would then
convert those funds derived from the Federal royalty on offshore oil
and gas drilling for a program of restoration and preservation of our
natural, cultural, and historic resources within the National Park
Service. These funds provided by our bill would assure that each year
the National Park Service would have the resources it needed to restore
and prevent damages to its resources.
At the beginning of this century, at a time of relative tranquility,
President Theodore Roosevelt managed to instill a nation with a
tradition of conservation with this simple challenge: Can we leave this
world a better place for future generations?
At the end of this century, we honor Senator John Chafee who leaves a
legacy of a legal infrastructure that provides a foundation upon which
we can continue to meet President Theodore Roosevelt's challenge. Let
us keep the vision of these great leaders in mind as we embark together
on our efforts to protect the National Park System into the new
century.
In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt: Nothing short of
defending the country during wartime compares in importance with the
great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our
descendents than it is for us.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, October 28, 1999.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 8:27 p.m., adjourned until Thursday,
October 28, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate October 27, 1999:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

JAMES D. BINDENAGEL, OF CALIFORNIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, FOR THE
RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL ENVOY
AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOLOCAUST
ISSUES.
MARTIN S. INDYK, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO ISRAEL.
EDWARD S. WALKER, JR., OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF CAREER MINISTER, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE (NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS), VICE
MARTIN S. INDYK.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

THOMAS A. FRY III, OF TEXAS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT, VICE PATRICK A. SHEA, RESIGNED.

IN THE COAST GUARD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD UNDER TITLE 14,
U.S.C., SECTION 271:

To be commander

PETER K. OITTINEN, 0000
WILLIAM J. REICKS, 0000
JEFFREY C. GOOD, 0000
RICHARD L. ARNOLD, 0000
STEPHAN P. FINTON, 0000
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN, 0000
NORMAN S. SELLEY, 0000
AUDREY A. MC KINLEY, 0000
SCOTT BURLINGAME, 0000
CHARLES JAGER, 0000
PETER J. BERGERON, 0000
LISA T. HEFFELFINGER, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. OLIN, 0000
RUSSELL L. HARRIS, 0000
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, 0000
PHILIP E. ROSS, 0000
GARY C. RASICOT, 0000
WILLIAM L. HUCKE, 0000
MICHAEL D. TOSATTO, 0000
ANDREW P. WHITE, 0000
DONALD G. BRUZDZINSKI, 0000
RICHARD A. BUTTON, 0000
MICHAEL D. DRIEU, 0000
EDWARD W. PARSONS, 0000
THOMAS D. BEISTLE, 0000
RICHARD KERMOND, 0000
GAIL P. KULISCH, 0000
DAVID C. STALFORT, 0000
JAMES P. SOMMER, 0000
CRAIG B. LLOYD, 0000
ROSANNE TRABOCCHI, 0000
LYNN M. HENDERSON, 0000
GEORGE H. BURNS III, 0000
WILLIAM C. DEAL III, 0000
MARCUS E. WOODRING, 0000
ALGERNON J. KEITH, 0000
DREW W. PEARSON, 0000
HERBERT M. HAMILTON III, 0000
ELISABETH A. PEPPER, 0000
NORMAN S. SCHWEIZER, 0000
DOUGLAS E. KAUP, 0000
MICHAEL R. BURNS, 0000
BRADLEY W. BEAN, 0000
MICHAEL ZACK, 0000
PETER N. TROEDSSON, 0000
TIMOTHY M. O'LEARY, 0000
JAMES A. WIERZBICKI, 0000
EDUARDO PINO, 0000
SHARON D. DONALDBAYNES, 0000
JOSEPH T. BAKER, 0000
BRIAN J. PETER, 0000
DENISE L. MATTHEWS, 0000
PAUL E. DEVEAU, 0000
EDGAR B. WENDLANDT, 0000
PAUL F. THOMAS, 0000
CHARLES D. MICHEL, 0000
MICHAEL J. LODGE, 0000
JOHN A. FURMAN, 0000
DAVID S. KLIPP, 0000
PETER J. BROWN, 0000
FREDERICK J. SOMMER, 0000
ROBERT P. WAGNER, 0000
DOUGLAS J. HENKE, 0000
JOSEPH M. VOJVODICH, 0000
CHRIS P. REILLY, 0000
JAMES L. MC CAULEY, 0000
TODD A. SOKALZUK, 0000
CARL B. FRANK, 0000
PETER G. BASIL, 0000
DANIEL C. BURBANK, 0000
DAVID G. THROOP, 0000
JOHN F. PRINCE, 0000
BRADLEY D. NELSON, 0000
TIMOTHY J. QUIRAM, 0000
STEVEN J. ANDERSEN, 0000
JOHN M. KNOX, 0000
MICHELLE L. KANE, 0000
JOHN J. HICKEY, 0000
CHARLES W. MELLO, 0000
EDWARD N. ENG, 0000
WAYNE A. MUILENBURG, 0000
WILLIAM S. KREWSKY, 0000
VINCENT D. DELAURENTIS, 0000
MARK J. HUEBSCHMAN, 0000
ROBERT J. PAULISON, 0000
JERRY C. TOROK, 0000
JOHN P. SIFLING, 0000
KELLY A. SULLIVAN, 0000
KELLY L. HATFIELD, 0000
CHRISTOPHER A. MARTINO, 0000
GREGORY T. NELSON, 0000
JOSEPH M. RE, 0000
JEFFREY R. BRANDT, 0000
LINDA L. FAGAN, 0000
JEFFERY D. LOFTUS, 0000
JOSEPH P. SARGENT, JR., 0000

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 12203:

To be major general

CELIA L. ADOLPHI, 0000
JAMES W. COMSTOCK, 0000
ROBERT M. KIMMITT, 0000
PAUL E. LIMA, 0000
THOMAS J. MATTHEWS, 0000
JON R. ROOT, 0000
JOSEPH L. THOMPSON III, 0000
JOHN R. TINDALL, JR, 0000
GARY C. WATTNEM, 0000

To be brigadier general

ALAN D. BELL, 0000
KRISTINE K. CAMPBELL, 0000
WAYNE M. ERCK, 0000
STEPHEN T. GONCZY, 0000
ROBERT L. HEINE, 0000
PAUL H. HILL, 0000
RODNEY M. KOBAYASHI, 0000
THOMAS P. MANEY, 0000
RONALD S. MANGUM, 0000
RANDALL L. MASON, 0000
PAUL E. MOCK, 0000
COLLIS N. PHILLIPS, 0000
MICHAEL W. SYMANSKI, 0000
THEODORE D. SZAKMARY, 0000
DAVID A. VANKLEECK, 0000
GEORGE H. WALKER, JR, 0000
WILLIAM K. WEDGE, 0000

IN THE AIR FORCE

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

To be colonel

JOSEPH A. ABBOTT, 0000
PAUL R. ACKERLEY, 0000
DAVID M. ALDRICH, 0000
STEVEN G. ALLEN, 0000
JOHN D. ALLERS, 0000
MICHAEL D. ALTOM, 0000
MARK E. ANDERSEN, 0000
ANDY L. ANDERSON, 0000
HENRY L. ANDREWS, JR., 0000
SALVATORE A. ANGELELLA, 0000
JOHN F. ANTHONY, JR., 0000
TONI A. ARNOLD, 0000
MICHAEL J. ARTESE, 0000
MARCELYN NMI ATWOOD, 0000
STEVEN BAYLOR, 0000
PETER J. BALDETTI, 0000
REGINALD A. BANKS, 0000
KENNETH E. BANKSTON, 0000
DOUGLAS N. BARLOW, 0000
LEE M. BARNBY, 0000
SAMUEL J. BARR, 0000
RONALD E. BAUGHMAN, 0000
RANDALL BAXTER, 0000
RICHARD A. BEAN, 0000
RICHARD D. BEERY, 0000
JAMES A. BEHRING, 0000
THOMAS D. BELL, 0000
CRAIG V. BENDORF, 0000
JOHN W. BENGTSON, 0000
DOUGLAS A. BENJAMIN, 0000
LEONARD F. BENSON, 0000
THOMAS F. BERARDINELLI, 0000
PAUL M. BESSON, 0000
CHRISTINE E. BEUERLEIN, 0000
JEFFERY T. BEYER, 0000
ROGER A. BICK, 0000
WANDA E. BISBAL, 0000
GREGORY A. BISCONE, 0000
SHIRLEY H. BLACK, 0000
DONALD I. BLACKWELDER, 0000
KATHI C. BLEVINS, 0000
ROBERT BLEVINS, 0000
WESTANNA H. BOBBITT, 0000
JOSEPH J. BONIN, 0000
HOWARD A. BOWER, 0000
OLEN E. BOWMAN, 0000
CAMERON S. BOWSER, 0000
JEFFREY D. BRAKE, 0000
ALLEN G. BRANCO, JR., 0000
ROBERT W. BRANDON, 0000
ROBERT W. BROEKING, 0000
TIMOTHY J. BROTHERTON, 0000
CURTIS L. BROWN, JR., 0000
GLENN M. BROWN, 0000
JEFFREY C. BROWN, 0000
JOSEPH LEE BROWN, 0000
GREGORY L. BRUNDIDGE, 0000
JOHN C. BURGESS, JR., 0000
ANNE L. BURMAN, 0000
ROBERT J. BUTLER, JR., 0000
ROBERT F. BYRD, 0000
NONIE C. CABANA, 0000
MICHAEL W. CALLAN, 0000
MARY A. CALLAWAY, 0000
JAMES E. CAMP, 0000
DONALD H. CAMPBELL, 0000
WENDY S. CAMPO, 0000
JOHN E. CAMPS, 0000
JAMES C. CANTRELL III, 0000
MICHAEL A. CAPPELANO, 0000
P. MASON CARPENTER, 0000
KENNETH R. CARSON, 0000
WILLIAM L. CARTER, 0000
STEVEN A. CHABOLLA, 0000
WILLIAM A. CHAMBERS, 0000
EARL S. CHASE, 0000
MARYANN H. CHISHOLM, 0000
LOUIS E. CHRISTENSEN, 0000
STEPHEN M. CLARK, 0000
THERESA R. CLARK, 0000
GARY H. COLE, 0000
LEROY M. COLEMAN, 0000
LANSEN P. CONLEY, 0000
CURTIS L. COOK, 0000
MICHAEL R. COOK, 0000
STEPHEN R. COOPER, 0000
STEVE C. COPPINGER, 0000
KEVIN J. CORCORAN, 0000
REBECCA L. CORDER, 0000
IVAN A. CORRETJER, 0000
ANDREW H. COX, 0000
CHARLES G. CRAWFORD, 0000
JERRY L. CRISSMAN, 0000
THOMAS CRONIN, 0000
THOMAS L. CULLEN, 0000
JOAN M. CUNNINGHAM, 0000
PATRICK R. DALY, 0000
ROBERT J. DAMICO, 0000
RICHARD C. DAVIDAGE, 0000
RUSSELL J. DELUCA, 0000
JOSEPH F. DENT, 0000
LANSING E. DICKINSON, 0000
THERESA C. DIRESTA, 0000
* KATHLEEN DOBBS, 0000
MARK J. DONAHUE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER R. DOOLEY, 0000
DANIEL L. DUNAWAY, 0000
BRUCE A. DUNCAN, 0000
KEVIN W. DUNLEAVY, 0000
JOHN A. DYER, 0000
JOHN C. DYMOND, 0000
ROBERT E. EAST, 0000
ALAN C. EKREM, 0000
MICHAEL S. ENNIS, 0000
SANDRA J. EVANS, 0000
DAVID E. EVERHART, 0000
PETER R. FABER, 0000
IVETTE FALTOHECK, 0000
ESKER J. FARRIS III, 0000
JOHN M. FAULKNER, 0000
ROBERT A. FEDERICO, 0000
TERRENCE A. FEEHAN, 0000
NATHAN S. FELDMAN, 0000
LESTER C. FERGUSON, 0000
ERIC E. FIEL, 0000
DAVID B. FILIPPI, 0000
DANIEL B. FINCHER, 0000
MICHAEL J. FINNEGAN, 0000
MARVIN N. FISHER, 0000
PHILIP B. FITZJARRELL, 0000
RODNEY S. FITZPATRICK, 0000
WILLIAM D. FOOTE, 0000
JAMES A. FORREST, 0000
THOMAS L. FOSSEN, 0000
MARK P. FOSTER, 0000
CRAIG A. FRANKLIN, 0000
DOUGLAS W. FREEMAN, 0000
MICHAEL J. FULLER, 0000
HENRY B. GAITHER, JR., 0000
DAVID M. GALLAGHER, 0000
FRANK GALLEGOS, 0000
MARK E. GARRARD, 0000
LAWRENCE D. GARRISON, JR., 0000
JUNE T. GAVRON, 0000
RICHARD E. GEARING, 0000
FREDERICK R. GEBHART, JR., 0000
DONALD A. GEMEINHARDT, 0000
JOHN M. GIBBONS, 0000
MICHAEL H. GILBERT, 0000
WILL WARNER GILDNER, JR., 0000
DAVID S. GILLETTE, 0000
TOMMY L. GILMORE, 0000
WALTER D. GIVHAN, 0000
CHRISTOPHER L. GLAZE, 0000
SALLY A. GLOVER, 0000
ANTHONY GOINS, 0000
DAVID L. GOLDFEIN, 0000
MARK L. GOSLIN, 0000
STEPHEN K. GOURLEY, 0000
CHRISTOPHER C. GRADY, 0000
PETER W. GRAY, 0000
WILLIAM E. GRAY III, 0000
CHARLES R. GREENWAY, 0000
BRENDA JEAN GREGORY, 0000
JACK I. GREGORY, JR., 0000
JOHN P. GRIMES, JR., 0000
ALAN S. GROSS, 0000
WILLIAM A. GROVES, 0000

[[Page 27061]]

THOMAS A. GROZNIK, 0000
RUSSELL R. GRUNCH, 0000
LARRY K. GRUNDHAUSER, 0000
SCOTT L. GRUNWALD, 0000
W. MICHAEL GUILLOT, 0000
KURT D. HACKMEIER, 0000
ERNIE H. HAENDSCHKE, 0000
ROBERT C. HALBERT, 0000
JAMES H. HALL, 0000
THOMAS M. HAMILTON, 0000
GLENN T. HANBEY, 0000
THOMAS S. HANCOCK, 0000
DAVID A. HANDLE, 0000
LEE ANN J. HARFORD, 0000
THOMAS E. HARMAN, JR., 0000
DONALD L. HARPER, 0000
MICHAEL E. HARRIS, 0000
CAROL LINDA HATTRUP, 0000
JOHN L. HAYES, 0000
DOUGLAS C. HAYNER, 0000
PETER J. HEINZ, 0000
STEPHEN R. HILDENBRANDT, 0000
JOHN A. HILL, 0000
WANDA G. HILL, 0000
STEVEN S. HINES, 0000
TOMMY D. HIXON, 0000
STEVEN E. HOARN, 0000
BRIAN P. HOEY, 0000
ROBERT M. HOGAN, 0000
LYNN M. HOLLERBACH, 0000
BRIAN J. HOPKINS, 0000
SCOTT J. HOROWITZ, 0000
ROY E. HORTON III, 0000
CHARLES L. HOWE, 0000
ROMAN N. HRYCAJ, 0000
WILLIAM S. HUGGINS, 0000
THOMAS E. HULL, 0000
BARNEY G. HULSEY, 0000
RICK D. HUSBAND, 0000
JAMES W. HYATT, 0000
JOHN L. INSPRUCKER III, 0000
JACK M. IVY, JR., 0000
LAWRENCE M. JACKSON II, 0000
STEPHEN M. JAMES, 0000
DEBRA J. JATTAR, 0000
DENNIS P. JEANES, 0000
JOHN D. JOGERST, 0000
HARVEY D. JOHNSON, 0000
JEFFREY S. JOHNSON, 0000
KENNETH RAY JOHNSON, 0000
LAFAE JOHNSON, 0000
LARRY JOHNSON, 0000
LOUIS M. JOHNSON, JR., 0000
DANIEL K. JONES, 0000
DAVID T. JONES, 0000
NOEL T. JONES, 0000
DAVID G. JOWERS, 0000
DONALD JUREWICZ, 0000
GEORGE KAILIWAI III, 0000
MICHAEL S. KALNA, 0000
PATRICK C. KEATING, 0000
EDMOND B. KEITH, 0000
CALVIN L. KELLAM, 0000
WAYNE H. KELLENBENCE, 0000
THOMAS G. KELLER, 0000
STEVEN P. KELLEY, 0000
JOHN E. KELLOGG, 0000
DAVID A. KELLY, 0000
PETER M. KICZA, JR., 0000
KATHLEEN D. KIEVER, 0000
CRAIG L. KIMBERLIN, 0000
BRIAN C. KING, 0000
LAWRENCE S. KINGSLEY, 0000
TERRY J. KINNEY, 0000
MARK E. KIPPHUT, 0000
ALLEN KIRKMAN, JR., 0000
DANIEL R. KIRKPATRICK, 0000
FRANK J. KISNER, 0000
LINDA C. KISNER, 0000
BARRY D. KISTLER, 0000
KENNETH P. KNAPP, 0000
JAMES S. KNOX, JR., 0000
MARYANNE KOLESAR, 0000
THOMAS J. KOPF, 0000
ROBERT D. KOPP, 0000
MICHAEL C. KOSTER, 0000
DOUGLAS E. KREULEN, 0000
MICHAEL J. KRIMMER, 0000
BARBARA J. KUENNECKE, 0000
WILLIAM R. KUNZWEILER, 0000
FRANCIS J. LAMIR, 0000
ROCCO J. LAMURO, 0000
JOSEPH A. LANNI, 0000
JOHN K. LARNED, 0000
JULIAN A. LASSITER, JR., 0000
MICHAEL B. LEAHY, 0000
DAVID B. LEE, 0000
JAMES G. LEE, 0000
MICHAEL D. LEE, 0000
DOUGLAS R. LENGENFELDER, 0000
DANIEL P. LENTZ, 0000
LINDA L. LEONG, 0000
JEFFREY L. LEPTRONE, 0000
JAMES K. LEVAN, 0000
RUSSELL V. LEWEY, 0000
SAMUEL A. LIBURDI, 0000
JAMES M. LIEPMAN, JR., 0000
KERRIE G. LINDBERG, 0000
GWEN M. LINDE, 0000
BLAKE F. LINDNER, 0000
STEPHEN S. LISI, 0000
CRAIG Z. LOWERY, 0000
GREGORY E. LOWRIMORE, 0000
DONNA J. LUCCHESE, 0000
CHARLES D. LUTES, 0000
CHARLES W. LYON, 0000
JAMES E. MACKIN, 0000
STEVEN A. MAC LAIRD, 0000
OTIS G. MANNON, 0000
JOHN D. MANZI, 0000
ROBERT T. MARLIN, 0000
JOANNE W. MARTIN, 0000
LEEROY A. MARTIN, 0000
SUSAN K. MASHIKO, 0000
THOMAS J. MASIELLO, 0000
ROBERT J. MATTES, 0000
ANTHONY M. MAUER, 0000
BRIAN K. MAZERSKI, 0000
STEVEN A. MC CAIN, 0000
JAMES R. MC CLENDON, 0000
KEITH J. MC DONALD, 0000
KYMBERLE G. MC ELWEE, 0000
GORDON B. MC KAY, 0000
STEPHEN E. MC KEAG, 0000
JOHN A. MEDLIN, 0000
GARY M. MELCHOR, 0000
KENNETH D. MERCHANT, 0000
ALMA J. MILLER, 0000
DWIGHT J. MILLER, 0000
JOHN B. MILLER, 0000
WILLIAM S. MILLER, 0000
DAVID L. MINTZ, 0000
EMMETT J. MITCHELL, 0000
RONALD T. MITTENZWEI, 0000
RICHARD L. MODELL, 0000
MICHAEL R. MOELLER, 0000
GRACE A. MOORE, 0000
TIMOTHY B. MOORE, 0000
GREGORY L. MORGAN, 0000
MARK A. MORRIS, 0000
DAVID R. MORTE, 0000
ALPHRONZO MOSELEY, 0000
JOHN R. MOULTON II, 0000
PATRICK D. MULLEN, 0000
JUDYANN L. MUNLEY, 0000
MICHAEL D. MURPHY, 0000
CHARLES H. MURRAY, 0000
MICHAEL J. MUZINICH, 0000
ROC A. MYERS, 0000
DALE A. NAGY, 0000
LOUIS J. NEELEY, 0000
RONALD R. NEWSOM, 0000
DAVID C. NICHOLS, 0000
ARTHUR J. NILSEN, 0000
RANDALL L. NOCERA, 0000
MICHAEL P. NORRIS, 0000
THOMAS R. O BOYLE, 0000
IAN P. O CONNELL, 0000
CHRISTOPHER E. O HARA, 0000
KIMBERLY D. OLSON, 0000
KENNETH D. ORBAN, 0000
WILLIAM E. ORR, JR., 0000
KAREN E. OSBORN, 0000
BENJAMIN F. OSLER, 0000
JERRY W. PADGETT, 0000
DONALD M. PALANDECH, 0000
WILLIAM G. PALMBY, 0000
THOMAS R. PALMER, 0000
CURTIS J. PAPKE, 0000
TERESA A. PARKER, 0000
MICHAEL F. PASQUIN, 0000
EDWARD G. PATRICK, 0000
MARTIN G. PEAVYHOUSE, 0000
DAVID T. PETERS, 0000
HORACE D. PHILLIPS, 0000
ROBERT F. PIACINE, 0000
LAWRENCE E. PITTS, 0000
KATHLEEN E. PIVARSKY, 0000
JAMES L. PLAYFORD, 0000
RODNEY C. POHLMANN, 0000
WILLIAM G. POLOWITZER III, 0000
HARRY D. POLUMBO, JR., 0000
GREGORY M. POSTULKA, 0000
BRIAN E. POWERS, 0000
STEVEN R. PREBECK, 0000
KENNETH G. PRICE, 0000
TERRY G. PRICER, 0000
THOMAS A. PRIOR, 0000
ROBIN RAND, 0000
RICHARD A. RANKIN, 0000
RICHARD L. REASER, JR., 0000
WILLIAM C. REDMOND, 0000
WILLIAM B. REMBER, 0000
JEFFREY N. RENEHAN, 0000
MICHAEL L. RHODES, 0000
MARK H. RICHARDSON III, 0000
CLYDE E. RIDDLE, 0000
JAMES RIGGINS, 0000
JOSEPH R. RINE, JR., 0000
ALBERT A. RINGGENBERG, 0000
ROGER E. ROBB, 0000
JAMES L. RODGERS, 0000
JOSE R. RODRIGUEZ, 0000
JOHN P. ROGERS, JR., 0000
ANTHONY F. ROMANO, 0000
STEVEN E. ROSS, 0000
SUSAN C. ROSS, 0000
JAMES E. ROWLAND, 0000
CHRISTOPHER W. ROY, 0000
PHILIP M. RUHLMAN, 0000
DAVID L. RUSSELL, 0000
TIMOTHY P. RYAN, 0000
PETER J. RYNER, 0000
DAVID W. SCEARSE, 0000
ROWAYNE A. SCHATZ, JR., 0000
WAYNE A. SCHIEFER, 0000
THOMAS J.C. SCHRADER, 0000
HELEN K. SCHREUR, 0000
LANCE J. SCHULTZ, 0000
GREGORY A. SCHULZE, 0000
STEVEN J. SCHUMACHER, 0000
SAMUEL C. SEAGER, JR., 0000
JOSEPH K. SEAWELL, 0000
CRAIG M. SEEBER, 0000
SCOTT V. SELLS, 0000
CHARLES S. SHAW, 0000
PATRICK J. SHEETS, 0000
FRANCIS E. SHELLEY, JR., 0000
LYN D. SHERLOCK, 0000
JOHN J. SHIVNEN, 0000
JERRY I. SIEGEL, 0000
LARRY G. SILLS, 0000
ROBERT F. SIMMONS, 0000
DARRELL L. SIMS, 0000
KIMBERLY A. SINISCALCHI, 0000
J. TAYLOR SINK, 0000
LISA S. SKOPAL, 0000
AUSTON E. SMITH, 0000
CRAIG A. SMITH, 0000
DAVID G. SMITH, 0000
KENNETH R. SMITH, 0000
RICHARD E. SMITH, 0000
MARVIN T. SMOOT, JR., 0000
DAVID E. SNODGRASS, 0000
GARY W. SNYDER, 0000
JEFFREY M. SNYDER, 0000
ROBIN A. SNYDER, 0000
JOSEPH SOKOL, JR., 0000
MARY A. SOLANO, 0000
PAUL W. SOMERS, 0000
THOMAS L. SORRELL, 0000
DAVID A. SOWINSKI, 0000
JOSEPH W. SPALVIERO, 0000
STEVEN J. SPANO, 0000
DAVID A. SPATARO, 0000
ERNEST E. SPECK, JR., 0000
STEPHEN M. SPENCE, 0000
MICHAEL W. SPENCER, 0000
RITA A. SPRINGER, 0000
DAVID E. SPROWLS, 0000
RAINER P. STACHOWITZ, 0000
JEFFREY E. STAMBAUGH, 0000
MARK E. STEBLIN, 0000
DANNY STEELE, 0000
MARK D. STEPHEN, 0000
BRET STEVENS, 0000
MOSES STEWART, JR., 0000
CHARLES W. STILES, 0000
PAUL M. STIPE, 0000
DANIEL L. STOKES, 0000
BRYANT B. STREETT, 0000
JAMES P. STURCH, 0000
JONATHAN P. SUNRAY, 0000
SHELBY L. SYCKES, 0000
CLARENCE E. TAYLOR, JR, 0000
GLENN E. TAYLOR, 0000
KAREN A. TAYLOR, 0000
NELSON W. TAYLOR IV, 0000
LAURIE R. TERNES, 0000
TOMMY T. THOMAS, 0000
DAVID J. THOMPSON, 0000
JACKIE R. TILLERY, 0000
RANDY J. TIMMONS, 0000
GEORGE A. TIRABASSI, JR., 0000
ROBERT W. TIREVOLD, 0000
DAVID A. TOM, 0000
GREGORY J. TOUHILL, 0000
GAYLEN L. TOVREA, 0000
CHARLES G.C. TREADWAY, 0000
KENNETH G. TRUESDALE, 0000
ALEXANDER TRUJILLO, 0000
MARION D. TUNSTALL, 0000
SUSAN J. VOVERIS, 0000
BRIAN M. WAECHTER, 0000
KEITH J. WAGNER, 0000
GUY M. WALSH, 0000
LEROY L. WALTERS, 0000
JOHN E. WARD, JR., 0000
GRACE Q. WASHBURN, 0000
KENNETH R. WAVERING, 0000
DANNY W. WEBB, 0000
JEFFERY B. WEBB, 0000
RICHARD D. WEBSTER, 0000
DONALD C. WECKHORST, 0000
RANDALL S. WEIDENHEIMER, 0000
PHILIP D. WEINBERG, 0000
STEPHEN J. WERNER, 0000
LEE M. WETZELL, 0000
JAMES F. WHIDDEN II, 0000
ARVIL E. WHITE III, 0000
CRAIG C. WHITEHEAD, 0000
KENNETH E. WIECHERT, 0000
KEITH M. WILKINSON, 0000
KEVIN E. WILLIAMS, 0000
ROBERT D. WINIECKI, 0000
JAMES R. WISE, 0000
RICHARD B. WITT, 0000
JOHN M. WOHLEBER II, 0000
GAIL E. WOJTOWICZ, 0000
KRISTAN J.T. WOLF, 0000
GARY R. WOLTERING, 0000
JEFFREY A. WORTHING, 0000
NEIL R. WYSE, 0000
THOMAS D. YANNI, 0000
LANCE S. YOUNG, 0000
MICHAEL A. ZENK, 0000
ROBERT H. ZIELINSKI, 0000
ANTHONY E. ZOMPETTI, 0000
THOMAS J. ZUZACK, 0000

THE FOLLOWING NAMED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED
STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE
RESERVE OF THE ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203
AND 12211:

To be colonel

JOEL R. RHOADES, 0000

[[Page 27062]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

October 27, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, October 27, 1999

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

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

Washington, DC,

October 27, 1999.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Thomas e. Petri to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PRAYER

The Reverend Dr. George Gray Toole, Towson Presbyterian Church,
Baltimore, Maryland, offered the following prayer:
O God, be with our representatives as they govern this Nation. Great
and broad are their responsibilities and enough to tax any human being.
Without Your guidance, they are at a disadvantage, for who can rightly
judge between so many issues and events. Surrounded by those vying for
one action over another, it can be so difficult to decide which path to
follow. When pressures increase, calm them with Your peace. When
confusion builds, grant them Your wisdom. With integrity grounded in
allegiance to You, lead them in paths that confirm their best efforts,
so that peace, justice and the welfare of all people may be the product
of their work. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

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

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. CARDIN 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.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms. McDevitt, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a joint
resolution and a concurrent resolution of the House of the following
titles:

H.J. Res. 62. Joint resolution to grant the consent of
Congress to the boundary change between Georgia and South
Carolina.
H. Con. Res. 196. Concurrent Resolution permitting the use
of the Rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the
Congressional Gold Medal to President and Mrs. Gerald R.
Ford.

The message also announced that the Senate has passed bills of the
following titles in which concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 1235. An act to amend part G of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow railroad
police officers to attend the Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Academy for law enforcement training.
S. 1485. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and
retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by
citizens of the United States.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize 15 one-minutes from
each side.

____________________

WELCOME TO THE REVEREND DR. GEORGE GRAY TOOLE

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to welcome Dr. George
Toole as our guest chaplain today. He is here along with his wife,
Donna. We are certainly honored to have him here with us. He is the
senior minister at the Towson Presbyterian Church in Maryland.
His parents were Scottish immigrants. They loved their new country.
His father attempted to enlist in the Navy during World War II but was
told he was too old. That did not stop his father. He tried two other
times and finally was allowed to enlist in the Navy just before the
statutory age limit and served his Nation, his new Nation, with
distinction because of his love of our Nation. It was that inspiration
that has led Dr. Toole to his public service.
Dr. Toole has been very active in community service. In New York as a
police commissioner, he helped successfully to convince an armed
individual to release his spouse in a hostage situation. And in
Maryland he is a familiar face in community service.
We thank Dr. Toole for his public service and for being with us
today.
This is a great honor for me to follow Dr. George Toole, the senior
minister at Towson Presbyterian Church, one of Maryland's finer
churches. Before I begin, I would also like to recognize Dr. Toole's
wonderful wife, Donna, who is in the gallery today.
Dr. Toole tells me this is a great day for his family. After hearing
his father's story you will understand why.
You see, his parents were Scottish immigrants who fell in love with
their new country. So much so that when World War II rolled around, Dr.
Toole's father wanted to give back to the country that had opened up a
new life of freedom for him and his family. ``This is my country and I
owed her,'' he later explained to his son. He went to enlist in the
Navy.
But there were a few small problems. Dr. Toole's father was 38 years
old. He had a wife. And he had two sons. The U.S. Navy said thanks, but
no thanks.
But that didn't stop the elder Toole. Remember: ``This is my country
and I owed her.'' So Dr. Toole's father waited and tried again. Same
response, thanks but no thanks.
They say the third time's the charm. That certainly proved true in
this case. Two weeks before the absolute age disqualification date for
service in the Armed Forces, Pentagon brass relented and allowed Dr.
Toole's father to join the Navy. He served proudly in the South Pacific
and Dr. Toole tells me the younger men on-board his ship called him
``Pop.'' If he treated them half as well as he treated his son who is
here with us today, they were probably some happy sailors.
Dr. Toole tells this story as a way of demonstrating what a
difference it made to have such a caring and patriotic father. It
probably goes a long way to explaining why the Baltimore County Police
recognized Ensign Toole's son, today's guest chaplain, several years
ago for bravery and community service. Dr. Toole, a former police
commissioner in Bath, NY, spent over 4 hours negotiating with an armed
man who had taken his wife hostage in their home. The man had been to a
service at Dr. Toole's church a few days before the incident and told
the police this was the only person he would talk to.
Just like his father refused to give up on the Navy, Dr. Toole
refused to give up on this distraught man. The man eventually gave up
his gun and released his wife. We are a better country for both of
these refusals. Thank you for your remarks today, Dr. Toole, and please
keep up the good work in Towson.

____________________

[[Page 27063]]

REPUBLICAN VIEW ON SOCIAL SECURITY

(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, like the dawn of a new day we should all be
pleased that the President has finally come around to seeing the
Republican point of view that we should not spend one penny on other
government programs from our Social Security trust fund. At the
beginning of this year, the President wanted to spend billions of
Social Security tax dollars on some big government programs, and I
think today is real progress. However, I am concerned that instead of
helping us cut bloated Federal bureaucracies to balance the Federal
budget, the President wants to increase taxes on working Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the American people are taxed enough. It
has only been through our hard work that the Federal budget is now
balanced. There is no reason for us to raise one penny on the backs of
lower and middle income families to pay for bigger Federal Government.
That would be wrong for our hardworking families and for America. I
urge the Democratic leadership to drop their plans to raise taxes on
working Americans and join us in a bipartisan effort to balance the
budget without using Social Security.
I yield back the balance of my time and the President's proposal to
raise taxes on Americans.

____________________

REGARDING H.R. 2260, PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT

(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. ``Do no harm'' is a tenet that underlies the practice of
medicine in America. But despite the system we have, the great system
for training, licensure, the safeguards that are built in, occasionally
someone incompetent, or in this case a group of people totally
unqualified in the practice of medicine, does harm to an individual
patient or a group of patients.
Today, the United States Congress wishes under the leadership of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to irrevocably change end-of-life
pain care in America. On the one hand the bill that will come up today
says you can aggressively treat pain at the end of life even if it
causes death, but the other section of the bill says if a death results
in the aggressive management of pain, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, that well-known bastion of medical lore, will determine
the intent of the physician who provided that prescription after the
fact. This is an extraordinary intrusion not only into States' rights
but into the practice of medicine. Inserting the Drug Enforcement
Administration into the patient-doctor relationship is outrageous and
it will set back pain management for decades in this country.

____________________

LOCKBOX HELD HOSTAGE

(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, if you turn on the television networks
tonight, you will see a new broadcast season under way. There are new
shows and new stars on old shows. TV fans had a long wait for a new
season, more than 4 months of summer reruns. American seniors have had
a long wait as well, a long wait for Congress to implement the lockbox
protection for their Social Security. This body passed the lockbox bill
on May 26, 153 days ago. Since that time, the other body has failed to
act. Every attempt to bring the Social Security lockbox up for a vote
has fallen victim to a filibuster threat. For 140 days, the minority
party in the other body has held the lockbox bill hostage. That is long
enough. This year's fight to stop the raid on Social Security proves
our seniors need and deserve lockbox protection for their Social
Security. Let us free the Social Security lockbox bill. One hundred
forty days held hostage is long enough.

____________________

HURRICANE FLOYD

(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the cameras have gone, the news stories
have ended, but for the people of eastern North Carolina, the misery
and the suffering as a result of Hurricane Floyd is just beginning. The
lives of thousands have been disturbed, disrupted and disordered. More
than anything, what is now needed is help and hope for those storm-torn
communities.
We expect to provide some of that help on Saturday, November 6. On
that day, buses will be leaving Capitol Hill for a morning and
afternoon of cleanup and an evening rally. We will help our fellow
citizens prepare their homes and their communities for rebuilding, and
we will join later then to urge them to hold on, to have a sense of
hope. I invite my colleagues to go, to get on the bus with us. And if
my colleagues are willing to lend their hands, their hearts and their
support, I kindly request that they call my office, and I will be glad
to provide them the information.

____________________

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE TO HOLD HEARING TO INVESTIGATE
INVOLVEMENT OF CASTRO REGIME IN TORTURING OF POWS

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International
Relations will hold a hearing to investigate the involvement of the
Castro regime in the torturing of American prisoners of war in North
Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. The atrocities committed by Castro's men in a
prison camp known as ``the Zoo'' resulted in the death of Air Force
Captain Earl Cobeil, one of the 19 POWs held captive there. The family
of Captain Cobeil and the other POW airmen who were part of what was
later called the Cuba Program deserve that their government do
everything it can to bring the guilty individuals to justice. This
hearing is an essential step in the probe and should pave the way for
additional investigations by the Department of Defense, the FBI and
other Federal agencies.
I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his
tremendous support during the preliminary phase of this investigation.
There should be no statute of limitations when it comes to bringing to
justice international war criminals who brutally abused our U.S.
military officers. I thank the gentleman from New York for his decision
to hold this important hearing. It is a testament to his leadership and
to his character.

____________________

BRING OLD RELIABLE BACK TO ITS PROPER THRONE

(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, a 1992 law designed to save water said
that the old standard 3\1/2\ gallon toilet must be replaced with a 1\1/
2\ gallon streamlined job. It sounds good, but Americans have been
flushing away ever since. It has gotten so bad there is now a black
market on old reliables. It is no joke. Americans are getting potty
fatigue flushing their own toilet.
If that is not enough, Members of the other side, to squeeze your
Charmin, if you get caught flushing an old reliable in your own home,
it is a $2,500 fine.
Beam me up here. I say the nincompoop over at EPA who suggested this
policy should go to a proctologist for a brain scan. Flush this.
I yield back all the constipation over this issue and urge us to
bring old reliable back to its appropriate throne.

____________________

REPUBLICANS DELIVER ON PROMISE TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY

(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, I do not understand our friends on the other
side of the aisle. They come down here with a phony number saying that
Republicans are dipping into the Social Security trust fund by $13
billion. That is

[[Page 27064]]

not true, and they know it. Because if it were true, the Democrats
would be down here trying to cut $13 billion from the budget to save
Social Security. But they are not. Instead, they are actually
criticizing us for not spending more money.
So here is the position of our friends on the other side of the aisle
in a nutshell. On the one hand, they say we are spending $13 billion
more than we should. On the other hand, they are saying we should be
spending more. How is that for consistency?
Mr. Speaker, when this process is over, it will be clear to all that
we Republicans have delivered on our promise to protect Social Security
from being raided by our big-spending friends on the other side of the
aisle.

____________________

UNMASK THE GOP

(Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as we near Halloween weekend, it is clear
that the GOP has put on its mask and is ready for a masquerade ball
where they can pretend to be who they are not. But masks come off at
the end of the ball and will reveal that the true face of the GOP is
one of hypocrisy.
Fortunately, unlike the GOP, the Democratic face is that of the
American people. The Democratic face wants a budget that protects
Social Security and pays our national debt, a prescription drug policy
that provides prescription drugs for those who cannot afford them,
100,000 new teachers, 50,000 more police to combat crime.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats understand as lawmakers, we are a
reflection of the American people and should not attempt to alter that
mirror image. And so I urge the GOP to leave their mask at home and try
to wear the face of the American people.

____________________

VOTE ``YES'' TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY

(Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, day after day Members of both
political parties have come to this floor and said that we must not
invade the Social Security trust fund to spend on other programs. I
have been among those. The President stood in this Chamber in the 1998
State of the Union Address and said, ``Let's put aside 100 percent of
Social Security for Social Security.'' I applauded those remarks at the
time. But then the President sent proposal after proposal to this floor
to spend those funds. When he did that, he was wrong and I stood
against him.
In the next few days, every Member of this Chamber is going to have
an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.
The rubber is about to meet the road. In order to avoid spending part
of Social Security, we are going to have to cut back a little bit on
the spending bills. It is about 1 percent, more or less. The American
people are going to be watching, because it is a simple test. If you
are prepared to make the tough choice that is going to be required to
protect Social Security, then you will vote ``yes.'' But if your pledge
to protect Social Security has been nothing but hollow rhetoric, then
you are probably going to find some reason to vote ``no.'' It is all
boiling down to this one vote.
I am going to stand with America's seniors. I am going to stand with
the folks who pay the Social Security taxes. I am going to fight for
Social Security. I am going to vote ``yes.'' America is going to be
watching.

____________________

{time} 1015

PRIVACY

(Mr. LUTHER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, financial services modernization legislation
has emerged from conference committee, but unfortunately it lacks
provisions that allow American consumers to keep financial institutions
from distributing their personal private financial information. The
bill is so riddled with loopholes that it would actually permit the
telemarketing practice that outraged citizens in my home State of
Minnesota and that our Attorney General Mike Hatch stopped.
It did not need to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Financial institutions
need to move into the next century, but not at the expense of the
American people, and we are here to represent the American people. It
is not too much to ask that these institutions in the wake of an
unprecedented opportunity to profit, that they respect their customers'
privacy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Americans to contact their representatives in
Congress and to stop this bill from passing.

____________________

WHITE HOUSE AND DEMOCRAT MINORITY NEED TO PUT THE BRAKES ON RUNAWAY
SPENDING

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, just so there is no misunderstanding about
what is really going on here, let us review for a moment tax cuts.
President Clinton and his liberal Democrat allies in the Congress has
seen to it that working American families will not receive one red cent
in tax reductions next year.
Spending cuts.
The President and his liberal friends here in the Congress have
fought fiscal restraint at every turn. The President has vetoed
spending bills because they spent too little, and the Democratic
leadership here in the Congress has advocated even more pork barrel
spending and more foreign aid spending, even at the expense of the
Social Security Trust Fund.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the White House and the liberal
Democratic minority in the Congress to put working Americans first for
a change. It is time to put the brakes on runaway spending. It is time
the President put the veto pen away and quit raiding the Social
Security Trust Fund.

____________________

UNMASKING THE FAULTY RHETORIC

(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, let us really unmask the Republican
rhetoric. They can repeat over and over again that they are not
spending the Social Security surplus, but let me just say this: we
could put wheels on my grandmother, but we would not make her a wagon.
I mean this is unbelievable; it is unimaginable what they are talking
about here.
Mr. Speaker, their own accounting office, the Congressional Budget
Office, has said that their budget spends $13 billion from the Social
Security Trust Fund. Instead of trying to strengthen Social Security,
protect it for the future and not spend it, they are in fact at this
moment deep into the Social Security surplus.
As my colleagues know, the baby boomers are going to retire soon. We
need a strong Social Security system for those people who are enjoying
it today and for those who need to have it for the future.
The budget that the Republican leadership has prepared does not allow
for that reality, so we need to call this for what it is. I will tell
my colleagues what they are doing. Not only are they spending our
savings, they are doing it with projects that are out of step with the
public priorities. They spend billions of dollars on military projects
that the Pentagon does not want. They give billions to the corporate
oil and gas industry.
Let us unmask this faulty rhetoric.

____________________

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT

(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, again my colleague from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro), to put it charitably, is confused. See, one of the oldest
Washington tricks is to send the budgeteers

[[Page 27065]]

a letter with false assumptions to get a false result. In the real
world that is called garbage in, garbage out.
Now to the gentlewoman and the rest of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, we
do not propose to put wheels on anyone's grandma and take away their
Social Security. Now that has been, sadly, standard operating procedure
when the free spenders were in charge of this institution; but on the
contrary, Mr. Speaker, what we propose is a 1 percent solution.
Observe, Mr. Speaker, one penny, one cent, made, no doubt, with fine
Arizona copper in part, and what we propose, Mr. Speaker, is to take
one penny out of every dollar of discretionary spending. That way we
balance the books; that way we preserve the Social Security Trust Fund.
No, we do not want to see grandma sold down the river or any
American. We will stop the raid. We have done so, and we dare not turn
back now. Responsibility, credibility, and the future is the key to
success, and we will do it.

____________________

FAILED POLICY IN AFRICA

(Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, America is supposed to be a force for good
in the world, but with our failed policy in Africa I am beginning to
wonder if that is really so. How can a mother allow the world's
children to be offered up as the most innocent victims of U.S. foreign
policy?
Madeleine Albright's first stop in Africa was a stark example of our
continued failure on that continent. It was U.S. policy to do nothing
to help the fledgling democracy of Sierra Leone. Only after that policy
became a shameful embarrassment, the U.S. brokered the peace that gave
important ministries in government to rebels whose hallmark was to rape
little girls and chop off their arms.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a share in government for rapists and
mutilators is in Albright's own words the necessary price of peace,
just like 5,000 dead kids a month in Iraq. After standing in line to
shake hands with the victims of her do - nothing - to - help - when - a
- little - help - can - make - a - difference policy, Albright
remarked, ``It's hard to extend your hand to shake hands with people
who don't have hands.''
Mr. Speaker, the President has allowed his Africa policy to become
insensitive, uncaring, and shameful.

____________________

RENAMING FEDERAL BUILDINGS

(Mr. TANCREDO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have been here, I have
witnessed several things and heard many statements that I can only
characterize or that can only be characterized as at least audacious;
but nothing to date has been more audacious than the recent attempt to
name buildings after present Members of Congress. If this trend
continues, Mr. Speaker, we may find ourselves debating issues such as
this in this great building but having it renamed after one of our more
powerful Members. So I ask my colleagues in both the House and Senate
to take a step back, take a deep breath and ask themselves the honest
question of whether they truly feel they are deserving of the honor of
having their names forever etched on the side of Federal property.
I feel that the opportunity to impact the lives of our constituents
every day is honor enough for one's entire life, and I will today
introduce legislation to end attempts to immortalize one's self while
serving in this body.

____________________

SOCIAL SECURITY IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD

(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe in Social Security; and
when we look at it, when we look at the legislation, we got to make
sure we address the needs of those senior citizens that we have in this
country. We also need to make sure that we address the baby boomers as
they come up in this.
And as we also look at that piece of legislation, as we look at what
we are doing out here, we need to also make sure that we take care of
the ``baby echo,'' those youngsters that are beginning to pay Social
Security and those youngsters are beginning to work out there. It is
important for us to do that.
As we also look at what Social Security has done in this country, a
lot of Americans out there who work saw that they have. My dad worked
for over 35 years in a company, and after all was said and done, the
only thing he had was Social Security. Social Security, there are 12
million senior citizens who only receive that, and that is what keeps
them out of poverty. There are over 800,000 youngsters that also fall
under the Social Security that are also taken care of. Many Americans,
especially women and minorities, do not have the jobs that provide the
retirement and disability benefits. For them Social Security is the
only thing they have. So it is important for us to stop playing games
and to make sure we take care of Social Security.

____________________

PASS THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this week the Senate is considering a bill
that we passed out of this House in July. It is called the Africa
growth and opportunity act, and this act says that the United States is
not giving up on Africa, that there is a real need, a real opportunity,
to bring Africa into the world economy. The Africa bill is an important
step in promoting Africa's development, and it is good for America too
to open these markets in Africa, to open these export markets for the
United States.
Trade between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa has been growing for
the last several years. We now have 100,000 U.S. jobs involved in
exports to Africa at this time, and this bill is also good for my home
State of California which is number five in exporting to Africa. We now
take more of our oil from Africa than we do from the Persian Gulf, and
this Africa bill is the most important trade legislation to pass this
House in 5 years. It would be a major accomplishment if signed into
law.
Mr. Speaker, let us export the free market to Africa. It is a win for
Africa and a win for America.

____________________

SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

(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 following my colleague from
Arizona on a regular basis here on our 1-minutes. Let me give some
statistics that we are talking about when we are really talking about
saving Social Security: the amount of the Social Security surplus the
House Republicans have already dipped into, $14 billion; the amount of
Social Security surplus House Republicans are on track to spend, $24
billion; amount by which the House Republican appropriations exceed the
President's request, $14 billion; the Republican leader who said he
never would have created Social Security, the majority leader, my
colleague from Texas (Mr. Armey); number of days the GOP budget tax
plan would extend the life of Social Security, zero; the number of
years House Democratic budget would extend Social Security, 16 years;
total cost of the tax breaks that, thank goodness, the President vetoed
was a trillion dollars, and that would have even been worse on Social
Security.
Let me tell my colleagues what we need to do. We need to add more
teachers to our classroom, more police officers to our streets and the
number of military personnel who would be cut by the Republican-
proposed 1.4 percent budget would be 39,000 military personnel.

____________________

[[Page 27066]]

REPUBLICANS HAVE A BETTER IDEA

(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, I guess it is true what they
say about old dogs. No matter how hard we try sometimes, we just cannot
teach them new tricks. So when we try to stop the people who have been
raiding the Social Security Trust Fund from doing it any more, well,
that is a lot easier said than done. See, they have been using this
money to fund big government programs, and if we tell them they have
got to find one penny out of every Federal dollar to preserve Social
Security for America's retirees, that is a pretty tough trick for them.
The comments of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) tell us
just how hard a time the Democrats are having learning it when he says
that we should spend as little of the Social Security surplus as
possible. What he is really saying is let us spend as much of the
Social Security surplus as we want on the Federal bureaucracy, and if
there happens to be any money left, heck, we may as well give it back
to the people it belongs to.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a better idea: stop the raid first.
Strengthening retirement security must be a top priority, not an
afterthought.

____________________

FIGHT FOR OUR SCHOOLS

(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is our sacred responsibility to
make sure that all of our children have an equal opportunity to learn.
But today I rise to express my deep concern that the Republican
leadership does not share this commitment. While Democrats have been
working night and day to improve education, to put more teachers in our
schools and to reduce class sizes, the Republican leadership have been
trying to take money out of the schools and away from the majority of
this country's children.
The Republican plan is not just. The Republican plan is not right. We
should be building up our schools, not knocking them down. For the sake
of our children, all of our children, we must fight for our schools.

____________________

PRESIDENT SENDS PLAN ON SOCIAL SECURITY TO HOUSE

(Mr. OSE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me an
opportunity to stand before the forum this morning and express my
appreciation.

{time} 1030

For a number of days, I have been in the well seeking the President's
plan on Social Security, and I have, for 29 days, been tracking the
fact that, until yesterday afternoon, the President had not delivered a
plan.
While I am pleased to say that we have received a plan, it did just
come in yesterday afternoon, it is a very lengthy plan, it is filled
with many howevers, and whereases, and therefores, and thereases, and I
am working my way through it. But I did want to stand and express my
appreciation to the administration, Mr. Speaker, for having forwarded
the plan and to say that we will be reviewing it.
I hope it gets a fair hearing, and I am looking forward to the
dialogue as to the adequacy of the plan. So with that, Mr. Speaker,
this placard is no longer operative. Again, I thank the administration
for finally forwarding their plan.

____________________

SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

(Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, last night the President sent
Congress his legislative proposal, entitled Strengthen Social Security
and Medicare Act of 1999.
The President's plan would devote the entire Social Security
surpluses to debt reduction, extend the solvency of Social Security to
2050, and establish a Medicare surplus reserve equal to one-third of
any on-budget surpluses for the period of fiscal years 2002 through
2009 to strengthen and modernize Medicare.
I want to stress to my colleagues the urgency in discussing and
reaching a fair compromise on this proposal. If we do not, our
constituents will suffer and be caught in the middle of a partisan
battle, and I am very concerned.
In New York, Social Security benefits 2.3 million people who are
retired workers, disabled workers, widows and widowers, wives and
husbands, and over 247,000 children in New York receive Social Security
benefits. In my district, in southeastern Queens, 74,579 people receive
Social Security benefits, of which 9,000 of these individuals are
children.
We must preserve Social Security so that our constituents will have a
decent quality of life.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let's go Yankees.

____________________

CBO SAYS REPUBLICANS' PLAN DOES NOT SPEND SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS

(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, some of my friends on the other side of the
aisle are continuing to claim that the Republican Congress' spending
plan takes from the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, nothing
could be further from the truth.
The problem with the Democrat claim is that it is based on spending
assumptions that have never materialized. They simply do not exist.
Let me share with the House an updated letter, dated September 30,
1999, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It says, ``CBO
estimates that the Republicans' spending plan will not use any of the
projected Social Security surpluses in fiscal year 2000.''
The facts are clear, this Republican Congress is not and will not
spend the Social Security surplus.

____________________

STATE OF NORTHERN IRELAND

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, Senator George Mitchell resumes talks today
with pro Good Friday Agreement political leaders from Northern Ireland.
Since the Good Friday Agreement was signed on April 10, 1998, we have
seen some progress towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The
Patten Commission has issued its report on Policing in Northern Ireland
and the cease-fire has remained intact.
Despite these positive events, the agreement's foes have consistently
sought to delay and derail implementation of the Good Friday Agreement,
particularly David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.
The most recent effort to derail the peace process centers around the
debate on decommissioning. Even though the Good Friday Agreement
contains no provision that the IRA begin decommissioning before Sinn
Fein can take its place on the Executive Committee, First Minister and
UUP leader David Trimble has linked the two issues together in clear
violation of the Good Friday Agreement.
In the words of Mr. Adams, the Unionists need to ``get real'' and
enter into the power-sharing executive as called for under the
agreement. And Britain's new Secretary for Northern Ireland, Peter
Mandelson, has warned politicians, and I quote ``the people of Northern
Ireland will not forgive them if they put barriers in the way of
permanent peace.''
Mr. Speaker, if the Good Friday Agreement should fail, it may prove
disastrous for the peace process because there is no alternative.
It is a dangerous game the Unionists are playing with real lives at
stake. It is my hope, and that of so many Irish

Americans, that this game of brinkmanship by the Unionists will end
before it is too late for the Good Friday Agreement.

____________________

[[Page 27067]]

REPUBLICANS WANT 100 PERCENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY LOCKED UP

(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, many of my friends on the other side of
the aisle claim Republicans are spending Social Security money. They
support the President's plan, where the President said he wanted 100
percent in Social Security, then 3 weeks later he came back and said,
well, 60 percent in Social Security, 15 percent in Medicare.
What he does is take $466 billion out of Social Security and puts it
up here for new spending. He will not identify cuts. New spending. Then
he took $19 billion and put it up here for new spending.
We are saying no, put the 100 percent in Social Security, lock it up,
let it accrue interest. We will not only save Social Security and
Medicare forever, but that accrued interest also pays down the national
debt, in which we pay nearly a billion dollars a day.
I would ask of believability, fiscal conservative or liberal
Democrat, being fiscally conservative is an oxymoron.

____________________

REPUBLICANS WANT TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE 100 PERCENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

(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, there are two prevailing issues or schools
of thought on what to do about Social Security surpluses. The
Republican Party wants to protect and preserve 100 percent of it. But
do not take my word for it as a Republican, let me quote to my
colleagues what John Podesta, the White House Chief of Staff says.
``The Republicans' key goal is to not spend the Social Security
surplus.'' Again, words spoken by the White House Chief of Staff John
Podesta, Clinton's right-hand man.
Now, the Democrats, on the other hand, led by the President, last
January, wanted to spend 38 percent of it. The President stood right
behind where I am now and said, ``Let us preserve 62 percent of Social
Security but spend the rest on other programs.''
Now, as of late he has come around to say, well, maybe we should not
do that. But this is what the Democrat leader, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), said this Sunday. And I will just put these
words here, and again it is a direct quote. That, ``since we have the
surplus, we have to get ready for baby boomers, and we should spend as
little of it as possible.''
Now, join us, please. I ask the Democrats, protect 100 percent of
Social Security, not just most of it. The way to do it is if we cut one
penny out of every dollar in the budget, we can protect and preserve
Social Security. A penny saved is a retirement earned and secured for
our seniors.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2260, PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT OF
1999

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 339

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. 2260) to amend the Controlled Substances Act
to promote pain management and palliative care without
permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the
chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on
Commerce and 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 an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the bill modified by the amendments recommended
by the Committee on Commerce now printed in the bill. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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 (Mr. Petri). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
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, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of
H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. H. Res. 339 provides
1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairmen
and ranking minority members of the Committee on Commerce and the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The rule waives clause 4(a) of Rule XIII, which requires a 3-day
layover against consideration of the bill.
H. Res. 339 makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee
on Commerce and printed in the bill.
The rule provides for consideration of only the amendments printed in
the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule
further provides these amendments will be considered only in the order
specified in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment.
Specifically, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio) to be debated for 10 minutes and a substitute amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to be debated for 40 minutes.
The rule also allows the Chairman to postpone recorded votes and
reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided
the voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less
than 15 minutes. This provision will simply facilitate consideration of
amendments.
House Resolution 339 also provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of background, the Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Agency decided in late 1997 that delivering,
dispensing, prescribing or administering a controlled

[[Page 27068]]

substance with the deliberate intent of assisting in a suicide violates
the Controlled Substance Act or applicable regulations. The regulations
stated that a controlled substance must be issued for a legitimate
medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual
course of his professional practice. However, Attorney General Reno
unfortunately decided in 1998 that such usage is now part of the
ordinary practice of medicine in Oregon, and therefore exempt from the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Clearly, physician-assisted suicide is a danger to society. I share
the views of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, that assisting in a suicide by giving a
prescription for a controlled substance cannot be a ``legitimate
medical purpose,'' especially when the practice is not reasonable and
necessary to the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury,
legitimate health care, or compatible with the physician's role as
healer.
With this bill, we do want to reaffirm that the Controlled Substances
Act does not authorize intentionally using federally regulated drugs to
cause the death of a patient. However, this is an important bill
because it ensures that we encourage aggressive pain relief for
patients, while also reinforcing the current law that administering,
dispensing, or distributing a controlled substance for the purpose of
assisting in a suicide is not authorized by the Federal Controlled
Substances Act.
This legislation will promote the responsible use of these drugs for
pain control rather than leaving the patients with the impression that
suicide is the only option to escape from the pain of a terminal
illness. It is unacceptable that we would permit terminally ill
patients to think that suicide is the only option because pain relief
options are not available to them. Today, we help make improved pain
relief an objective in health care institutions across the country by
authorizing the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to develop
and advance a scientific understanding of palliative care; authorizing
a program for education and training in palliative care in the Health
Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and
Human Services; and authorizing additional funding for the palliative
care award program beginning in fiscal year 2000.
I do want to note that a previous bill in 1998 caused concerns that
it might inhibit doctors from prescribing adequate pain relief. H.R.
2260 has been drafted to resolve those concerns. I am very pleased that
the interested parties have worked together over the past year and have
crafted legislation that will not only encourage doctors to prescribe
effective pain management but also encourage alternatives to
euthanasia.

{time} 1045

Today, the National Hospice Association states that ``this
legislation is a step toward better awareness of effective pain
management techniques and should ultimately change behavior to better
serve the needs of terminally ill patients and their families.''
The organization Aging With Dignity states that, ``improving end of
life care is the best way to keep legalized euthanasia and assisted
suicide away from mainstream America. Doctors can treat their patients
and lessen their pain, and this needs to happen now. This law will help
them do that.''
These groups join the American Medical Association, the Coalition of
Concerned Medical Professionals, Physicians for Compassionate Care, the
American Academy of Pain Management, and the American Society of
Anesthesiologists in supporting H.R. 2260.
I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the cosponsor, for their efforts in sponsoring
this excellent piece of bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2260 was favorably reported out of both the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce, as was the
rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of
the merits of this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a restrictive rule which will allow for the
consideration of H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. As
the gentleman from Georgia described, the rule provides 1 hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Commerce and the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, this rule permits consideration of only two amendments
selected by the Committee on Rules. No other amendments are made in
order. We on the Democratic side made an effort to allow amendments by
all Members who submitted them in advance to the Committee on Rules,
but were voted down on a party line.
This bill prohibits doctors from using drugs for suicide and
euthanasia. It would have the effect of overturning the Oregon State
law permitting physician-assisted suicide.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the bill specifically permits doctors
to provide pain reducing drugs, even if the use of those drugs
increases the risk of death. This provision is very necessary to ensure
that terminal patients can be given the treatment that they need so
their suffering may be reduced.
This bill also creates a program to study pain management and to make
the information widely available. This program is a very meaningful way
to improve the way health professionals treat patients suffering from
pain.
Mr. Speaker, I have known from personal experience the importance of
these pain reducing drugs. Though this bill is controversial, it has
very important features that deserve to be discussed by this entire
body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from south Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make
a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this
bill.
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of
this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope
theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at
the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the
end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.
I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote
against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative
slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of
Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong
thing.
This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come
here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says
we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life
and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill.
Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat
dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that,
compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA
agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is
dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be
in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them.
They could lose their license or go to jail.
Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious
illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to
give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear
of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this,
it is going to make this problem much, much worse.

[[Page 27069]]

Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative
colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care,
what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government
setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this
is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will
have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.
As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with
the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade.
I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can
be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what
is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the
chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national
government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal
with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.
Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is
designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon's law
dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Being strongly pro-life, I'm convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme
Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme
Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing
into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has
and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is
changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any
legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to
euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to
clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope
unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has
nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the
states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale
of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on
more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the
intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement
against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the
nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal
state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we
further establish this principle that the federal government, either
the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very
laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit
euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it's even
worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our
federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve
the goals of protecting life and liberty.
H.R. 2260 makes an effort to delineate the prescribing of narcotics
for alleviating pain from that of intentionally killing the patient.
There is no way medically, legally, or morally to tell the difference.
This law will serve to curtail the generous use of narcotics in a
legitimate manner in caring for the dying. Claiming that this law will
not hinder the legitimate use of drugs for medical purposes but not for
an intentional death is wishful thinking. In fear that a doctor will be
charged for intentionally killing a patient, even though the patient
may have died coincidentally with an injection, this bill will provide
a great barrier to the adequate treatment of our sick and dying who are
suffering and are in intense pain.
The loss of a narcotic's license, as this bill would dictate as
punishment, is essentially denying a medical license to all doctors
practicing medicine. Criminal penalties can be invoked as well. I would
like to call attention to my colleagues that this bill is a lot more
than changing the Controlled Substance Act. It is involved with
educational and training programs to dictate to all physicians
providing palliative care and how it should be managed. An entirely new
program is set up with an administrator that ``shall'' carry out a
program to accomplish the developing and the advancing of scientific
understanding of palliative care and to disseminate protocols and
evidence-based practices regarding palliative care.
All physicians should be concerned about a federal government agency
setting up protocols for medical care recognizing that many patients
need a variation in providing care and a single protocol cannot be
construed as being ``correct''.
This program is designed to instruct public and private health care
programs throughout the nation as well as medical schools, hospices and
the general public. Once these standards are set and if any variation
occurs and a subsequent death coincidentally occurs that physician will
be under the gun from the DEA. Charges will be made and the doctor will
have to defend himself and may end up losing his license. It will with
certainty dampen the enthusiasm of the physician caring for the
critically ill.
Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative agreements and
contracts to help professional schools and other medical agencies will
be used to educate and train health care professionals in palliative
care. It is not explicit but one can expect that if the rules are not
followed and an institution is receiving federal money they will be
denied these funds unless they follow the universal protocols set up by
the federal government. The bill states clearly that any special award
under this new program can only be given if the applicant agrees that
the program carried out with the award will follow the government
guidelines. These new programs will be through the health professional
schools, i.e. the medical schools' residency training programs and
other graduate programs in the health professions. It will be a carrot
and stick approach and in time the medical profession will become very
frustrated with the mandates and the threat that funds will be
withheld.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of these
programs are required to evaluate all the programs which means more
reports to be filled out by the institutions for bureaucrats in
Washington to study. The results of these reports will be to determine
the effect such programs have on knowledge and practice regarding
palliative care. Twenty four million dollars is authorized for this new
program.
This program and this bill essentially nationalizes all terminal care
and opens up Pandora's box in regards to patient choices as well as
doctor judgment. This bill, no matter how well intended, is dangerously
flawed and will do great harm to the practice of medicine and for the
care of the dying. This bill should be rejected.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I join
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) in opposing the bill. Make no
mistake about it, the bill in question deals with pain, excrutiating,
horrible pain, the kind of pain that afflicts literally tens of
millions of Americans, chronic pain, terminally-ill pain.
What is the difference? Well, what is the story here in America with
regards to providing pain medication to those tens of millions of
Americans who so desperately need the pain medication? Well, there is a
consensus in the United States, Democrats, Republicans, liberals,
conservatives, everyone agrees. There is an undertreatment of pain in
the United States of America.
Why? Primarily we are told because doctors feel intimidated if they
give too much pain medication to those patients in terrible pain who
are asking for it, they do not want to die, they just want pain relief,
because the doctors are afraid of a civil medical malpractice lawsuit.
So what does the underlying bill do? It provides for a criminal
penalty against doctors, 20 years in jail maximum. It provides license
revocation, if a DEA drug enforcement agent can go through the pain
prescription of every doctor prescribing pain prescription in America,
and this drug enforcement agent feels the pain medication might have
been intentionally overdone.
Now, if one thinks there is a chilling effect on doctors providing
pain medication now, wait till H.R. 2260 if this bill gets passed.
Hopefully my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agree with me,
and there are many of us, will support the substitute.
What does the substitute say? It says we are against physician-
assisted suicide. We are against physician-assisted suicide. It says we
want more research into pain medication. We want more understanding
amongst doctors about the right way to prescribe pain medication.
But what it does not have, what the underlying bill has, is it does
not provide this criminal penalty against doctors and license
revocation. It keeps our eye on the ball.
We are talking about providing pain relief for those millions of
American children, men and women in agony, dying horrible deaths. So
why would my colleagues, some of them, be wanting to introduce this
bill in the first

[[Page 27070]]

place? It is clear, and they say so quite candidly. They do not like
the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law. Many of us do not.
I voted against physician-assisted suicide here in the Congress, as
did the majority of my colleagues. We do not like the Oregon physician-
assisted suicide law, but do not have a law. Go to the Supreme Court.
Get it thrown out if it is unconstitutional. But do not have a law that
will affect all 50 States, tens of millions of Americans who are
suffering who need pain medication. Do not affect all those Americans
because one does not like the law that the people of Oregon twice chose
in referendum. If my colleagues do not like it, ask the Supreme Court
to declare it unconstitutional, but do not cause so much suffering.
Some of my colleagues will say, well, there is a law like the one we
want to introduce today in Congress passed in a couple of States, and
pain medication went up, and they had no problem. Well, those State
laws did not involve the Drug Enforcement Agency having the right to
review every single prescription for pain medication that every doctor
in America is going to prescribe. It goes against common sense.
If one is a doctor and now the DEA can come in to review one's
records of every pain prescription one prescribes, it would go to
intimidate. The Drug Enforcement Agency should be going after the drug
cartels in South America. They should not be looking at every single
pain prescription that every single doctor in America prescribed.
We need pain relief. We need doctors and local medical societies, the
majority of whom support the substitute and are against the bill. The
majority of the nurses associations in America are for the substitute
and against the bill, while the doctor organizations are split.
What you have here is obvious. Doctors are conflicted. They are
afraid. They are uncertain. The nurses who are the last line of
defense, who treat these terminally-ill patients writhing in pain, they
are almost unanimous against the bill and in favor of the substitute.
So if my colleagues want to deal with pain in America and they do not
want to inhibit doctors from providing the pain medications that tens
of millions of Americans are going to be affected with, vote against
the bill, vote for the substitute which says we are against physician-
assisted suicide.
We want more doctors to prescribe pain medication, not to kill the
patient, but to provide the relief that they are begging for in their
last days and months on Earth. But do not put them in jail. Do not
threaten to put them in jail. Let the States' local medical societies
who each have their own traditions and customs and have worked on the
details of these bills for so long, let them deal with it
appropriately. I ask my colleagues to support the substitute.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, this is the bill. What the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) just said is false. There is no penalty in
here. Every doctor in this country today, every controlled substance is
available for review by the DEA. There is no change in that. The
gentleman knows that. There is no penalty, new penalty in this bill for
anybody. What this bill is about is saying that Federal law, as far as
narcotics control, cannot be preempted by a State in the use of those
narcotics. That is what it is about.
The gentleman has not ever given pain medicine to somebody who is
dying. I have. I have intentionally medicated somebody to help them
with their pain. Unfortunately, as a consequence of that, some have
died. There is nothing that keeps us from doing that today except our
fear of rhetoric that is untrue.
That is untrue, absolutely blatantly false that there is criminal
penalties in this bill for any doctor who does the right thing. This is
about not allowing the State to stick their nose out at a Federal law
that we all know is important, and that is controlling dangerous
substances.
Now, the gentleman's desire is an honorable desire that, in fact, we
should help doctors alleviate pain; and we can do that. There is no
question that I have seen in my 18 years of practice of medicine that
we, in fact, do not do as good a job as we should at that issue. But to
take and create that as a reason to allow any State to use narcotics to
kill a patient is wrong. That is what is going to happen.
We have great testimony. We have the great experience of the Dutch.
We had 2,100 people in 1995 in Holland who were euthanized against
their will. They did not want to die. But a doctor decided they should
not live anymore.
The slippery slope that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) talked
about and his understanding of this bill I believe is wrong. There is a
slippery slope. But it is not the slope of allowing the Federal
Government to continue to enforce the laws of this land and to have a
Federal standard on narcotics. That is not the slippery slope.
The slippery slope is to create an environment where any State,
regardless of their own desires, can ignore Federal law today; every
doctor who writes a prescription for a controlled substance can be
reviewed; every prescription can be looked at by the DEA.
There is no new authority for the DEA in this. What this bill says,
and it is only this few pages, is that the law applies to every State
equally, and that just because Oregon decides that they want to take
someone's life, that they should not be able to say that Federal law
does not apply.
The fact is all life has value. As we have determined in this
country, we have said the unborn does not have value. Now Oregon says
the dying do not have value, and that in the future, those that are not
dying have no value.

{time} 1100

There were just 1,100 babies that were born last year and the year
before in the whole land that the doctor decided should not live. So
what did they do? They gave them paregoric, they paralyzed the
respiration, and they died.
Do we want doctors deciding who lives and who dies? No, we do not
want that. This is a slope, a real slope where we are going to become
God. We do not have that power. The Declaration of Independence says
that we should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Nothing in it says we have the right to pursue death,
nothing.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague.
The gentleman was very clever. Even though he is a physician, he
spoke like a Philadelphia lawyer, and he said this bill does not
provide criminal penalties if they do nothing wrong. But if they did in
the opinion of the Drug Enforcement Agency, then the doctor can go to
prison.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, what he said, as I heard it, is that it does
not provide any additional penalties that are not already there.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, he said that. And then
he said, to clarify it, there will be no jail time if they do not do
anything wrong, or words to that effect. Because if they do do
something wrong in the opinion of the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is
now being called upon in this bill to look into this, they can go to
jail and they will lose their license.
Again, the question is, if we are concerned about pain medication,
let us pass a bill about pain medication. That is the substitute, which
is also against physician-assisted suicide. And if my colleagues did
not like the Oregon referendum of physician-assisted suicide, as I do
not, then go to the Supreme Court and declare it unconstitutional.
Do not let the tens of millions of American children, men, and women
suffer because they do not like the Oregon law. Change the law, get it
declared unconstitutional, and leave these patients and doctors alone.

[[Page 27071]]

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for a point of clarification, I yield myself
30 seconds to make this point.
What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said was that this bill
does not provide any new or additional penalties that are already not
extant. This is nothing changed. Those penalties can occur today. He
made the point very clear, I thought, that the whole point of this bill
is to not allow States on their own to exempt themselves from Federal
laws with respect to controlled substances.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me in the well may well be a
good physician, but he is not an attorney.
The Department of Justice says, ``By denying authorization under the
Controlled Substances Act, H.R. 2260 would make it a Federal crime for
a physician to dispense a controlled substance to aid a suicide.
However, a physician who prescribes the controlled substances most
commonly used to aid a suicide would, because he or she necessarily
intends death to result, or may have intended death to result, or
should have known that death should have resulted, would face a 20-year
mandatory minimum sentence in Federal prison.''
That is what we are talking about here, the Drug Enforcement
Administration second-guessing the intention after the fact of every
physician in America.
Let us use a real-life example. This is a pain medication. If this
were a barbiturate for end-of-life care and it was prescribed by my
physician aggressively that I was to take one every 2 hours to relieve
my excruciating pain, say from bone cancer, that would be legal.
Now, if this prescription, a pain relief prescription, was prescribed
by my doctor for aggressive pain relief management, one to be taken
every 2 hours, and I took this entire vial all at once and died, the
question would be what was my physician's intent in giving me this
prescription? Was it that I would really take one every 2 hours, or did
my physician know or should my physician have known that I might choose
to take all of them at once?
What this means ultimately, the absurdity of this, is any physician
who does not want to risk being investigated by the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and nobody wants that, is going to have to say they can
have one pill every 2 hours, send their wife or kids down to the 24-
hour pharmacy to pick them up for them, because he gives them more than
one and they take them all at once and they die, the Drug Enforcement
Administration is going to question his intent.
That is the cover of law that is being ripped away by this well-
sounding, theoretically well-meaning legislation.
In their zeal to overturn the Oregon law, which is not euthanasia,
which does not allow a doctor to give an injection, which does not
allow a doctor to administer a prescription, which allows individuals
who are terminally ill who have a diagnosis they will die within 6
months, after consulting with two physicians, after consulting with a
psychiatrist to go to their physician and ask for a prescription which
they can only self-administer.
This is not euthanasia, and it has been very, very infrequently used
in our State. In fact, probably fewer people have shot themselves or
otherwise killed themselves under fear of the pain they were going to
undergo because of the Oregon law.
But these people on this side of the aisle who are for States' rights
every day of the week when a State says something they agree with are
suddenly today standing up and saying, well, we are for States' rights
as long as we agree with the State.
Preempt the will of the Oregon people. It is not the State of Oregon,
it is the people of the State of Oregon twice by initiative and
referendum who have passed this law.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for a quiet and dignified response, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman fails to state is that
the DEA already has that power.
Yes, there is no more important thing than intent. Every doctor, when
they graduate from medical school, their goal is to preserve life, not
take it. There are lots of times in my life that have been low, I would
have loved to have been out of here. But I am glad somebody did not
help me leave. Because there is always another day.
For those of my colleagues who have not treated dying patients with
metastatic bone cancers, first of all, we do not use barbiturates. We
use narcotics. Barbiturates are not used for pain relief. They are used
to accentuate pain relief. But narcotics are used for pain relief.
There is no new law. The DEA, if I misuse a drug today, a controlled
substance, can in fact harm me, take away my license to dispense drugs,
and incarcerate me. And rightly so.
We do not in this country, under our Constitution or our Declaration
of Independence, have the right to die. That is not one of the
guaranteed freedoms in this country. We do not have the right to die.
As a matter of fact, it is against the law to commit suicide in many
States.
So what we are really saying is the motivation of the people from
Oregon is a good motivation. People are in pain. How do we fix that?
Well, the professionals have already said we need to do a better job of
training doctors and we need to make sure doctors do not feel afraid to
go up with the intention of alleviating pain and worry about the
unintended consequence it might suppress somebody's respiration and
they die.
This bill truly addresses that because it does not give the free will
for a physician to say, we are going to take their life. Most people
who want their life taken have a clinical depression, a clinical
depression. They have another illness besides the illness that is in
front of everybody, and it is that, that we need to recognize.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
underlying bill and in support of the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute
amendment to H.R. 2260.
All of us come to this issue of pain and end of life from very
different perspectives. Some would like to effectively overturn
Oregon's law that allows physicians to assist terminally-ill patients
with less than 6 months to live in ending their lives. Since we passed
that law, and we passed it twice, 15 terminally-ill patients have used
such assistance.
Undoubtedly, the proponents of H.R. 2260 are motivated by a heartfelt
desire to eliminate a physician-assisted suicide. The Johnson
substitute seeks that same outcome, but the difference is it addresses
the problem as a medical problem and not a law enforcement problem.
In the 6 months that it took the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson) and I to draft the Conquering Pain Act, H.R. 2188, from which
this Johnson substitute is derived, not one expert concerning improving
end-of-life care said we need to take away authority from the State.
Not one expert recommended amending the Controlled Substances Act, in
which the Pain Relief Promotion Act would. Not one expert said this was
the best way to improve pain management.
Interestingly, the American Medical Association and the National
Hospice Organization were an integral part in our working group and
ultimately endorsed the Conquering Pain Act, on which the Johnson
substitute is based, never once raising the issue of the Controlled
Substances Act.
In fact, at a hearing in October at the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, where experts were asked where should
we begin to improve management, every expert witness said we should
begin with education and research. Not one expert said the best way to
improve management pain management for patients is to amend the
Controlled Substances Act.

[[Page 27072]]

Dr. Richard Payne, Chief of Pain & Palliative Care Services at
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and a co-chair of the Agency
for Health Care Policy and Research panel on cancer pain guidelines
summed it up well. ``While H.R. 2260 is well-intentioned, it is
counterproductive. It would have a chilling effect on aggressive pain
management.''
Dr. Payne and many physicians and other health care practitioners,
those who specifically specialize in pain management, not the
generalist, are urging the support of the substitute based on H.R.
2188, ``the bill that would constructively promote end-of-life and
palliative care,'' and urge a no vote on H.R. 2260 as reported by
committee.
I know others may disagree. But it is clearly not worth the risk that
people will suffer, and people will suffer in more pain by passing H.R.
2260.
Under the Johnson substitute amendment, Congress expresses its clear
opposition to assisted suicide, makes every effort to reduce it. What
is more important is the Johnson substitute seeks to address the reason
a suffering individual at the end of their life might seek that
dreadful option, fear and exhaustion of being in pain.
I urge a yes vote on the Johnson substitute and a no vote on H.R.
2260.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the author of the Johnson substitute.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time, and I rise in support of the rule and appreciate
the Committee on Rules allowing me to offer my substitute.
To just comment on the earlier debate, Mr. Speaker, the Hyde bill
does not impose new penalties, but the Hyde bill does identify a new
role for DEA agents, who are nonmedical people. That role involves
judging the intent of a physician and thereby exposing physicians to
criminal penalties, not for trafficking or other illegal activities
involving drugs but for exercising their professional judgment in the
delivery of patient care.

{time} 1115

But I rise at this point in the debate to call the attention of my
colleagues to a Dear Colleague that I sent out recently about the
testimony of David Jorensen. He is the director of the pain and policy
studies group at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of
Wisconsin, cofounder of the National Association of State Controlled
Substances Authorities and the State cancer pain initiative. He served
many years on the drafting committee of the national conference of
commissioners on uniform State laws to revive the Uniform Controlled
Substances Act for the United States. In other words, he is extremely
experienced in this issue of managing controlled substances and in pain
management. I urge my colleagues to review the rather dry Dear
Colleague that I sent out, because it lays out the clear history of
this matter. Under current law, medical issues are deferred to
enforcement by medical agencies, whether it is HHS at the national
level or State medical agencies or medical review boards that have been
put in place to oversee medical practice and standards of care at the
State level. In other words, current law clearly allows the use of
controlled substances for pain management and regulates such medical
uses through HHS and State health agencies, including medical review
boards and licensure laws and clearly does not allow DEA or agencies
who have no knowledge in this area to be part of the enforcement
mechanism.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule and in opposition to the bill in its current form and want to make
several points. First of all, this is the whip notice for today. It
says we are getting out of session this afternoon between 3 and 4
o'clock. Two amendments, very important amendments, were offered to the
Committee on Rules which the Committee on Rules chose not to make in
order, we presume because we do not have time to debate the issues that
were to be debated related to this bill. One of those amendments is an
amendment that would have been offered by myself in conjunction with
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and several other Members of this
House which in effect walks a line between the bill as it is currently
structured and the substitute as it is proposed. There are some of us
who really do not have any problem with parts of this bill as it is
drawn. We ought to be encouraging palliative care and pain relief, but
we ought to be doing it in such a way that it is explicitly clear that
we are not preempting States' laws. That is what our amendment would
have done. But apparently the Committee on Rules decided that that kind
of balanced approach to this debate was not something that this House
ought to entertain. We ought to either have it all on the one hand or
have a complete substitute on the other hand. That should not have
happened and it certainly should not have happened on a day that the
House is recessing at 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
The second amendment that was offered is one that is of equal
importance, because a number of us through the years have had severe
problems with the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and
powder cocaine. Under this bill, a physician can prescribe cocaine for
the purposes of alleviating pain. It is a schedule 2 drug under the
Controlled Substances Act. But if that physician prescribes crack, a
form of cocaine, and if the opponents of this bill are correct that
that would subject the physician to a criminal penalty if he prescribed
powder cocaine for the relief of pain, it would subject him to one-
tenth of the penalty that it would subject the physician to if he
prescribed crack cocaine, a derivative of the same product, we should
at least equalize the penalties if we are going to penalize physicians
even if there were some rationale for doing it out in the community
which we do not believe there is and which has resulted in disparate
imprisonment between poor people and rich people, poor people being
typically people who take crack cocaine and rich people being people
who take powder cocaine, the only distinction rationally that you could
even argue. There is no reason that we ought to penalize a physician
disproportionately under this bill.
Now, there is something wrong with my colleagues saying one day that
we believe in States' rights and the next day saying we are going to
preempt Oregon's State law. That is what my amendment would have done.
It would have protected Oregon's law in one simple phrase, the simple
phrase being ``except in compliance with applicable State or Federal
laws.'' This whole law could have applied. If the objective is to
increase the use of palliative care and encourage pain relief, then we
should not be here debating about whether to overrule a State's law.
Unlike the physician who came to the floor who may be very skilled in
his knowledge of medicine, I want to direct his attention to amendment
10 to the Constitution. It says that the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the States are
reserved to the States respectively or to the people. The people have
the right to pass a statute in Oregon and have that statute honored and
we should honor it here on this floor of the House.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady), the author of the bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding time. Actually the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is the
author of this legislation.
I want to address this misconception that we keep hearing here, that
somehow this bill will expand the investigative or enforcement
authority of the DEA. That is simply not true. That is not what this
bill will do. If we look at what the Attorney General said, and I do
not agree with the Attorney General on the way she has approached the
application of the law in Oregon, but she said, ``Adverse action under
the Controlled Substances Act may well be warranted where a physician
assists in

[[Page 27073]]

a suicide in a State that has not authorized the practice under any
conditions or where a physician fails to comply with State procedures
in doing so.'' She herself has acknowledged that. Everyone who has
looked at the law understands that physicians who violate a State law
in providing a controlled substance for assisted suicide face penalties
from the DEA. There is no question about that. That is the state of the
law now. We are not creating any additional regulatory scheme. That
scheme is already in place. It is very important that people understand
that.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. I am proud to
have introduced this legislation with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) of the Committee on the Judiciary. This legislation is
cosponsored by 150 bipartisan Members of this House.
This legislation amends the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that
doctors and other licensed health care professionals who dispense,
distribute and administer pain control drugs for legitimate medical
purposes of alleviating a patient's pain or discomfort are permitted to
do so even if the use of these drugs may increase the risk of death.
This bill also reinforces current Federal policy that the
administration, dispensation or distribution of a controlled substance
for the purpose of assisting in a suicide is not authorized by the
Controlled Substances Act. We make clear that the Attorney General in
implementing the Controlled Substances Act shall not recognize any
State law permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
This legislation reflects the hard work of many, many people and many
organizations. We have brought the hospice organizations on board to
support this legislation. In addition to the National Hospice
Organization, this bill is supported by the American Medical
Association, Hospice Association of America, American Academy of Pain
Management, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American College of
Osteopathic Family Physicians and C. Everett Koop.
Some organizations and Members as we have heard today are concerned
that this bill would chill the doctor's ability to prescribe pain
medication. Nothing could be further from the truth. Currently, doctors
run afoul of the Controlled Substances Act if their actions cause or
contribute to the fatal or near fatal overdose of drugs. In essence,
the current standard for enforcement by the DEA is whether or not the
use of controlled substances by a doctor served a legitimate medical
reason. That is the standard. The bill makes clear that the Controlled
Substances Act allows doctors to administer drugs for the purpose of
relieving pain. This has always been the Federal policy and it remains
the Federal policy under this legislation.
If the critics would examine the first sentence of section 101 of the
bill, they will see that the bill provides for a safe harbor for
aggressive treatment of pain, even if the treatment increased the risk
of death. The second sentence of the same provision limits the safe
harbor, because without it people could always claim they were
assisting suicide in the treatment of pain.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the criticism and compare it to the
actual language of the bill and I am confident that my colleagues are
inaccurate who criticize this bill.
H.R. 2260 does a lot more than provide a safe harbor for the
treatment of pain. Last year in the Committee on Commerce, we debated
the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. Many Members expressed
concern that the lack of palliative care in this country was
responsible for the helplessness that many chronically ill patients
feel that lends to assisted suicide. The bill addresses those concerns
as we amend the Public Health Services Act to authorize the development
and advancement of scientific understanding of palliative care. The
agency is directed to collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-
based practices for palliative care with priority for terminally ill
patients. The bill also amends the Public Health Services Act by
authorizing a program for education and training in palliative care.
This bill ends assisted suicide and relieves pain. This legislation
makes sense. It makes clear and again reinforces the current Federal
policy that under the Controlled Substances Act, the distribution of a
controlled substance for the purpose of assisting in suicide is
illegal. The legislation gives physicians the ability to treat
patients, to provide palliative care and increase our understanding of
palliative care. The bill reinforces the written policy of the Federal
Government and the administration, and I quote from that policy, that
it ``strongly opposes the practice of physician-assisted suicide and
would not support the practice as a matter of Federal policy.'' What we
are doing here is reinforcing Federal policy that has always been on
the books.
Vote for the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. Stand up for
palliative care for terminally ill patients and their families and
stand up against assisted suicide. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pain Relief Promotion Act. This
bill is good legislation because it is simple, it is straightforward
and it addresses the concerns of every family member who has ever held
the hand of a loved one who is in pain and near death.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for whom I have high
regard raised the concern about States' rights and are we violating
this. First of all, it is very appropriate and necessary that Congress
legislate on this issue in order to retain a uniform national standard
over controlled substances. This is very important.

{time} 1130

I want to harken back to the gentlewoman from Connecticut who raised
an issue and said this is a new role for the DEA. This is not a new
role for the DEA. The DEA does not have the final judgment over this.
I was United States Attorney. I actually had to prosecute a doctor
for dispensing controlled substances without a legitimate medical
purpose. It appeared to me that that was the case, that they were just
putting out controlled substances without any good medical reason for
it. Well, we went to a jury on that case, and the medical community
came in, and they gave testimony and said it was for a legitimate
medical purpose. They reviewed that and said it was appropriate, and
then the jury made a decision on that.
That is how the system presently works, but the problem is because of
the issue of physician-assisted suicide and because of the chilling
impact and the concern of physicians they are not dispensing pain
relief medication because they are concerned that they could be second
guessed that it is not for legitimate medical purpose.
So what this does is it tightens it, it makes it clear, it tells the
DEA that we cannot look into it if it is to relieve pain. We want to
make it clear and provide the guidance for physicians. We want to
remove that chilling impact so that they can appropriately administer
pain medication without concern that they are going to be second
guessed by someone that it is not for legitimate medical purpose.
But we also clarify that if they have the intent to cause the death
of someone, then they cross the line. They cross the line, and that
will not be accepted medical purpose. It will not be accepted in our
society, and so we are drawing a clear line of distinction there that
gives the physician the guidance that they need, it takes the
discretion away from a DEA agent, and it follows the same path that we
have handled in our cases under the Controlled Substances Act for
decades and decades.
And so this should be helpful to the physicians, but it should be
very helpful to our society and to the patients who need the pain
medication, who want a higher quality of life as death

[[Page 27074]]

approaches or they have a terminal illness; but it makes it clear that
in our society that doctors honor the Hippocratic Oath that they will
protect and enhance the quality of life. I ask support.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief
Promotion Act, and in support of this rule. This legislation will
establish that the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia are
neither legal nor condoned medical procedures in this country. In
addition, this legislation is a significant step forward in our efforts
to effectively encourage pain management for terminally-ill Americans.
For those who have concerns with this measure, I would encourage them
to read the bill language. The legislation is explicit that it does not
affect health professionals providing care and treatment even in the
case of accidental death. In fact, H.R. 2260 encourages, encourages
physicians to provide the full range of treatment to alleviate pain and
suffering for their patients.
Physicians in the hospice community have endorsed this bill, and the
evidence is clear that banning assisted suicide does not deter pain
relief. I would encourage any remaining skeptics to look at the
experiences in my home State of Kansas and other States where similar
measures have been implemented. The concern by the opponents of this
legislation is that it would deter the use of pain medications such as
morphine.
While I was a member of the State Senate, Kansas first enacted
legislation to ban assisted suicide in 1993 and then again strengthened
those protections in 1998. The evidence in our State of Kansas is
clear. The use of morphine to alleviate pain has not declined and in
fact has risen significantly. In 1993 Kansas health professionals
administered roughly 561 grams of morphine per 100,000 individuals. Six
years after the ban on assisted suicide, morphine prescriptions rose to
4,573 grams, a significant increase, not a decrease.
Mr. Speaker, rather than encouraging euthanasia, we need to
aggressively pursue effective pain management. Today, we have the
technology and medication to successfully control pain. This
legislation establishes education and training initiatives to ensure
that health professionals recognize the array of pain management tools
that are available to them. I encourage my colleagues to support this
rule and to ultimately support the passage of this act.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and I just rise in support of the rule and, as a cosponsor of
the bill, obviously for passage of this.
I really believe that we are on a very slippery slope when we look at
the sanctity of life and the quality of life, and it is a very personal
issue with me. I have an 87-year-old father who has advanced
Alzheimer's; and as my colleagues know, we could question what the
quality is or what the value of that life is, but to my mother who has
been married, they have been married for 61 years, and that is her life
every day, is to go to the home, visit my father, and there is
extraordinary quality there.
And my parents have worked very, very hard all of their lives, and
they are fortunate that they have enough money saved up that they are
able to pay for their care. I am very concerned that on this slippery
slope, if we have the opportunity for a third person to make decisions,
life and death decisions for folks, who is going to live and who is
going to die in the case of my father as an example. My father is able
to pay for his care. If we have a third person, a bureaucrat who is
making a decision for a ward of the county or of the State, what is
their decision? I think we have to look very, very closely at the
direction we are heading in this country. This bill allows my father,
if he were to go into pain, have real problems, to get that kind of
treatment. But it is wrong, it is very wrong, for someone else to make
that decision to take his life and for other motivations that may be
outside of his own well-being, obviously.
So again, on a very personal level I rise in support of this rule and
in support of the underlying bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to address
an issue placed on this floor by the gentleman from Oklahoma concerning
whether there is a constitutional right involved in this debate or not.
I commend to the gentleman the Bill of Rights amendment number four,
the right of the people to be secure in their persons shall not be
violated, and amendment 10, the powers not delegated to the United
States, et cetera, are reserved to the States or to the people.
I submit to my colleague that 208 years ago the founders of this
republic foresaw this day when the rights of the few would be trampled
by the political fears of the many, and that is why these amendments
are in this Constitution.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. As my colleagues know, I thank the gentleman for his
words. I actually take that a completely different way. One does have
the right to be secure, which means nobody has the right to take their
life, nobody; and I would put forth to this body that if our Founding
Fathers thought we killed 3 to 5 million unborn babies a year in this
country, they would be sickened of heart at how we have not held on to
the very principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of the qualities
that go along with life and liberty.
There is not a stronger States' rights person here than me, but with
the tenth amendment gives no right to take someone's life. We do have a
Constitution of the United States; and if it was my own State,
Oklahoma, had passed the Oregon law, I would be here fighting them
because not only are they wrong constitutionally, they are wrong
morally; and our founders founded this country on the basis of moral
beliefs and the beliefs of a higher being that endowed us with
inalienable rights, but one of those rights was not the right to take
someone's life.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, to begin, I will
respectfully dissent from the notion that this should be settled by the
moral views of the Founding Fathers. They were very wise people in
deciding how government should be structured, but people who spent a
lot of time protecting the institution of slavery are not my moral
instructors in all things.
What we have is a decision that we have to make, not people who lived
200 years ago, and the question is: does an individual who has been
found competent, not a third party, because the Oregon law that is here
under assault from the majority, the Oregon law that would be
effectively repealed by this action of the United States Congress, the
Oregon law twice passed by a referendum by the people of Oregon that
would be undone, makes it clear that there is not a third party
involved. The person themself must have made the decision that they
want assistance in committing suicide and they must be found competent
to do so.
Now we can argue about the role of the DEA and this and that, but
that is not what got any of us here. We are talking about two
fundamental philosophical questions. One is the right of a State to
make decisions. We have traditionally said that where there is no need
for a national uniform policy we will leave it to the States, and
Members have said, ``Oh, no, we have to have a uniform drug policy.''
Well, we have to have uniform policy sometime for manufacturing. It
is true if we are talking about manufacturing a substance in one State
to be sold in every State it has to be uniform, but why the need for
uniformity here? Is it

[[Page 27075]]

the fear that someone will be in Idaho and mistakenly think she is in
Oregon? Is it that someone will be in Oregon and forget and think they
are in Washington? We are talking here about a specific discrete
physical act, the act of someone being assisted in ending a life which
he or she has decided, being of sound mind, that this life is no longer
supportable.
There is no confusion. Everyone will know where the person is. There
is no need for uniformity except, as the previous speaker said, if we
decide to impose nationally the moral judgment of the Federal
Government on this issue, and clearly the people of Oregon knew what
they were doing; they were put to this twice.
They have twice decided that a sound individual, an individual of
sound mind who finds life insupportable, who finds pain overwhelming,
who finds paralysis in which they could do nothing but lay in bed
intolerable, that that individual has the right to ask for assistance
in committing suicide. And remember what I assume we are talking about,
people who clearly would have the right, and I assume no one is
interposing a Federal objection to suicide if the individual is capable
of doing it. So the question is whether individuals who are not
physically capable themselves and would otherwise have the right to
commit suicide can ask someone, being of sound mind, to do that.
Now clearly there is no reason why the Federal Government has to
intervene. There is no need for uniformity here. The existence of a
right of assisted suicide in Oregon has no effect in Massachusetts or
Oklahoma or Washington State unless someone wanted an individual to be
transported there. But clearly the need for uniformity simply reflects
a desire of people here to impose their moral views on the people of
Oregon who have been found to be morally deficient in this particular
regard.
Now that is a perfectly rational argument, but it is not one we can
make and still be a States' rights proponent.
Let me also say, by the way, that the arguments about including
palliative care, et cetera, those really cannot be made here because
the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out he had a perfectly
sensible amendment that would have preserved every aspect of this bill
except its impulse to overturn the Oregon law. His amendment would have
allowed every single other factor of the bill and say and because of
that the Committee on Rules unfortunately would not allow it.
So the only thing that is at issue between us is this decision to
overturn the Oregon law, and now we get to the philosophical issue:
Does an individual have the control of his or her own life; does an
individual have the right to say it is my life and I am in charge of
it, and that includes the right to decide that it should be ended?
And we have people who believe philosophically, some out of a
religious belief, some out of some other set of philosophical belief,
that that is not true, one's life does not belong to them. We, the
government, the national government of the United States, we, the
Congress, can say to them: no, they may not do that.

{time} 1145

We do not care how much pain one is in. We do not care how much one
is tormented. We do not care how much, and I believe in many cases the
psychological pain of being confined, rigid, being only a mind and
nothing else, being totally dependent on others for everything else,
and perhaps combining that with some pain, that is irrelevant. We will
decide. We will decide under what conditions one will live. We will
compel one to live against one's will.
That is what we are saying here, we, the United States Government,
will compel one to live against one's will even though the people of
one's State decided otherwise, because we have a moral framework which
excludes one's right to end one's life.
I do want to have one other point here. We say, well, this is not
interfering with States' rights, because these are federally controlled
substances, so the Federal Government has the right to control them.
The fact that we regulate something in one regard does not mean the
Federal Government owns it. What is at stake here is a decision by the
Federal Government to impose the moral views of a majority of this
House on the people of the State of Oregon.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, Doctors Watson and Crick were given
the Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering the stuff of life. They
defined deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. Twenty years ago, Dr. Crick
suggested seriously in Great Britain that people reaching the age of 80
ought to be eliminated because they were very expensive and not
productive. That is the casual attitude about life and death that we
ought not let States undertake.
This bill does two substantive things. It adds protections for
doctors who use medications to treat pain, and it applies a 1970 law on
controlled substances equally across 50 States. All States must abide
by that law, irrespective of Oregon's decision to exempt itself from
it.
If Texas chose to exempt itself from a national law in deadbeat
parents, would we sit by and say, well, that is fine; they had a vote,
it is not our business? If New York voted to allow no welfare reform
and allow people to stay on welfare forever, would we sit back and say
that is fine, it is not of our business, they voted?
Federal laws should be abided by equally by 50 States, and we have a
1970 Controlled Substances Act that Oregon has chosen to exempt itself
from. This law would change that. Must we treat life with more dignity
than we are in Oregon? Should we allow people to take their lives or to
ask others to take their lives? We think so.
Two decades ago, a Methodist pastor was in Connecticut Hospital in
serious pain from cancer and wrote a letter to Bill Buckley, the
editorialist. He said, ``I have spent a great bit of time thinking
about suicide and praying about it. But then I concluded that I have no
right to take away what God has given me on this Earth. I do, however,
have the right to pray for early release from this diseased ravaged
carcass.''
We have no right to take away what God has put on this Earth or
asking our friends who are doctors to take it away. But this bill is
not about that. This bill is about saying that 50 States must abide
equally by national laws, in this instance the 1970 Controlled
Substances Act.
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 resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 2260, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.

____________________

PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 339 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. 2260.

{time} 1149

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. 2260) to amend the Controlled Substance Act to promote pain
management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and
euthanasia, and for other purposes, with Mr. Petri in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.

[[Page 27076]]

Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will
control 15 minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, is it not usual that the time is divided
equally between proponents and opponents?
The CHAIRMAN. The rule provided for the division of time that was
just announced by the Chair.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it specified that three-quarters of the
time would go to proponents and one-quarter, 15 minutes, would go to
the opponents. Is that correct? Is that what the rule specified?
The CHAIRMAN. No. The rule provided that the time would be divided
among the chairmen and ranking minority members of the reporting
committees.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of debate already on the rule. We
have heard a debate about the intent of our Forefathers. I would
counter what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said during
the debate on the rule that, in fact, that every law that we pass has a
moral consequence; and that, in fact, if we read the writings of our
Founders, they did not see that questions such as this would come up.
The real thing that we are going to be debating is about life. As the
freest Nation in the world, are we going to abandon the principle that
life has value?
I have come to recognize with all my own deficiencies, and especially
how they have been exemplified my last 5 years in Congress, that we are
all handicapped in one way or another. Some of us, we can see the
external handicap. It is very plain and visible. Others, we hide our
handicaps. But the fact is, all of us, handicapped as we are, have
value, whether I agree with the philosophical point of view or not of
that other individual, is that all of God's creation, all life has
value.
What we are really debating is whether or not the State of Oregon can
ignore a law that is 28 years old and decide that, in this country, the
freest country of the world, that they will allow other people to
decide whether life has value.
We are on a terrible slippery slope. The committee of which I am a
member had testimonies about what has happened in Holland. In fact,
when euthanasia and assisted suicide started in Holland, it was a very
small number. It has grown progressively each year. But most
importantly, because of the number of people who have been euthanized
against their will, people now carry a card in Holland in their
billfolds to say do not euthanize me.
They have had to do that because they are worried that, if they get
in a precarious life-threatening situation, somebody might make the
decision about their life. Our country cannot go that direction. We
must demand and stand for the fact that all life has value.
Whether it is the unborn child just conceived, whether it is the
child with multiple anomalies, it all has value. If it has no value,
there is no real meaning to life in the beginning or in the end. I
throw that off as a Member of this body, somebody who represents the
great State of Oklahoma, who was brought up in a tradition that this is
the freest country in the land, but it is only free if we preserve the
principles of life.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want everyone in the chamber to know
that this bill requires that two doctors and a patient, who has the
understanding to make the decision, would make this decision for the
taking of his life, physician-assisted suicide. So the tragedies and
scare stories about other countries has nothing to do with this.
This legislation really represents a new hypocrisy by the majority
who claim to support States' rights but would prevent the United States
Attorney General from giving effect to State laws that allow physician-
assisted suicide. They do not say anything about that.
The Supreme Court has said, quote, ``Americans are engaged in an
earnest, profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality
of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to
continue.''
This bill prevents and excludes that debate by coming to a
Washington-knows-best solution coming from those who claim to support
States' right. I support States laws. Although Republicans who have
often claimed that citizen initiative is the most revered form of
democracy, repeatedly sponsor bills that treat them as a higher form of
law than others, they bring a measure to the floor today that would
overturn an Oregon initiative that has been approved twice by large
margins.
The 10th amendment, well, that is someone else's problem. It has
reserved to the States those rights not given to the Federal
Government. This is not a Federal issue. So, today, to consider a bill
that has no grounding in interstate commerce or any other cause in the
Constitution, in direct violation of the 10th amendment, compounded by
the fact that they directly intend to override Oregon's law and would
not give them a chance to make that exception in the Committee on
Rules, this measure intrudes severely upon the essential relationship
between a doctor and a patient.
Moreover, numerous medical associations have already told us that
this bill, ironically, will deter doctors from treating pain because
they fear they may be subject to criminal prosecution at the Federal
level if their patients die. So it is especially disturbing considering
that doctors are already undermedicating approximately 80 percent of
their terminally-ill patients because they believe the current drug
laws are too strict.
Let us not move in this direction. I commend to my colleagues the
substitute of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Stupak) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), which will come up later.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this legislation. I come to this debate today,
not only as a legislator, but as well as a physician. I practice
internal medicine. About once a month, I see patients. For 15 years
prior to coming to the Congress, I practiced internal medicine full
time.
One of the aspects of that for me was I had the opportunity to manage
many patients with chronic pain and many patients, unfortunately, who
were terminal who had, in many instances, metastatic cancer, with
disease in their bones, and there was a lot of pain associated with
their condition.
One of the experiences I discovered was that, with time and attention
from the attending physician, it is possible to manage these patients
quite successfully so that there is not suffering. Indeed, one of the
things that I discovered was that the patients who suffered with severe
pain, whether they were terminal or whether they had severe pain from a
chronic disease and they were not necessarily terminal, the patients
who were suffering were the patients who were being managed
incorrectly. Their physicians essentially were incompetent, and that is
why they were suffering.
That, in the hand of a competent physician, these patients can be
managed correctly, and that their pain can be dealt with. Their nausea
as a complication of their pain medicines can be dealt with. Indeed,
even if they were severely depressed as a complication of their
illness, one could manage them with medications. There is a whole
plethora of drugs available.

[[Page 27077]]

Now, the reason why some people believe that physician-assisted
suicide is necessary is, in my opinion, the false assumption that there
are these cases that we cannot manage and, therefore, we have to
euthanize these people.

{time} 1200

I argue today, before all my colleagues, that that is a very, very
cruel and bogus hoax. In competent hands and in compassionate hands we
do not have to resort to the extreme measure of managing a patient like
we would Fido or Rover, and simply just put them to sleep; that we are
essentially at the limits of what doctors can do.
My colleagues, there are narcotic pain relieving drugs not only
available in pill form, there are medications available in suppository
form, there are medications available that are transcutaneous patches
of narcotic pain relievers, there is even a lollipop that doctors can
use that has a pain reliever in it. I have never seen a patient that
could not have their pain managed. And the people who would resort to
this are people who are lazy or perpetrating a hoax on their patients.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion
Act. This is a cynical title for a bill that is not about pain relief
but about overturning State-assisted suicide laws.
H.R. 2260 explicitly preempts State laws that govern the practice of
medicine, even if the residents of those States have spoken on the
issue. Understandably, this bill is opposed by the California Medical
Association and other State medical associations.
I strongly oppose physician-assisted suicide, but assisted suicide
and pain management are very distinct things, and this bill blurs that
distinction.
Title I of this bill raises the prospect of the Drug Enforcement
Agency, nonmedical people, second-guessing a physician or a health care
professional's intent in prescribing large doses of controlled
substances for patients who have very severe pain. The threat of
investigation could scare health care professionals away from providing
quality care to people who are living in desperate situations, living
with uncontrolled pain. There are medical standards in place now,
approved by the Joint Commissions Standards Committee.
This bill is opposed by the American Nurses Association. Nurses are
the health care professionals who are most often at the side of
patients helping them to deal with their pain and to continue to live
their lives. Nurses are ethically bound to oppose this legislation
because it creates barriers to appropriate and compassionate patient
care. By making effective pain and symptom relief more difficult to
obtain, H.R. 2260 is likely to increase suicide as desperate patients
seek relief from unbearable pain.
In providing needed pain management, let us remember that we are not
assisting patients to die, but helping them to live. I oppose H.R. 2260
and urge support of the Johnson-Rothman-Maloney-Hooley substitute.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hyde-Stupak bill.
Sometimes on this floor Members actually have to read the
legislation. We had a debate here a few weeks ago on managed care in
which part of the biggest problem that we had was to get people to read
the legislation. So let me read the pertinent point in here, and that
is this. ``For purposes of this act and any regulations to implement
this act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the usual course of
professional practice is a legitimate medical purpose for the
dispensing, distributing, or administering of a controlled substance
that is consistent with public health and safety, even if the use of
such a substance may increase the risk of death.''
Those are important words that are in this bill. For various reasons,
moral, religious, professional, ethical, I am against physician-
assisted suicide. I agree with my colleague from Oklahoma, I think this
puts us on a very slippery slope, and testimony before the Commerce
Committee from the Netherlands demonstrated that.
I would also point out that the problem with pain can be handled. But
that is not the most common reason why people request assisted suicide.
It is not because they are having severe pain. Surveys have shown this.
It is because they fear that they are losing control or they fear that
they will be a burden. And I think that there are other ways we can
approach that to help those people, but that we ought to pass the Hyde
bill.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of people would like this debate to be about
physician-assisted suicide because many of us are against physician-
assisted suicide. I am against physician-assisted suicide. That is not
what this debate is about.
This debate is about whether the underlying bill, 2260, will so
intimidate doctors across America that they will not prescribe the pain
medications to the children, men, and women who are begging for it. Not
because they want to die but because they do not want to suffer agony.
They want to live as long as they can, but not in pain.
But my colleagues who want this bill want to make it a physician-
assisted bill. Why? Because they did not like the physician-assisted
law in Oregon and, instead of going to the United States Supreme Court
to get that referendum in Oregon declared unconstitutional, they have
decided to use this route. The question is, is that so bad? Yes, it is
bad, because by using this route and the controlled substances Federal
law to go after the Oregon referendum that the people passed twice,
they are affecting tens of millions of other Americans whose doctors
will be inhibited and chilled from prescribing the pain medications
that those tens of millions of children, men, and women are asking for.
This is not a debate about physician-assisted suicide. If they wanted
to get rid of the Oregon physician-assisted suicide bill, let them go
to the Supreme Court and have it declared unconstitutional. Do not
intrude in the doctor-patient relationship. There is already an
untreatment of pain in America. Do not make it worse. It is not
necessary.
We are all against physician-assisted suicide. I urge my colleagues,
those who are against physician-assisted but believe there needs to be
more care for people in pain, more pain medication, then pass the
substitute and reject the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I think it is very important that the Members of the House focus on
what the language of this bill actually does, and I appreciated the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) actually quoting the bill. Much is
being said here today that has no relationship to what the bill
actually says and what it would actually do.
This bill is not going to do anything to intimidate doctors across
America. That is what has been said here today. That is not the impact
of this bill. This bill is actually going to provide additional
protections for doctors across America. In the language of the bill we
give a safe harbor for the appropriate use of controlled substances and
palliative care. We are creating additional protection under the law
for physicians who use controlled substances to control pain, even in
circumstances where the hastening of the death of the patient may
occur.
We do draw the critical distinction, and we say that the deliberate
taking of life is wrong. But if death is hastened as a consequence of
providing appropriate palliative care, the physician will be protected.
And that is a very important step forward in this legislation. That is
why groups such as the American Medical Association support it.
The focus of this bill is to help ensure that we consistently enforce
the Controlled Substances Act. The issue before the House today, as we
have said

[[Page 27078]]

repeatedly in this debate today, is whether we are going to have a
consistent Federal policy that does not support assisted suicide or
whether we are going to allow a Federal regulatory scheme to be used to
support physician-assisted suicide. Are we going to allow physicians
who are licensed under the Controlled Substances Act to dispense
controlled substances, to use the pads, the prescription pads printed
up by the DEA, to provide controlled substances to kill their patients?
That is the issue before the House today.
I do not think that is appropriate Federal policy. Let me quote to my
colleagues what the President himself said upon signing the Assisted
Suicide Funding Restriction Act. He said, ``The ban on funding will
allow the Federal Government to speak with a clear voice in opposing
these practices.'' We should do the same today.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Johnson-Rothman-Maloney-Hooley substitute amendment to 2260, and in
opposition to the underlying bill.
Several months ago, I introduced 2188, the Conquering Pain Act, with
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to address the pain
crisis, and we are having a pain crisis in this Nation. Most of the
provisions are in this substitute. The Conquering Pain substitute
addresses pain management from a medical perspective rather than law
enforcement. It also expresses Congress' clear opposition to assisted
suicide.
Let me tell my colleagues what is in the substitute. First of all,
patients, families, and doctors would have access to help 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. Our goal is to make sure that people, if they have
a problem on Sunday, do not have to wait until Monday; that they do not
have to be in pain. We want patients to know that they should expect to
have their pain managed and to receive quality pain management. No one
should have to live or die in pain because a doctor was afraid to give
higher doses of pain medication.
As introduced, the Conquering Pain Act also sought to identify any
barrier in our regulatory pain system that prevents good access to pain
management. We want the Surgeon General to provide us with a report on
the state of pain in this country. We create an advisory committee to
help us identify gaps in the Federal policy on pain management to force
the different parts of government to speak to one another, to talk to
each other, so we can create a coordinated agenda that builds on all of
our actions of the Federal Government without wasting taxpayers'
dollars.
Under the Johnson substitute amendment, Congress again expresses its
clear opposition to assisted suicide. Among the groups that sat down
with us to help us write 2188, the Conquering Pain Act, from which this
substitute is derived, and endorsed that bill, are the American Medical
Association, the National Hospice Organization, American Society of
Anesthesiologists, American College of Physicians, American
Pharmaceutical Association.
Among those who oppose the Hyde-Stupak bill and prefer the Conquering
Pain substitute to the Pain Relief Promotion Act are the American
Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American
Pharmaceutical Association, and the American Pain Foundation. And let
me tell my colleagues one other group of people that is very important
for us to understand. All of those associations that deal specifically
with pain management and palliative care are opposed to the underlying
bill and support this amendment.
Ultimately, I hope we can agree that the amendment put forth by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema),
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and myself should be
approved because it will make a difference in people's lives every
single day who are struggling with these life and death issues.
By improving care rather than by more closely scrutinizing care, we
can reduce patients' hopelessness at the end of life. For a medical
solution rather than a law enforcement solution, vote for the
substitute.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
New Jersey for yielding me this time, and I rise to support the Scott-
DeFazio amendment, and the Johnson-Rothman-Maloney-Hooley amendment,
and in opposition to the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for
defining what this debate is all about. This debate is not about
physician-assisted suicide, which all of us collectively, in many ways,
have said that this body, this Congress, does not have the stomach for;
in fact, the American people do not have the stomach for, or
physicians.

{time} 1215

But what this is about is to close the door of the patient's room to
the physician before he goes or she goes in the door to serve that
patient, and it is a jail-time-for-physicians bill in America. That is
the name of this bill.
It is interesting that just a few weeks ago we collectively came
together in supporting the patients' bill of rights in reaffirming the
relationship between patients and physicians. For once and for all,
this Congress stood side by side with the healers of this Nation and
said, we want them to engage with their patients.
Now we come back just a few weeks later, and because we have some
kind of angst and some kind of disagreement with the Oregon State law,
which, in fact, in hearings as I have reviewed is a very good law with
double checks, with second opinions, with the right to withdraw, with
family members involved, with time frames there, a very strong bill;
and yet we in the United States Congress have put ourselves in a God-
like position to, one, remove the rights of the people from Oregon but
then, as well, tell physicians we lock them up and we do not want them
to care for their patients.
Pain is devastating, Mr. Chairman. Pain is devastating. The cancer
victims have terrible pain. This is a bad bill. It should be defeated.
We should support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill because I am
concerned about the negative impact it will have on patient care. This
bill enables the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to determine
whether a prescription was intended to manage pain or to terminate a
life. On its face, this bill may seen like an effort to improve pain
management, but instead, this bill will compromise the ability of
doctors to relieve patient pain.
I understand concerns that pain management medication may be
prescribed for assisted suicides or for euthanasia. Doctors may believe
that by prescribing high doses of pain medication, they are easing the
suffering of a patient close to death.
For patients who have requested assistance in committing suicide, a
physician may prescribe a lethal dose of pain medication as an act of
humanity. In both cases, there is considerable debate about the ethics
of preserving life in these instances.
However, we already recognize certain rights of patients in
determining end of life issues. Terminally ill patients sometimes
decide to write living wills that alert medical personnel of their
final wishes. People sign organ donor cards and families make life or
death decisions concerning on-going treatment in chronically ill cases.
In each of these situations, there is a balancing determination about
the quality of life in terms of the wishes of the patient and the
interests of society. Included in these decisions are the ethics of end
of life pain management.
There is precedent in federal law and state law concerning physician
assisted suicide. In Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the Supreme Court
encouraged States to engage in this debate, ``about the morality,
legality and practicality of physician assisted suicide.''
The State of Oregon voted in 1994 through a ballot initiative to
support physician assisted suicide under specific circumstances and by
following specific guidelines.
This bill is an attempt to address this issue by giving the DEA the
authority to determine if pain management medication is prescribed in a
manner that constitutes a ``legitimate

[[Page 27079]]

medical purpose.'' Its effect is to take the debate away from the
states by regulation on the federal level.
This is problematic because this bill may subject physicians to
criminal prosecution when administering pain medication. Physicians who
prescribe pain management drugs in large doses that ``may increase the
risk of death'' would be in danger of losing their DEA license.
I do not support this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against
it. The Supreme Court has already determined that the States have the
right to legislate in this area, and I believe we should defer to that
finding. The right of patients to request medication to manage pain,
and the responsibility of doctors to manage the pain cannot be
compromised.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, well, if we wanted to distill
this down to the final issue, it is should one of the options be
available to a doctor to go in and kill a patient if the patient has
determined that their life is not worth living anymore. And if my
colleagues think that is a very good law, then perhaps they should not
support this bill.
I think this is a cruel hoax. I think anybody who would hold out and
say killing them is the best way to go is wrong. I can manage the
patients. If they cannot handle them in Oregon, send them to me and I
will retire from the House and take care of them in Florida. I mean,
this is absurd to say we have to ultimately have the ability to just do
that and say bye-bye.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this bill merely reinforces current Federal policy that
the administration, dispensation, or distribution of a controlled
substance for the purpose of assisting a suicide is not authorized by
the Federal Controlled Substance Act.
We make clear that the Attorney General, in implementing the
Controlled Substance Act, shall not recognize any law permitting
assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Now, this legislation has reflected many months of hard work to bring
the hospice groups on board to support this legislation. And not only
the National Hospice Organization. But the American Medical
Association, the American Academy of Pain Management, American Society
of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Osteopathic Family
Physicians all support this legislation.
Now, despite all the claims made on the floor by the opponents here,
this bill really does three things. It promotes pain management and
palliative care. It does not create any new Federal standard concerning
the controlled substances under the Controlled Substance Act with
respect to assisted suicide. We do not put forward any new standard.
And it does override reliance on Oregon's Death With Dignity Act as a
defense, we do not repeal it, but as a defense to any action pursuant
to the Controlled Substance Act.
If I may, one of those who supports this legislation, C. Everett Koop
states, and I would like to quote from his statement to us, he says,
``Clearly, controlled substances, such as narcotics, have very
legitimate and important uses in modern medicine, not least in
alleviating the suffering of dying patients. Just as clearly,
Government has legitimate interests in ensuring that those substances
are never intentionally used to take a human life. Physicians who are
entrusted by the Federal Government with the privilege of using these
potentially dangerous drugs in their practice should be the first to
understand the need for laws ensuring their proper use. Their own
ethical code instructs them always to use medications only to care,
never to kill.''
C. Everett Koop, in endorsing our legislation, goes on and states
that this bill strikes the right balance by promoting the much-needed
role of federally regulated drugs for pain relief while reaffirming
that they should not be abused to assist patient suicide. A better
understanding of the difference between trying to kill pain and trying
to kill patients will be of great help to law enforcement authorities,
to physicians, and especially to patients themselves.
Now, if we take a look at our legislation that we have before us,
H.R. 2266, there has been all these claims that law enforcement
officials will be questioning the doctor's intent in using controlled
substances for pain. That is not the case. That is not even close to
what this bill purports to do.
Using drugs to assist suicide is clearly different from using them to
control pain. Causing a patient's death usually requires a sudden
massive overdose of a potentially dangerous drug. Pain control involves
the carefully adjusting dosage until it achieves relief of pain with a
minimum amount of side effects for the patient. This gradual adjustment
of the dosage is exactly what must be avoided if one's intent is to
kill, because patients quickly build up a resistance to side effects,
such as suppression of breathing.
The intentional assistance in suicide is already contrary to State
law and State licensing practices across this great Nation. This bill
creates no new standard, no new law of the States. Even in the few
States that do not clearly ban assisted suicide by criminal law, the
practice is clearly contrary to medical and also to ethics and
licensing standards. And if it is contrary to licensing standards,
therefore, it is contrary to the Controlled Substance Act, which denies
a license, a registration to anyone who has lost his or her own State
license.
So the point being that all this about we are going to put in new
intent is simply not true.
Now, let me just make a few comments if I may on the broader issue of
federalism that we have heard a lot about. H.R. 2260 does not preempt
Oregon's law legalizing assisted suicide. Its only legal effect is we
forbid the use of narcotic drugs which are federally controlled for
that purpose.
On a broader issue of federalism, Oregon has the right to say that
there will be no State penalties for certain conduct. But that does not
mean that Oregon can prevent the Federal Government from restricting
the use over federally controlled substances.
Registration of a physician under the Controlled Substance Act is a
matter entirely separate from a physician's State license to practice
medicine. Therefore, the revocation of a registration only precludes a
physician from dispensing controlled substances under the Controlled
Substance Act. It does not preclude that physician from dispensing
other prescription drugs or in his continued medical practice. And
because the Federal Controlled Substance Act requires prescriptions to
be for legitimate medical purpose to be valid by allowing this
practice, the Federal Government is making a judgment that each and
every one of those suicides was performed for legitimate medical
purpose.
So it is well within the power of the Federal Government to say that
these Federal drugs are not being used for the purpose of killing
people, notwithstanding State law.
There is no reason why our tax dollars and our Federal law
enforcement personnel must be drafted into assisting Oregon's dangerous
experiment in assisted suicide.
I hope that our colleagues will reject the arguments and vote for
H.R. 2260. Let us end assisted suicide and let us relieve pain. I hope
they vote yes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair
would advise Members that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has
9\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman)
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has
10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has
4 minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just go through and rhetorically ask
some questions and answer them so we can really talk about what this
bill does. Because we have heard everything except the essence, other
than what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) just outlined, as
the truth about what this bill does.

[[Page 27080]]

Is it the intent of this bill to undermine States' ability to help
patients access appropriate palliative care? No, it is not the intent
whatsoever. Is it the intent of this bill to create a fear on the part
of physicians so they will not do the proper thing when it comes to
caring for end-of-life, pain-enduring patients? No, that is not the
intent. And that is not the consequence, regardless of what has been
said on the floor. What we actually do is define better so that we do
not put physicians at risk and give them a safe harbor.
Are we trying to go around guidelines for end-of-life issues in the
State? No, we are not trying to do that at all. What we are trying to
say is have whatever guidelines they want, but as far as the use of
narcotics, we do not think that those narcotics ought to be used to
intentionally take a life.
Some have said we are going to allow the DEA agents to make a
decision over what the intent was of the doctor. Well, that is simple.
I am for that. I do not have any problem. Because do my colleagues know
what? They make that decision about me right now. Whatever my intent
is, whether I write a narcotic prescription to alleviate pain
associated with a fracture or if I write morphine suppositories for a
patient dying of metastatic cancer, they still get a look at it; and
they are making a decision right now.
And do my colleagues know what? All they want is to make sure that we
are not violating the law. And every physician is trained in that.
Now, what is the real question? The real question is will physicians
in this country stand up and put their patients first? That is the real
question, will they really go out and help their patient?
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) so eloquently said, we can
help patients. We do it all the time. The question is we have to be
trained in it, we have to want to do it, and we have to make sure that
the extenders of the physicians in this country will in fact carry out
our order.
There is no question, the American Medical Association said 2 years
ago we have not done a good job in this country in training physicians
in end-of-life pain control management. They have redoubled their
efforts not only at the American Medical Association but in every
medical school in this country.
So what we have heard about the untoward events that will come out of
this bill is poppycock; it is not based in fact. The fact is, if they
are going to assume everybody is going to do everything wrong, they
might be able to do that.
Somehow we changed in this country. We used to assume that people
would do things right, that they were honorable, that they had
integrity. And then, as we start undermining the values and
foundational principles of our country, we have to assume that
everybody is going to do everything wrong.
What this bill does is say, if their intent is right, they are safe-
harbored and they are protected.
The fact is that every day good physicians are out there making great
decisions about pain control for their patients. This bill will enhance
their ability to do that, not take away from that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think that we are passing the ultimate
in Murphy's law today. Because a few weeks ago we got out here and
talked about we wanted to have the doctor-patient relationship; and now
we, the great medical board of medicine in the sky, are going to decide
what goes on between patients and doctors.
What happened in Oregon is really an attempt to deal with a very
thorny public issue, and they tried to make explicit and say that that
which all physicians know goes on ought to be done within the scope of
the law so that there is no question about it.
A patient has to ask, two physicians have to examine for competency.
A patient can withdraw. The doctor has to register that he or she is
going to administer medication for this purpose. We are not just
talking about narcotics here. We are talking about a whole range of
psychotropic drugs, everything covered by the DEA. And so now you are
going to hand to the bureaucrats, and if I have heard one bureaucrat
reviled on this floor, I have heard a thousand of them, so they are
going to hand this to the Department of Justice and somebody in the
Department of Justice is going to write the rules and regulations for
this.

{time} 1230

Now, that is where Murphy's law comes, because somebody over there is
going to sit and say, well, if a doctor gives this number of pills
within this period of time, that is assisting suicide and therefore we
are going to swoop in and grab him. They will have to have some
standard by which they grab them and take them to court and say you,
doctor, were assisting in suicide.
The doctor merely has to take the law out here and say, no, no, no,
on page 5 it says here, the purpose of my care was to alleviate pain
and other distressing symptoms and to enhance the quality of life, and
they are wrong, right? But they are going to have to go through court
to prove that that is what they were doing. They would have no defense.
If they have 25 pills within 30 days, they will certainly wind up being
dragged into court by somebody, maybe a family member, it may be
somebody else saying, you were assisting my mother in suicide by giving
her those pills.
I am a psychiatrist. I have prescribed many, many, many times amounts
of medication that people can use to kill themselves, if they took them
all at once. You could say, well, doctor, what you have to do is let
the patient have five pills, that is all they get. When they need five
more, come in and get five more. I testified in a malpractice suit on
which a physician had prescribed 100 Nembutal to somebody which were
used for suicide. You are opening a box that you know nothing about,
because it occurs in a room between a patient and a physician. And if
you think you are smart enough to write a law that will control that
situation, you simply do not know what physicians face and what
patients face when they are faced with an overwhelming illness. For us
to say that we know what should go on in the United States with all
600,000 physicians and the 240 million patients in this country is
absolute nonsense.
The locals have worked on an issue here. I think they ought to be
allowed to do that because they made it very explicit and made the
doctors honest. You are going to make doctors dishonest with this law.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I quote, and this testimony was also given before the constitutional
subcommittee in the House. I want to give my colleagues the quote of a
physician:
``What is the sense of having that woman here? It makes no difference
whether she dies today or after 2 weeks. We need the bed for another
case.''
This is a recounting of a Catholic nun who did not want to be
euthanized but was euthanized anyway in Holland because they needed the
bed.
Mr. Chairman, psychiatrists are in lawsuits every day in this country
because they give antidepressants that have a lethal dose of 50 and
they give too much medicine. One of the things you are taught in
medical school is to not give too much medicine, enough medicine that
someone could take their life. So we understand that issue and those
arguments are fallacious. The fact remains that if we are going to
encourage a doctor-patient relationship, I will encourage that all the
way up to the point we decide that the doctor has the right to take the
patient's life. That is no longer a relationship. That is not a
relationship when I as a physician decide I am going to be the giver or
taker of life for my patient. And if that is the foundational construct
under how we are going to run doctor-patient relationships, we need to
start completely over. Psychotropic drugs are controlled in this
country and for good reason. That is called

[[Page 27081]]

mescaline, LSD. We use very few. We use antipsychotic drugs and we use
narcotics and we use barbiturates. But most psychotropic drugs we do
not even allow doctors to write a prescription for because they are
significantly mind-altering drugs. The doctor-patient relationship does
need to be preserved. This law does nothing to disturb a proper doctor-
patient relationship in Oregon. But as soon as a doctor has made the
decision that they are the giver or taker of life, they no longer are a
physician. They may be called doctor by our society but they no longer
are a physician. They no longer have the ethical right to care for that
patient.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Johnson-Hooley-Roukema-Maloney-Rothman amendment and against the base
bill. The first principle of the Hippocratic oath is to do no harm, yet
the base bill before us does harm. The Pain Relief Promotion Act does
little to relieve pain. Instead, it focuses on abolishing physician-
assisted suicide. It expands the authority of the Drug Enforcement
Administration agents to judge the practices of well-meaning doctors.
This means that even when death results from sincere efforts to provide
appropriate pain relief, a doctor's intent can be questioned.
Last night, I spoke with one of my constituents. Her name is Lisa
Pearlman. She was just 22 years old when she developed fibromyalgia.
This disease causes pain throughout the body. Lisa said there were days
when she could barely function, there were times she could not even
pick up her young child. She said she went to at least a dozen doctors
before she found one who could manage her pain. Now for flare-ups she
takes pain killers to manage the pain so she can take care of her two
young children. But what if Lisa's doctor were too afraid of a criminal
investigation to order the drugs that changed her life? Where would
Lisa and so many patients be?
The American Pain Foundation predicts that the base bill could
actually increase the rate of suicide among the terminally ill because
people who suffer from severe, chronic pain will no longer have an
alternative. By intimidating doctors with pulled licenses and jail
sentences, the base bill does more to threaten the lives of those who
desperately want to live than those who do not want to live. It gives
drug enforcement agents too much control over decisions that should be
made by doctors and their patients.
I ask my colleagues to consider the lives of people who depend on
aggressive pain medication to live. It is not our place to come between
a doctor and their patient in important decisions.
I include for the Record the following letter from Memorial Sloan-
Kettering in support of the Johnson bipartisan bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the Johnson bill.

I am a neuro-oncologist and palliative care physician. On a
daily basis, I treat patients with cancer who have pain and
other symptoms in the course of their illness, including
patients who are dying. I am writing to urge you to oppose
H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (Hyde/
Nichols). As a palliative care physician, I know that pain is
under-treated and that palliative care services are
underutilized.
While H.R. 2260 is well intentioned, it is
counterproductive. It will likely have a chilling effect on
aggressive pain management. As the co-chairman of the Agency
for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) expert panel on
cancer pain guidelines, I know that physicians often
prescribe inadequate amounts of pain medicines, and use less
potent pain medications because of fears of regulatory
scrutiny. I wish to make it clear that I am opposed to
physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, I feel it is
profoundly unfair to provide an option for physician-assisted
suicide in circumstances where many patients do not have full
access to health care and quality pain management and
palliative care. However, in considering the issue of
physician-assisted suicide, Congress should not tamper with
the Controlled Substances Act and endanger patients in need
of aggressive pain and symptom management. I urge you to
support an amendment to strike Title 1 and thereby remove the
provisions that turn the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) into a
medical oversight body charged with investigating the
``intent'' and ``purpose'' in a physician's care for a
patient.
I also urge you to support a substitute amendment
incorporating the provisions of the Conquering Pain Act (H.R.
2188)--a bill that would constructively promote end-of-life
and palliative care--as long as the substitute amendment
includes elimination of the changes to the Controlled
Substances Act of Title 1 of H.R. 2260. Unless one of these
amendments is passed to remove the provisions that would
increase barriers to aggressive pain management, I strongly
urge you to vote against H.R. 2260 as reported by committee.
Please do not increase the barriers for physicians to
provide the pain management, palliative and end-of-life care
that the American public needs.
Sincerely,

Richard Payne, MD,

Professor of Neurology and

Pharmacology,
Cornell University Medical College.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to
my friend and colleague the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) who said,
read the legislation. Then he stopped reading the legislation at a very
critical point. It is true that this bill allows administering
controlled substances to alleviate pain even if they may increase the
risk of death. The next sentence: Nothing in this section authorizes
intentionally administering a controlled substance for the purpose of
causing death, and later on in the definitional section, that causing
death must be read as hastening death. So under this law, DEA agents
will have to judge whether the intention of the physician was to
alleviate pain, even at the risk of death, or whether the physician's
intention was to hasten death. This is a judgment that is extremely
difficult to make if you are a physician. It should not be made by
nonmedical personnel, DEA agents.
This is such a serious matter that Richard Payne, the Chief of Pain
and Palliative Care Service, Department of Neurology, Cornell
University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center says in a letter,
``Physicians often prescribe inadequate amounts of pain medicines and
use less potent pain medications because of fears of regulatory
scrutiny.'' Then I have to skip some in the interest of time.
He goes on to say, ``I urge you to support the amendment to strike
title I,'' later he goes on to support my amendment, ``and thereby
remove the provisions that turn the Drug Enforcement Agency into a
medical oversight body charged with investigating the intent and
purpose of a physician's care for a patient.''
So if the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) gets up here and says
it is not my intent to discourage alleviation of pain, it does not
matter what his intent is when the law says the government is now going
to judge the physician's intention in providing care in situations in
which there is extremely severe pain and high dosages involved.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow on to what our colleague
from Connecticut had to say. This bill allegedly creates a safe harbor
for those who administer pain medications to chronically and terminally
ill patients. But I have heard from nurses, family physicians and
pharmacists who say the bill will do more harm than good. They believe
this legislation will chill their efforts to aggressively treat
patients in pain. By raising doubts about the legality of their
conduct, this bill will discourage them from easing the pain of AIDS
and cancer patients across the country.
I cannot support a bill that will at best further cloud an already
uncertain legal environment in which doctors, nurses and pharmacists
are trying to do what is best for their patients. This bill will make
it harder for them to do their jobs and force them into guessing games
over whether the DEA will turn a benevolent or a hostile eye towards
their conduct.
We should not gamble the quality of life of patients in pain upon who
happens to be Attorney General. Until the bill's safe harbor is truly
safe enough

[[Page 27082]]

for care givers, I unfortunately will oppose this legislation and
support the amendments to it.
This legislation was also created as a political attack on Oregon's
Death with Dignity Act. It seeks to override the votes of Oregon
residents, but it is patients in pain who will pay the price for this
legislation.
Finally, H.R. 2260 will put an end to widespread and thoughtful
deliberation among the States about physician-assisted suicide. I do
not think the Federal government should intrude in these important
debates. We should allow states like Oregon to reach decisions which
reflect the fundamental beliefs of their residents.
I submit the following material for the Record:

Suicide Bill's Deep Flaws

The House of Representatives plans to vote today on the
most wrenching issue before it: a bill by Rep. Henry J. Hyde
(R-Ill.) that is intended to effectively nullify a law in
Oregon that allows terminally ill patients to request drugs
to end their lives. However, the bill would reach far beyond
the Oregon law. Medical societies say it will lead many
doctors to under-medicate terminal patients to avoid scrutiny
from federal drug agents. For this reason the bill is
unacceptable.
Hyde wrote the bill out of rightful concern that the Oregon
law, which voters passed in 1994, could lead government down
a slippery slope toward sanctioning the state or federal
legalization of physician-assisted suicide.
Hyde's bill, however, is by no means the best way to
supervise and discipline doctors who stray from their proper
role as healers.
The bill has gained broad support in the House largely
because of misleading arguments being made by its proponents.
Hyde titles his bill. ``The Pain Relief Promotion Act'' and
the author of its Senate counterpart, Sen. Don Nickles (R-
Oklahoma), insists that ``there's no going after doctors in
this.''
In fact, Hyde's legislation imposes civil penalties and a
20-year mandatory prison sentence on doctors who knowingly
hasten a terminally ill patient's death. The California
Medical Assn., along with physician groups representing a
dozen other states, persuasively argue that the harsh
sanctions would lead doctors to under-medicate patients to
avoid prosecution--thus inhibiting the effective pain
management the bill purports to promote.
Some Hyde staffers have said they would consider reducing
the bill's penalties if that would persuade President Clinton
to sign it. But even if the sanctions were reduced, the bill
remains marred by its requirement that the Drug Enforcement
Administration define legitimate medical uses of pain
medications, then regulate and enforce those subjective
determinations. The DEA, basically a policing agency, by its
own admission has neither the expertise nor the resources to
play doctor.
The best way to prevent medical abuses that drift toward
euthanasia is through vigilance by state medical authorities
and legislators, not by passing a federal bill with a
misleading title and unenforceable aims.
____

American Pain Foundation,

Baltimore, MD.

Opposition to ``Pain Relief Promotion Act'' (H.R. 2260) as Reported by
Committees

H.R. 2260 is well-intended and an improvement over last
year's bill, but it is seriously flawed. Please vote against
H.R. 2260 in its present form.
Many doctors and other health care practitioners think H.R.
2260 will have a chilling effect on pain management. Others
disagree. It's not worth Congress' taking the risk that
people in pain will suffer more under H.R. 2260.
Current law and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
regulations protect doctors who aggressively treat pain with
morphine and other oploids. Doctors don't need a new law,
they need better implementation of existing law.
DEA will investigate physicians' subjective ``intent'' in
palliative care with the threat of criminal penalties.
Practitioners will incur costs and burden of justifying their
medical care to federal authorities. Result: undertreatment
of pain.
Assisted suicide should be dealt with in a separate law,
not linked to the medical practice of pain management.
Correct H.R. 2260 with floor amendments:
Strike Title I to remove provisions that turn the DEA into
a medical oversight body investigating ``intent'' and
``purpose'' in a physician's care for a patient.
Substitute the provisions of the Conquering Pain Act--an
effective approach to stopping suicides, assisted and
otherwise, by relieving unnecessary pain.
Many patients, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and cancer
specialists oppose H.R. 2260:
Patient and Health Care Groups Opposed (partial list):
American Academy of Family Physicians, American Alliance of
Cancer Pain Initiatives, American Nurses Association,
American Pain Foundation, American Pharmaceutical
Association, American Society for Action on Pain, American
Society of Health-System Pharmacists, American Society of
Pain Management Nurses, Hospice and Palliative Nurses
Association, National Association of Orthopaedic Nurses,
National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain, Oncology
Nursing Society, and Society of Critical Care Medicine.
State Medical Societies Already Opposed or Having Serious
Reservations (10/19/99): Arizona Medical Association,
Arkansas Medical Society, California Medical Association,
Louisiana State Medical Society, Massachusetts Medical
Society, Oregon Medical Association, Rhode Island Medical
Society, Texas Medical Association, Vermont Medical Society,
Washington State Medical Association, and State Medical
Society of Wisconsin.
____

Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, October 19, 1999.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Dingell: This letter presents the views of
the Department of Justice on H.R. 2260, the ``Pain Relief
Promotion Act of 1999.''
H.R. 2260 makes two changes to federal drug law as it
relates to the use of controlled substances by terminally ill
patients. First, the bill clarifies that controlled
substances may be used to alleviate pain in the course of
providing palliative care to terminally ill patients. The
bill also funds research and education on the appropriate use
of controlled substances for this purpose. The Department
strongly supports these provisions of H.R. 2260.
Second, H.R. 2260 states that the use of controlled
substances to assist a terminally ill person in committing
suicide is not authorized by federal law. The Department
opposes physician-assisted suicide, but is concerned about
the propriety of a federal law that would unquestionably make
physician-assisted suicide a federal crime with harsh
mandatory penalties. Imposing such penalties would also
effectively block State policy making on this issue at a time
when, as the Supreme Court recently noted in Washington v.
Glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2275 (1997), the States are
still ``engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the
morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted
suicide.''

palliative care

Section 101 of H.R. 2260 amends section 303 of the
Controlled Substances Act (``CSA''), 21 U.S.C. Sec. 823, to
specify that the use of controlled substances to
``alleviat[e] pain or discomfort in the usual course of
professional practice'' is a ``legitimate medical purpose''
under the CSA, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841, ``even if the use of such
a substance may increase the risk of death.'' Because a
physician who acts with a ``legitimate medical purpose'' is
acting in compliance with the Act,\1\ H.R. 2260 creates a
``safe harbor'' against administrative and criminal sanctions
when controlled substances are used for palliative care.
Sections 102, 201 and 202 amend the CSA and the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 299) to authorize the Attorney
General, the Administrator of the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research, and the Secretary of the Health and
Human Services Department to conduct research on palliative
care, to collect and distribute guidelines for the
administration of palliative care, and to award grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts to health schools and
other institutions to provide education and training on
palliative care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department fully supports these measures. H.R. 2260
would eliminate any ambiguity about the legality of using
controlled substances to alleviate the pain and suffering of
the terminally ill by reducing any perceived threat of
administrative and criminal sanctions in this context. The
Department accordingly supports those portions of H.R. 2260
addressing palliative care.

physician assisted suicide

H.R. 2260 would amend section 303 (21 U.S.C. Sec. 823) of
the CSA to provide that ``[n]othing in this section
authorizes intentionally dispensing, distributing, or
administering a controlled substance for the purpose of
causing death or assisting another person in causing death.''
By denying authorization under the CSA, H.R. 2260 would make
it a federal crime for a physician to dispense a controlled
substance to aid a suicide.\2\ A physician who prescribes the
controlled substances most commonly used to aid a suicide
would, because he or she necessarily intends death to result,
face a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence in federal prison
(as well as civil and administrative sanctions under the
Act).\3\
The Administration strongly opposes the practice of
physician-assisted suicide and would not support the practice
as a matter of federal policy. H.R. 2260 side-steps the
federal policy question, however, and operates instead by
blocking State policy making on an issue that many, including
the Supreme Court, think is appropriately left to the States
to decide as each chooses.\4\
Moreover, H.R. 2260 would affirmatively interferes with
State policy making in a particularly heavy handed way by
using 20-year

[[Page 27083]]

mandatory prison sentences (as well as civil and
administrative sanctions) to effectively preclude States from
adopting any policy that would authorize physician-assisted
suicide, even if that authorization contains carefully
drafted provisions designed to protect the terminally ill.
For these reasons, H.R. 2260 is particularly intrusive to
State policy making, and the Department accordingly opposes
this portion of the bill.\5\ The Department would, however,
be willing to work with you in formulating a legislative or
regulatory solution that obviates the concerns identified in
this letter.\6\
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. The
Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program
to the presentation of this letter. Please do not hesitate to
call upon us if we may be of further assistance in connection
with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Raben,
Assistant Attorney General.

Footnotes

\1\ See e.g. 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1306.04(a) (authorizing
prescriptions only for ``legitimate medical purposes'').
\2\ The criminal provisions of the CSA are triggered by the
absence of proper authorization. See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)
(``Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be
unlawful . . .'') (emphasis added).
\3\ See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(C) (setting 20 year
mandatory minimum sentence when death results from the
distribution of a Schedule II substance); 21 C.F.R.
Sec. 1308.12(a)-(c) (defining Schedule II substances).
Schedule III drugs, which are sometimes used, do not carry
any mandatory minimum sentence. See 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 841(b)(1)(D).
\4\ Glucksburg, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2274 (noting that debate
over physician-assisted suicide is underway in the States,
``as it should in a democratic society''); id at 2303
(O'Connor, I., concurring) (endorsing majority's result,
which left ``the . . . challenging task of drafting
appropriate procedures for safeguarding . . . liberty
interests . . . to the `laboratory' of the States''); id. at
2293 (Souter, I., concurring) (emphasizing that, in light of
current state experimentation, ``[t]he Court should stay its
hand to allow reasonable legislative consideration [of this
difficult issue]'').
\5\ This approach to physician-assisted suicide is consistent
with the Department's approach to ``medical marijuana.'' The
legality of the latter turns on factual, not ethical,
questions. That is, the scheduling of controlled substances
is based on scientific testing to determine, among other
things, whether they have any ``currently accepted medical
use for treatment in the United States,'' a ``high potential
for abuse,'' and ``a lack of accepted safety for use . . .
under medical supervision.'' 21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(b)(1) and
Schedule I(c)(10). As a result, the CSA appropriately creates
a uniform national system of drug scheduling. Where an issue
turns solely on ethics, not science, it is reasonable to
allow individual states to reach their own conclusions,
rather than impose a uniform national standard through
implied preemption of state medical standards.
\6\ Any solution should also be careful not to make state-
authorized assisted suicides more painful, as H.R. 2260
appears to do. H.R. 2260's prohibitions would only reach
controlled substances, which are most often used as sedatives
and not as the actual agents of death. As a result, H.R. 2260
might well result in physician-assisted suicides that do not
use sedatives and pain-controlling substances that are
accordingly more painful.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two of
the criticisms of the bill that have been brought up. Number one,
somebody rose and said there is nothing in this bill that will help
people with pain. There are two titles in this act. The second title
which encompasses most of the bill deals with extensive training so
that physicians will get better training on how to manage pain. That is
really the problem. That is why people suffer. There are a lot of
doctors who are not well trained in how to manage these cases.
Now, the issue that has been brought up as well by the last two
speakers, that there will be this gray zone and you will give a few
pills and the DEA will start scrutinizing you, in practical effect that
never happens. Indeed, under the Oregon statute, which is essentially
the focus of all this discussion, you have to register with the State
that you are going to execute somebody. It is quite clear what the
intent is there. There is not a gray zone at all involved.
I believe if Members take the time to read it as the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske) said, this is an excellent bill, an extremely well
crafted bill, one of the best ones I have ever seen.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Oncology Nursing Society and American
Nurses Association support the Johnson substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
We have heard some extraordinary things from the other side. The
people who are one day for States' rights today want to preempt it. The
people who are for individual decisions want to preempt them. The
people who want to sanctify the physician-patient relationship want to
put a Drug Enforcement Administration agent in the room with the
physician and the patient while they are making these critical
decisions. They have talked about the word execute, euthanasia.
Look at the Oregon law. It is something where a physician can only
prescribe after there are two diagnoses, a psychological consultation,
the person willingly asks, they have acceded in writing, they have
informed their next of kin, there has been a waiting period and the
person must self-administer. That is the key. It is not euthanasia. It
is not physician-assisted suicide. They write a humane prescription for
a person who is dying a horrible, horrible death and who might want
relief.
What has happened in Oregon? Fewer people have taken their lives with
guns and other things because they just knew it was there if they
needed it. They want to turn back the clock to the bad old days when my
father is dying and I said, can he not have more pain medication, the
doctor said, no, it might depress his breathing. In one line in the
bill, they give the doctor that authority. But they take it away five
lines later where they say if the doctor intentionally depresses that
person's breathing.

{time} 1245

Who knows? How are we going to determine intent? Are the drug
enforcement administration the best people to determine one's
physician's intent and chill their desire to give relief from
intractable pain? I would say no, and I do not think on any other day
of the week the Republican party would advocate having the Drug
Enforcement Administration involved in our personal legal lives.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for just a
response.
If a doctor writes a prescription that he knows is going to be used
to take someone's life, that is doctor-assisted suicide, period, end of
sentence.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2260, the
Pain Relief Promotion Act, 1999. Like many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle who have spoken here, I have a very profound respect
for the sanctity of human life. I also believe that every individual
has the right to live and ultimately die with dignity. The Pain Relief
Promotion Act goes a long way to ensure that terminally-ill patients
receive the palliative care necessary to alleviate chronic pain. In
doing so it allows these individuals to die with dignity. This bill
prohibits the use of CSA-controlled drugs for assisted suicide and
euthanasia, but it gives doctors greater leeway to aggressively treat
pain.
In 1997 Congress passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act
with the support of the current administration. The act forbids the use
of Federal funds for assisted suicide whether or not States legalize
the practice. The vote in the House on that bill was 398 to 16, and it
was unanimous in the Senate. However, since that time we have been
confronted with a tragic ruling by the Attorney General, that
physician-assisted suicide does not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Controlled Substances Act. We, as a body, must now take this
opportunity to further clarify our message, and that message is:
Congress does not sanction assisted suicide, and federally controlled
substances cannot be prescribed for that purpose.
Sadly, we will probably all at one time or another be confronted with
a tragedy of personal illness or suffering, and this bill is a good
bill, and I would urge its passage.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining minute to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pain Relief
Promotion Act. As a cosponsor of this bill, I know that the Pain Relief
Promotion Act would not keep physicians, nurses, or health care workers
from providing appropriate pain and symptom control to sick patients.
The

[[Page 27084]]

measure simply clarifies what is already established as case law and
common practice. The use of drugs outside of established professional
and legal parameters is forbidden, and this bill is very similar to a
law already in place in my home State of Arkansas, a law that has
proved to be effective and enforceable.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation has been endorsed by a broad spectrum
of organizations such as the National Hospice Organization, the
American Medical Association, the former Surgeon General, C. Everett
Koop. Let us pass this legislation and show that we know the value of
human life.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time for purposes of control to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, 15 seconds is yielded to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
There was no objection.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman)
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Here are the facts, Mr. Chairman.
There is an undertreatment of pain in the United States of America
because doctors feel inhibited they will be sued civilly in the medical
malpractice suit.
What does the underlying bill do? It adds additional fear to doctors
that they will be sent to jail and lose their license. How do we know
they are fearful of this? Half of the doctors groups have said they do
not support this bill. Most of the nurses organizations do not support
this bill. Instead, they support the Johnson-Rothman substitute.
So we know doctors and nurses are being chilled now. They are telling
us do not pass that underlying bill. If my colleagues do not like
physician-assisted suicide, which I do not, which most Members of
Congress do not, and they do not like the Oregon physician-assisted
suicide bill, go to the Supreme Court and get it thrown out.
But do not chill doctors giving of pain medication to the tens of
millions of children, boys and girls, men and women in America and the
other 49 states because of not liking Oregon's law. Let us deal with
pain for the millions of Americans in pain. Deal with the Oregon
constitutional situation in the Supreme Court. They are trying to make
this a physician-assisted suicide sanctity-of-life issue. We all
believe in the sanctity of life. Address that separately before the
Supreme Court. Let us give people in agonizing terminal pain the
ability not to kill themselves, but to get the pain medicine they are
asking and begging for.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is
recognized for 10\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, let us not make any mistake. The real danger,
the real danger if we go down this road, if we leap off the cliff into
the abyss is in 10 years, once we make assisted suicide permissible,
once we make it possible, once doctors lose the healing, diminish their
healing faculty and become an assistant to the hangmen, we put and
jeopardize the unwanted people, and we are diminishing the value of
human life.
We were told, we pro-lifers, that we do not care about people after
they are born; our only concern is when they are born. No, but some of
us said, You're starting down a slippery slope; you're devaluing human
life, and that is what we see here today. But we are just beginning.
The unwanted, the uninsured, the poor, the elderly, the frail, the
diseased, the profoundly handicapped, they are at risk. They are
watching this today, if only they could, to see if they are going to be
put at risk.
They talk about expanding the authority of the DEA. The DEA has this
authority already. We are trying to reinstate it in the one State where
it has been removed, and that is Oregon. We are not providing any more
authority to any law enforcement that they do not have now, and the
doctor, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), talked about
these tough decisions. Well, if they are so tough, how is a U.S.
Attorney going to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the doctor had
a criminal intent? Not so.
This is an important bill because it assures the uniform application
of Federal law, and I really ought to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Canady), Senator Nickles, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), and so many and all in the hospice
and medical communities who have worked so diligently to produce a bill
that offers our citizens greater access to palliative care to the
management and alleviation of pain and maintains medicine as a healer,
a healing force, an alleviator of pain.
The bill has 165 cosponsors in the House and in the Senate. The
companion bill cosponsored by Senator Lieberman and sponsored by
Senator Nickles has 31 cosponsors, so there is bipartisan support in
the House and in the Senate.
Now we know the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970 to
establish uniform Federal laws on a uniquely Federal subject, the
control, the regulation of controlled substances. Those are drugs that
are potentially dangerous. We have got a DEA, we have got a drug car,
and we have a national drug problem. The agency's task is to ensure
that these potentially dangerous drugs are administered for legitimate
medical purposes.
Now it happens that Oregon decided to change the traditional time-
honored professional purpose of medicine and give Oregon doctors the
option no longer to serve as healing forces but as social engineers,
messengers of death. So Oregon has passed a State law that gives
doctors the right to assist in the intentional killing of patients,
patients who may want to die, families who want their older relatives
to die, and so doctors are authorized now by Oregon law to put down
their stethoscope and pick up the poison pill and proceed to assist in
the execution of their patient.
Very simple. It comes down to this. Do we want to empower our doctors
to intentionally kill a patient even if that is the desire of the
patient or the family? Do we want to add executions to the list of
healing services they provide? Should Oregon law trump the Federal law?
Now some Oregonians resent this Federal intrusion in response to
their decision to let doctors do away with the weak, the weary, the
fearful of being a burden to their families. Suicide is the ultimate
act of despair, and facilitating the intentional killing of a human
life is the opposite of healing. The opposite of alleviating pain, it
is a surrender to hopelessness when there are other options that reject
the culture of death.
Physicians have not been taught what medications to prescribe for a
suicide. There is no research or case series in medical literature to
which doctors of death can refer to find prescribing information and
directions. It is doubtful that one standard will fit all. There is no
documented scientific literature or guide book on how to kill one's
patient.
The medical profession is concerned about palliative care, and the
debate about assisted suicide which takes place now must be at the
forefront of our concerns because to focus on the management of pain in
the last months, the last days, the last hours of life, hospice doctors
and others in the medical profession study and practice medicine with a
clear purpose of making their patients more comfortable even while
mindful that administering palliative care sometimes can have the
unintended side effect of hastening death.
These are difficult decisions faced every day. This bill can help end
those decisions by providing what is not

[[Page 27085]]

there now, a safe harbor, one that is absent in the current law. That
safe harbor in this bill protects doctors even if the administration of
pain medications result in unintended death.
This bill does something more. It provides money and guidance for
training and safeguards now absent in current law to educate doctors,
caregivers, medical students, health professions, nurses, State, local
and Federal law enforcement officials on the practice of palliative
medicine. That is why this is an important bill. It deals with the very
nature of man, the value of every life, the definition of a physician.
It emphasizes the alleviation and management of pain, not reversing the
role of doctor from healer to hangman.
Some of us here today cry Federal preemption of a State law when
really what we are dealing with is State preemption of a Federal law.
We can advocate the Federal Government look the other way on this
issue, play Pontius Pilate, wash our hands, but we have to think about
it because there is a sanctity of life that must be respected and
defended.
As my colleagues know, there is an insidiousness about the notion of
assisted suicide. We make it permissible, then we make it acceptable,
and finally it becomes an act of nobility. We plant the idea with the
elderly, it is their duty to die, get out of the way. Is that not what
the governor of Colorado said a few years ago? The elderly have a duty
to die and get out of the way, not to be a burden on the children.
Many times the anguishing words ``I want to die'' really mean I do
not want to be a burden on my family. We insist that more be done at
the Federal level to promote palliative end-of-life care. There are
very effective ways to control pain, and I am confident that doctors
will not shy from their duty to alleviate pain, and this bill
encourages palliative care. It provides that safe harbor for the
physician should the palliative care inadvertently lead to the death of
a patient. It provides money for training in pain management and
requires caregivers adhere to our national policy of administering
controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes, not taking a
life.

{time} 1300

A doctor should not be asked to play the role of hired gun. His art
and science are in the service of life. In this bill, we expressly
permit and encourage the use of controlled substances for pain
management, even when it might unintentionally hasten death. We supply
money and training.
To those who assert we are preempting the laws of Oregon, this bill
does not preempt the Oregon law legalizing assisted suicide in
specified circumstances. The legal effect of this bill is to forbid the
use of certain controlled substances which are federally controlled for
the intentional purpose of killing the patient. If you want to use non-
controlled substances or some other method to assist the passage of the
patient, you can still do so under Oregon law, unfortunately.
The single ethic that has provided the moral backbone for Western
civilization is one that insists that every member of the human family
has equal inherent moral worth. It is called the Sanctity of Life
ethic. That is the core of our belief, that the poor and the powerless
deserve equal rights and equal protection.
One of the frequent criticisms of certain acts or omissions by the
government is that it will have a chilling effect on some people. How
often we hear that phrase. Well, physician assisted suicide has a
chilling effect on handicapped people, elderly people, sick people and
the unwanted, because it is an aspect of a philosophy from another time
and another place that said it was appropriate to get rid of the
useless eaters. It starts us down a real slippery slope, where some of
us who do not measure up to someone else's standards become vulnerable,
expendable and discardable.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose assisted suicide. I voted against a
recent Michigan ballot initiative which would have legalized it in my
State. I did so because I believe that it is increasingly evident that
with modern pain management techniques doctors can make comfortable
patients who are critically ill.
The primary responsibility to handle this issue has traditionally
been with the States, which almost universally prohibit assisted
suicide. Under current law, assisted suicide is not explicitly listed
as a Federal crime. The DEA has never prosecuted a physician for
assisted suicide under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Instead,
the responsibility for enforcing medical standards has historically
been a State responsibility.
The effect of H.R. 2260 would be to add assisted suicide to the list
of Federal crimes under the CSA which carry a mandatory 20-year jail
sentence. For the first time, the Justice Department and the DEA would
be required to become involved in determining the intent of doctors
when they prescribed pain medication to patients. Associations
representing about half of our doctors and almost all of our nurses
have said that they believe the fear of being investigated by the DEA
would lead many doctors to prescribe less medication for pain.
I support the other sections of H.R. 2260, which would support
efforts to educate health professionals about effective pain
management. I have long supported pain management education for health
professionals and a comprehensive approach to end-of-life care. I first
introduced legislation in this area in 1990. That legislation became
law. The most recent version of the legislation would improve upon our
earlier efforts by taking steps to provide patients and their families
with the information and support they need during the difficult time at
the end of life. This legislation would also improve Medicare's
coverage of self-administered drugs for pain. All of these issues--pain
management, support and information, and the payment policies of
Medicare and other insurance payors--should be part of our efforts to
prevent suicide and assisted suicide.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 2260, A bill which claims to promote pain relief but actually will
increase the pain of many of this Nation's citizens that suffer from
debilitating and incurable diseases.
My opposition to this legislation is based on the premise that
Federal legislators, most of whom are not doctors, should not delve,
dig or pry into the intense and personal decisions made between a
doctor and his or her patient. Once again, this Congress is attempting
to legislate our lives most private and intimate decisions (the right
to die with dignity). It is my belief that the decision to recommend
this or any other medical procedure depends on expert medical judgement
and therapeutic assessment. Such decisions--much like a women's
decision regarding her own reproductive rights--are a physicians
responsibility, within the privacy and confidentiality of the doctor-
patient relationship.
Like most Members of Congress, I live my life to the fullest. I never
take a single moment for granted. For Members of Congress to imply or
imagine collectively we know what is best for a family tortured with
the final decision of life is pure folly. Again, we need to let doctors
in consultation with the patients and the patients family decide what
is best in each individual, unique situation.
I am also alarmed by the very reason that we are considering this
bill. We are considering this bill to topple the will of the people of
the State of Oregon who approved, on two occasions, a measure that
would legalize assisted suicide under strict and well deliberated
mandates and guidelines. How ironic it is that the Congress, which
claims it is the Congress of State rights, is the primary promoter of
this legislation?
Congress needs to state focusing on the issues that are most
important to the American people. The American people continue to cry
out for legislation to address education and health care. How long will
the Republicans continue to ignore the citizens call for campaign
finance and gun control reforms? We are simply wasting time and energy
on a matter that is a decision that will eventually be determined by
the Supreme Court, and an issue the States are already effectively
addressing.
In this crucial time, when the federal budget is in limbo, it is
important that we address the real challenges and problems that need to
be, and should be addressed. I am asking that we say ``no'' to the
further intrusion on the work of trained, skilled professionals and let
doctors, families and patients make the very difficult and hard life
and death decisions in private and without the intervention of the
Federal Government.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R.
2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, I think it is important to
reiterate the importance of this bill. On October 19, the Committee for
Government Reform conducted a hearing entitled,

[[Page 27086]]

``Improving Care at the End of Life with Complementary Medicine.'' Pain
management is one of the top concerns of palliative care, including
those patients who are dying. The need to properly recognize and treat
pain is why the Veterans Health Administration added monitoring pain as
the fifth vital sign. It is a sad day in this country when some
individuals in the medical establishment have determined that one of
the options for alleviating pain will be for a doctor to hasten the
death. And a sadder day indeed when that option gains so much
credibility that the U.S. Congress has to debate a bill clarifying that
physician-assisted suicide or the polite term ``euthanasia'' is not an
option for pain management.
As we look to provide care for our veterans, including the 32,000
World War II veterans that die each month, we must insure that pain is
properly treated. We must also assure that the option to hasten death
is not what we look to as a resolution for taking care of veterans and
all Americans.
At our October 19, hearing we heard from Dr. Ira Byock, a renowned
expert in palliative care. Dr. Byock clarified some of the
misconceptions of this bill, including that physicians who use drugs
such as morphine to treat pain are already monitored by the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and that this bill will not prevent
the prescribing of strong and effective pain drugs. This bill clarifies
the importance of pain management and palliative care and asks for
further research and the development of practice guidelines for pain
management.
We heard from Dr. Byock, who also conducts research in improving care
at the end of life, as well as Dannion Brinkley, the chairman of
Compassion in Action, an organization that trains hospice volunteers
and provides professional and community education, that pain management
has to be addressed and that there are other options available to
individuals including non-pharmacologic efforts. These treatment
options include music therapy, acupuncture, and guided imagery. We
heard from Dr. Patricia Grady, Director of the National Institute of
Nursing Research that there is research to indicate that these
therapies especially when used in conjunction with pain medication
allowed patients to have less pain, to rest better, and to go longer
between the need for medication.
Dr. Byock also stated something that my colleague from Florida,
Congressman Weldon (MD) has reiterated--a doctor knows whether he or
she is prescribing a drug to treat pain or to cause death and that pain
can be properly treated. Educating health care professionals in pain
management and treatment options is vital and this bill will move this
forward.
I stand in support of this bill and also suggest that we look at
solving the problems of pain in this country by looking to non-
controlled substances and complementary therapies as options to treat
pain.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2260, the
Pain Relief Promotion Act. I have repeatedly heard today that this bill
overturns Oregon's assisted suicide law. This is simply not true. The
bill does not prevent anyone in Oregon from assisting in a suicide, nor
does the bill establish any new authority to penalize assisted suicide.
The bill simply clarifies that assisted suicide may not take place with
federally controlled substances. This bill continues to allow States to
pass their own laws while clarifying the boundaries of Federal
involvement regarding assisted suicide. As Federal legislators, this is
our duty. We are in the business of clarifying Federal involvement.
Oregon's current experiment in democracy is perfectly within its right,
but this does not mean that one State has the right to tell the Federal
Government how federally controlled substances should be used.
The essence of H.R. 2660 is that it clarifies the extent to which
federally controlled substances can be used in order to relieve the
patient's pain. Additionally, by clarifying that drugs under the
Controlled Substances Act can be used to relieve pain, even if those
drugs hasten death, this bill protects health care providers while
allowing them to use the strongest drugs necessary for pain relief.
Mr. Chairman, to the dying we owe our compassion. We have the ability
to alleviate the pain of the dying. We must comfort the dying with
compassion by voting for H.R. 2260.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2260. This legislation takes a much needed step toward the Federal
protection of all human life. This bill will provide doctors in Iowa's
second district and throughout the country the ability to aggressively
provide their patients with pain relief while prohibiting the use of
federally controlled substances in assisting suicide.
The purpose of this legislation is to encourage the alleviation of
pain suffered by patients with advanced disease and chronic illness and
pain associated with conditions that do not respond to treatment. H.R.
2260 also encourages the promotion of life of such patients and would
prohibit States from enacting laws that permit physician-assisted
suicide.
Much of the debate surrounding H.R. 2260 focuses on the affect it
will have on those who have severe pain. The opponents to H.R. 2260
worry that this legislation would hinder a doctors willingness to
prescribe pain medication to the seriously ill. My home State of Iowa
adopted an almost identical provision to H.R. 2260 in 1996, and the
statistics show that the use of pain control drugs have almost doubled.
Obviously, the Iowa law did not deter doctors from administering pain
relief to the seriously ill, neither would H.R. 2260.
H.R. 2260, for the first time, writes into the Controlled Substance
Act protection for physicians who prescribe large doses of drugs
sometimes necessary to manage intractable pain, even if this may
increase the risk of death, so long as the drugs are not prescribed
intentionally for the purpose of assisting suicide or euthanasia. Under
this bill, a doctor who intentionally dispenses or distributes a
controlled substance with the purpose of causing the suicide or
euthanasia of any individual may have his license suspended or revoked.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will join me in
supporting H.R. 2260. This legislation provides doctors the ability to
use federally regulated drugs for the pain management of the seriously
ill.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns
about H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act.
Although this bill is being represented as if it would improve
physicians' abilities to provide pain relief and palliative care, the
bill's primary purpose is to criminalize physician assisted suicide
utilizing controlled substances. And although I do not condone assisted
suicide, exposing doctors to additional criminal and civil liabilities
for using controlled substances will curtail the pain relief options
available to patients.
H.R. 2260 authorizes the Drug Enforcement Agency to investigate and
second-guess the intent of a physician when a death, possibly
attributable to a controlled substance, occurs. Such investigations
would effectively discourage doctors from dispensing such substances
even in the most severe cases. Patients would be left to suffer even
more painful and agonizing deaths.
Physicians should not have to fear losing their medical licenses for
prescribing pain relief to terminally ill patients. Their
responsibilities are complex enough without the additional threat of
DEA investigations and criminal and civil law suits questioning their
intent. Physicians should have all inventions, treatments and
substances, at their disposal to provide care for their patients and to
make the last days of a terminally ill patient's life as comfortable as
possible.
The DEA should be focusing its efforts on fighting illegal drug
activities that are a menace to our society, not on doctors prescribing
pain relief for terminally ill patients. And Congress should be
focusing its efforts on the issue of what is proper pain management and
what are the best ways to treat pain. Accordingly, I support the
provisions in the bill that would establish a program within the
Department of Health and Human Services to study pain management and
distribute pain management information. I also support the grants
provided by the bill to train health professionals in the care of
patients with advanced illnesses. Still we should not bind the hands of
physicians treating terminally ill patients.
I support improving pain management for the terminally ill but I
oppose limiting physicians' abilities to practice medicine. I urge a
``nay'' vote on H.R. 2260 as it is currently drafted.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2260
because the bill encourages sound medical practice in the relief of
pain and suffering of the chronically and terminally ill patients.
This bill would add a provision to the Controlled Substances Act,
acknowledging the legitimate use of narcotics for the management of
serious pain and discomfort, even if their use increases the risk of
death for the patient.
In the Hyde-Stupak bill, the goal is to make the patient as
comfortable as possible during that person's terminal or chronic
illness. Relief of pain is the contemplated result.
This is not physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, either in
substance or intent. Physicians are not actively and intentionally
seeking to end the life of the patient.
But powerful drugs that relieve pain have serious secondary effects.
They can cause loss of cognition, depressed respiration, retained
secretions, and increased dehydration by depressing voluntary
nutrition. The secondary, or unintended effect, may therefore

[[Page 27087]]

hasten death, through death is not a directly intended purpose.
Organized medicine has recognized the principle of this ``double
effect'' as the potential consequence of the legitimate and necessary
use of controlled substances for pain management. The AMA calls this
principle ``a vital element in creating a legal environment in which
physicians may administer appropriate pain care for patients and we
appreciate its inclusion.''
The AMA further expands its position as follows. ``Physicians have an
obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity and
autonomy of dying patients in their care. This includes providing
effective palliative treatment, even though it may foreseeably hasten
death.''
The bill will promote the training of health professionals to use
these drugs appropriately while providing palliative care. This will
dovetail with the newly inaugurated AMA program--``Education for
Physicians on End of Life Care.'' This program is designed to educate
physicians more fully in pain management and to deal more holistically
with the patient.
I oppose the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute because it does
nothing to prevent or restrict assisted suicide and it does nothing to
train physicians and nurses in pain management, which the Hyde bill
accomplishes.
Johnson-Rothman-Hooley continues to authorize the use of federally
regulated drugs to assist suicides whenever a state law permits this
deadly practice. Finally, the substitute never clearly distinguishes
pain control from deliberate killing or assisted suicide.
There appears to be much confusion in the debate as to the scope of
this proposal and how it might affect individual states. Supervision of
controlled substances is a federal prerogative--it always has been.
There are no new penalties suggested. Nothing is new. Rather, Hyde-
Stupak heightens and reinforces current federal policy.
While the bill will not technically ``overturn'' current Oregon law
in this general matter, it will abrogate its use. Since physicians will
be unable to legally prescribe intentionally lethal doses of federally
controlled substances, the doctors will be encouraged to offer better
pain control and not offer death to the seriously ill patient.
Relief of pain with moderate or even substantial doses of drugs is
good medical practice. Purposely and intentionally ending human life is
inappropriate and antithetical to the role of the physician as healer.
H.R. 2260 clarifies and enables physicians to pursue their legitimate
role as healers. Easing pain at the time of the patient's final passage
is one of medicine's most noble callings. I urge your support for this
important bill.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, two years ago I was privileged to be
the sponsor of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, which
passed the House floor by a vote of 398 to 16 before being signed into
law by President Clinton.
The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act said that we don't want
federal tax dollars going to pay for euthanasia, and we don't want
euthanasia going on in federally controlled facilities such as
Veterans' Hospitals and Public Health Service facilities. The Pain
Relief Promotion Act says we don't want federally controlled drugs
being used for euthanasia.
That is a popular position with the American people. In a nationwide
poll in June, 64% answered ``no'' when asked whether federal law should
allow the use of federally controlled drugs for the purpose of assisted
suicide and euthanasia. Only 31% said ``yes.'' That's better than 2 to
1. We are trying to help people live!
One of the parts of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act that
was very important was a rule of construction that made clear that
funding and facilities could be provided ``for the purpose of
alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk
of death, so long as ``the purpose was not ``of causing, or * * *
assisting in causing, death * * *.'' The American Medical Association
wrote, ``This provision assures patients and physicians alike that
legislation opposing assisted suicide will not chill appropriate
palliative and end-of-life-care.''
I am glad to see that very similar language is included in the Pain
Relief Promotion Act, along with important positive programs to
increase the knowledge of health care personnel at the clinical level
to be able to control pain.
I am sure that is a large part of why this bill is endorsed by so
many medical and end-of-life care groups, including the American
Academy of Pain Management, the American Society of Anesthesiologists,
the AMA, the National Hospice Organization, the Hospice Association of
America, and Aging with Dignity.
Even the Hemlock Society, which works to legalize assisting suicide
and of course therefore opposes this bill, concedes that ``the bill
encourages aggressive pain relief for the terminally ill.'' Our
distinguished colleague, Mr. Nadler from New York, voted against the
bill in the Judiciary Committee because he thinks controlled substances
should be available for assisted suicide in states that legalize it.
But at the Judiciary Committee markup, Mr. Nadler said, ``[M]ost of the
secondary reasons for opposing it, the pain issue and so forth, I
really don't think are very valid and I think the bill has really been
cleaned up in that respect.''
Some of the groups that still oppose the bill, it's important to
understand, don't oppose assisting suicide. The American Pharmaceutical
Association, for example, has a formal policy that ``opposes laws and
regulations that * * * prohibit the participation of pharmacists in
physician-assisted suicide.'' Mr. Skip Baker, the head of the Society
for Action on Pain, has called the ``Oregon suicide law a much needed
law.''
But suicide is not the solution. You don't really solve problems by
getting rid of the person to whom the problems happen. Once we accept
death as a solution, we begin to lose the incentive and the drive to
work on positive alternatives. We can do better than that in America.
This bill is a good start. It will help us end the patient's pain,
not the patient's life. Please support it.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Pain
Relief Promotion Act is one of the most compassionate and life-
affirming bills to come before us this year.
Two years ago, a gentleman came to see me regarding laws on pain
relief. At the time, I was working on a ``Pain Patients Bill of
Rights'' for Californians who suffer from extreme pain.
The gentleman who visited me is a police officer who had broken his
back in the line of duty during an incident with a suspect. As a result
of his injury he was in constant, untreatable pain. He had to endure
numerous invasive surgeries, that were not successful. It seemed that
he had no choice but to endure chronic pain that most of us cannot even
imagine.
He shared with me that because the pain was so unendurable, and
because it seemed there was no treatment to stop the pain, he arrived
at a point where he wanted to end his life. Pain made life so
unbearable, that this protector of the people did not think his life
was worth living anymore.
After seeing many different doctors, this police officer finally was
referred to a specialist in pain treatment. The doctor was able to
prescribe high levels of pain medication, which made the pain
manageable, and as a result made this police officer feel that his life
was worth living.
Unfortunately, most doctors are afraid to prescribe high levels of
pain medication because they do not know if the Drug Enforcement Agency
will come after them for diverting drugs or prescribing too much.
Doctors are not going to act if they are not sure whether or not they
are breaking the law.
Doctors know how to treat their patients, and we need to make sure
they have the freedom to prescribe the treatment that will make their
patients comfortable. This compassionate piece of legislation will give
doctors the legal protection to take care of patients who are
experiencing terrible, debilitating pain.
I can testify that the police officer who came to talk with me now
has a happy life, and his pain is manageable. He walks with a cane and
a limp, but his quality of life is high and he has a passion for life.
For everyone in this room who values life, this is a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I support the Pain Relief
Promotion Act. The Pain Relief Promotion Act will make important
strides in giving health care providers around the country better
access to the most advanced ways of dealing with patients' pain. It
will assure physicians who prescribe federally controlled substances
that they can safely authorize adequate amounts to manage pain without
jeopardizing their Drug Enforcement Administration registration.
It will also ensure a uniform national application of the existing
principle that federally controlled and regulated drugs should not be
used to assist suicide or for euthanasia, even if a particular state
legalizes the practice as a matter of state law.
This is a good complement to the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction
Act that passed by an overwhelming margin two years ago. That Act said
that euthanasia shouldn't be carried out in federal facilities, such as
Veteran's Hospitals, and that federal tax dollars shouldn't fund it.
This bill says that those narcotics and other dangerous drugs that have
long been regulated by the federal government under the

[[Page 27088]]

Controlled Substances Act should not be used to kill patients.
Congress must not blur the distinction between pain relief and
assisted suicide. In order to protect the vulnerable in our society, it
is critically important that we maintain the difference recognized by
the medical profession and the Supreme Court between treating patients
appropriately even if it means risking increasing the likelihood of
death and giving patients the means to intentionally kill themselves.
We in Congress must not facilitate turning doctors into killers by
giving permission to use federally controlled drugs for assisted
suicide and euthanasia. We must enact H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief
Promotion Act.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 2260, a bill to promote pain
relief in lieu of promoting assisted suicide for men, women and
children suffering from unremitting pain of grievous injury and
terminal disease.
The American people oppose euthanasia as a solution to the problem of
pain and suffering. They know that is not the humane, decent choice.
I believe that saying yes to people who talk about, threaten or ask
for assisted suicide is not respecting that person's choice.
The threat of or request for assisted suicide is a cry for help--not
a real request to die.
The yearning for, the love of life, the desire to live, is a part of
each and every one of us. When a person--a loved one perhaps--believe
they want to die because their pain cannot be or is not being
controlled adequately, it is not for us to answer them by allowing
controlled substances to be used to bring about their death.
It is our duty and responsibility to let them know we care and that
we will do something for them--not to bring about death--but to bring
about relief from the pain that causes them to think they would rather
die.
It should not be--should not be--the response of the Federal
Government to legalize assisted suicide.
Our response should be that we have the medical technology that makes
the administration of pain-relieving drugs sufficient to control pain.
Our response must be to improve our medical delivery system so that
what we know about the cutting edge of medicine becomes a reality at
every bedside--and that doctors, nurses and family members are assured
that the safe prescription of drugs for pain control is possible
without fear that they will be charged with a crime.
Our response must be that we will ensure through authorized federal
programs the dissemination of state-of-the-art information to doctors
or care-givers in medical settings, about how to control pain. Our
response should be to give all care givers the information that our
best pain specialists know. Our response is to ensure that this
information go out to every general practitioner in every clinical
setting--so that no one needs to be put to death--but are made
comfortable so that even their final hours are spent in the most pain-
free state medically possible.
The Pain Relief Promotion Act before the House today takes those
steps--strong steps--in that direction.
Rather than starting down the slippery, dangerous slope of assisted
suicide, let us take a higher ground--to a place that tells us it is
reasonable--not extraordinary--to expect not to have to kill our loved
ones in order to put them out of their misery.
We have the medical technology. We have pain control and management
specialists who are ready and willing to impart their knowledge to
medical practitioners so it can be used for humane--and safe--purposes.
The relief from pain for those who are suffering from grievous injury
or terminal illness is within our capability now--and it can be
administered without killing them. No one has a duty to die because
they may be a burden to care givers, or a drain on a family's financial
resources.
If we do nothing else, we must stop going down that path where we put
pressure on those who are vulnerable, who are poor and sick and
disabled--that they have a duty to die because they are a burden. To do
otherwise is to set a dangerous, inhumane precedent.
I urge my colleagues to vote for alternatives to suicide--not
assisted suicide. Vote for the Pain Relief Promotion Act.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, death with dignity is a right which all
Americans should have. Currently, only Oregonians have this right.
Today, we debate whether Congress will deprive Oregonians of their most
fundamental human rights--the right to choose one's destiny.
May God guide this House in its deliberations.
The bill before us today is misnamed the ``Pain Relief Promotion
Act,'' a crafty piece of legislation that hides its real intent.
Organizations that have taken the time to study the bill, including the
state chapters of the American Medical Association, have expressed
their opposition. Every day, opposition is growing to this bill because
it subjects thousands of doctors across the country to second-guessing
by the DEA.
In order to hide the real motive of the legislation, H.R. 2260 alters
the Controlled Substances Act--a law intended to deal with drug
trafficking and diversion--in an attempt to regulate state medical
practice. Frankly, H.R. 2260 amounts to little more than one section
that contains non-controversial palliative care measures, and one
section that is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn Oregon's Death with
Dignity Act.
Terminal illness has nothing to do with drug trafficking or forgery
or all the other things that are traditionally the purview of the
Office of Diversion Control within the DEA. H.R. 2260 would have this
unknown law enforcement agency make determinations regarding a new
offense that is inherently intent based, yet without allowing a
physician to avoid legal responsibility by establishing that they
merely intended to relieve pain, even where death inadvertently
results.
The Controlled Substances Act is written as a strictly liability law
for both criminal and civil purposes and contains no intent
requirement. Sadly, the Judiciary Committee voted down an amendment
that would have required the government to prove the doctor's intent,
and another which would have allowed health care providers to make an
affirmative defense that they had no such intent.
How will the DEA enforce this legislation? The DEA never testified
before Congress on either H.R. 2260 or its predecessor in the last
Congress, H.R. 4006.
The gymnastics that are required to make this legislation work are
mind-boggling.
I am very concerned that there will be vast amounts of new paperwork
requirements. Health care workers will be required to report on each
other.
Will family members who are sad to see a loved one pass away report
the physician?
This bill is fundamentally destructive of patient rights, the
physician-patient relationship, and the independent practice of
medicine.
Testimony before the Committee indicated that ``this Act subjects
physicians who care for dying patients to the oversight of police with
no expertise in the provision of medical care.'' I am disappointed that
the Committee chose to ignore these words.
While members were not permitted to testify this year in the
Judiciary Committee, my state medical association, the Oregon Medical
Association, did testify. They said ``Physicians already undermedicate
patients for fear of being sanctioned under the current law.''
H.R. 2260 will only exacerbate the current situation, and leave
thousands more needlessly suffering. All it will take is one case, in
any town in the United States, where the DEA investigates a physician
on this issue, and I guarantee that an instant freeze on prescriptions
for analgesics across that state will result.
H.R. 2260 will trigger a federal enforcement process that would ruin
the careers of physicians and throw them in jail. Physicians, already
beset by controversy in local state laws, will be reluctant to
prescribe the large doses of pharmaceuticals that are often required to
treat incapacitating levels of pain.
The Rules Committee has allowed a substitute by Mrs. Johnson, Mr.
Rothman, and Ms. Hooley, my colleague from Oregon, to be considered on
the floor. This substitute will enhance all the non-controversial
provisions in H.R. 2260 regarding the need to boost palliative care,
but leave out the provisions that have led the American Nurses
Association, and American Pharmaceutical Association, the American
Academy of Family Physicians, the Association of Health System
Pharmacists, the American Pain Foundation, and many other organizations
to oppose this bill.
I hope my colleagues will consider the fact that the Johnson-Rothman-
Hooley substitute puts Congress on record as opposing assisted suicide,
but does not threaten treatment of chronic pain.
There have been instances in our nation's history where it is
appropriate for federal law to supercede state law in order to fulfill
national imperatives, but this is not one of those occasions.
With this bill today, Congress misses the opportunity to engage in a
real debate about end-of-life care, and what our choices should be as
individuals in a free society. Today does not represent the kind of
open, courageous, and enlightening discussion that Congress is capable
of having. Instead, this bill aptly demonstrates what Congress can do
in a backhanded way.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2260, support the DeFazio-Scott
amendment, and support the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute.

[[Page 27089]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for
general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the bill, modified by the amendments recommended by the
Committee on Commerce, is considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
modified, is as follows:

H.R. 2260

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of
1999''.

TITLE I--USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES ACT

SEC. 101. REINFORCING EXISTING STANDARD FOR LEGITIMATE USE OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

Section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
823) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i)(1) For purposes of this Act and any regulations to
implement this Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the
usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical
purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of
a controlled substance that is consistent with public health
and safety, even if the use of such a substance may increase
the risk of death. Nothing in this section authorizes
intentionally dispensing, distributing, or administering a
controlled substance for the purpose of causing death or
assisting another person in causing death.
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in
determining whether a registration is consistent with the
public interest under this Act, the Attorney General shall
give no force and effect to State law authorizing or
permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
``(3) Paragraph (2) applies only to conduct occurring after
the date of enactment of this subsection.''.

SEC. 102. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

Section 502(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
872(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) educational and training programs for local, State,
and Federal personnel, incorporating recommendations by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the necessary and
legitimate use of controlled substances in pain management
and palliative care, and means by which investigation and
enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may
accommodate such use.''.

TITLE II--PROMOTING PALLIATIVE CARE

SEC. 201. ACTIVITIES OF AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND
RESEARCH.

Part A of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following section:

``SEC. 906. PROGRAM FOR PALLIATIVE CARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY.

``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall carry out a
program to accomplish the following:
``(1) Develop and advance scientific understanding of
palliative care.
``(2) Collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based
practices regarding palliative care, with priority given to
pain management for terminally ill patients, and make such
information available to public and private health care
programs and providers, health professions schools, and
hospices, and to the general public.
``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`palliative care' means the active, total care of patients
whose disease or medical condition is not responsive to
curative treatment or whose prognosis is limited due to
progressive, far-advanced disease. The purpose of such care
is to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to
enhance the quality of life, not to hasten or postpone
death.''.

SEC. 202. ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--Part D of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.), as amended by section
103 of Public Law 105-392 (112 Stat. 3541), is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 754 through 757 as sections
755 through 758, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 753 the following section:

``SEC. 754. PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PALLIATIVE
CARE.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator for Health Care Policy and Research, may make
awards of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to
health professions schools, hospices, and other public and
private entities for the development and implementation of
programs to provide education and training to health care
professionals in palliative care.
``(b) Priorities.--In making awards under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall give priority to awards for the
implementation of programs under such subsection.
``(c) Certain Topics.--An award may be made under
subsection (a) only if the applicant for the award agrees
that the program carried out with the award will include
information and education on--
``(1) means for alleviating pain and discomfort of
patients, especially terminally ill patients, including the
medically appropriate use of controlled substances;
``(2) applicable laws on controlled substances, including
laws permitting health care professionals to dispense or
administer controlled substances as needed to relieve pain
even in cases where such efforts may unintentionally increase
the risk of death; and
``(3) recent findings, developments, and improvements in
the provision of palliative care.
``(d) Program Sites.--Education and training under
subsection (a) may be provided at or through health
professions schools, residency training programs and other
graduate programs in the health professions, entities that
provide continuing medical education, hospices, and such
other programs or sites as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(e) Evaluation of Programs.--The Secretary shall
(directly or through grants or contracts) provide for the
evaluation of programs implemented under subsection (a) in
order to determine the effect of such programs on knowledge
and practice regarding palliative care.
``(f) Peer Review Groups.--In carrying out section 799(f)
with respect to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the membership of each peer review group involved includes
one or more individuals with expertise and experience in
palliative care.
``(g) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`palliative care' means the active, total care of patients
whose disease or medical condition is not responsive to
curative treatment or whose prognosis is limited due to
progressive, far-advanced disease. The purpose of such care
is to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to
enhance the quality of life, not to hasten or postpone
death.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations; Allocation.--
(1) In general.--Section 758 of the Public Health Service
Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is
amended in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking ``sections 753,
754, and 755'' and inserting ``section 753, 754, 755, and
756''.
(2) Amount.--With respect to section 758 of the Public
Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of
this section), the dollar amount specified in subsection
(b)(1)(C) of such section is deemed to be increased by
$5,000,000.

SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title take effect October 1,
1999, or upon the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs later.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment shall be in
order except those printed in House Report 106-409. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
amendment.
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.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report No. 106-409.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott

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

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Scott:
In title I, strike section 101 and redesignate succeeding
sections and all cross references accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 101 from the bill. That

[[Page 27090]]

is the part that overturns the Oregon referendum and also exposes
doctors to criminal and civil liability.
This bill states that alleviating pain in the usual course of
professional practice is legitimate, even if the use of controlled
substances may increase the risk of death. However, then it turns
around and specifically prohibits the intentional use of such
substances for causing death.
Now, the part about alleviating pain being a legitimate practice
under the law is legally meaningless because it does not create a legal
safe harbor. It does not create an affirmative defense. It does not say
if you are consistent with the medical protocol that you can use that
as a defense against a charge of intention.
The problem we have is that the case will only arise when you have a
terminally ill patient who has died and is full of drugs. DEA comes in
and says, well, you killed him intentionally. The DEA has expertise in
prohibiting the possession of certain drugs that are totally
prohibited, but they have no expertise to know how to prescribe drugs
and when too many or not enough drugs have been prescribed.
Now, a doctor may be subject to scrutiny by the state medical board
if they inappropriately prescribe drugs, but a law enforcement agency,
without any expertise, is inappropriate. Even if the DEA decides not to
prosecute a doctor, the fact that this bill is on the books will create
civil liability, so that anybody can come in and sue the doctor,
contrary to the stated purpose of the bill. Then section 101's
expansion of DEA authority, potential civil and criminal liability,
will likely increase the doctor's reluctance to prescribe sufficient
drugs to relieve pain. This is particularly harmful, because physicians
already undermedicate under current law for fear of violating laws,
and, if we truly want to encourage aggressive pain relief, we should
not expose doctors to additional civil and criminal penalties if they
do exactly what we want them to do.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is gut the portion of the DEA
enforcement that we presently have and is presently law. The real issue
we are talking about is how do you defend taking somebody else's life
and doing it under the Oregon statute? How do you defend that? How do
you say it is okay for me as a physician to take your loved one out?
What, under our Constitution, what would ever give me that right,
whether I am in Oregon or Oklahoma? The fact is that Oregon gets the
right to pass their laws. As the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary said, they can still take that; they just cannot do it using
the Federal Controlled Substances Act. There is very good reason that
we have that act. What the gentleman wishes to do is to make it not
apply in this instance.
What about the child that is born, that is severely handicapped and
the parents say, ``Oh, no, we can't. You know, we just cannot take care
of this child. It is too big of a burden. Will you not please, Mr.
Pediatrician, Dr. Obstetrician, won't you relieve our suffering? Please
give an injection of respiratory depressant or of a high dose of
narcotics so we don't have to handle this burden. Oh, take care of our
problem.''
What about the value of that life? It does not have any value,
according to the people of Oregon, because only in the context of the
people making the decision will it have value. Only in the context of
an elderly person that has severe Alzheimer's, is uncontrollable, only
if that family desires, and if it is registered to be done, can they do
it. That life has no value? There is no value?
In terms of inaccurate statements, the fact is the DEA law is not
changed, just clarified, which will make no major change. We could give
a safe harbor for physicians. As a practicing physician who gives
palliative care for dying cancer patients and others, I welcome this
change in the law, because it does clarify, and it does offer safe
harbor.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if you are for States rights, you will
support this amendment. But even if you are not for States rights and
you are not supportive of what Oregon has done, twice, the people of
Oregon by initiative, if you do not want the Drug Enforcement
Administration second guessing the intent of every physician providing
end-of-life pain care to every American and chilling and destroying
that relationship and the capability of people to get relief from pain,
you will support this amendment.
The other side is trying to scare people with all sorts of inaccurate
statements. Taking someone else's life? The person has to be competent,
judged by two doctors, a psychiatrist, and they can only do it by their
own hand with a prescription. ``Hangman,'' we heard from the chairman
of the committee. ``Euthanasia,'' we heard. Incredibly irresponsible
statements by the other side, denigrating the people of Oregon, the 60
percent who supported this, and the people who are suffering horribly
at the end of life.
And, finally, the hypocrisy. The chairman of the committee proposed
in the last Congress a bill, H.R. 1252, and what he said there is no
single Federal judge should be able to overturn a state law adopted by
referendum, and that they cannot grant any relief or anticipatory
relief on the ground the a state law is repugnant of the Constitution,
which they do not say here. It is repugnant to them and their moral
structure. Treatises or laws of the United States, unless the
application for anticipatory relief is heard and determined by a court
of three judges. So he feels so strongly about state referenda that he
wants to say a single Federal judge cannot find a violation of the
Constitution.
But, in this case, he feels so little about the will of the people of
a state and for States rights and for individuals suffering horribly,
horribly, at the end of life, that he would overturn it here in a
curtailed debate in the House of Representatives, where we get 5
minutes on our side, where the proponents were given three-quarters of
the time during the debate. It is a stacked deck. It is not fair.
If you want to preempt the Oregon law, do it straight and honest and
straight up and preempt the Oregon law on the floor, and see what the
Supreme Court says about that.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the whole argument being
made by the opponents of this bill is really an argument against the
Controlled Substances Act. If you do not like the Controlled Substances
Act, that is a position you can take. But this argument that somehow in
this particular context we should not be allowed to apply the
Controlled Substances Act is based on an argument that undermines the
whole regulatory and statutory scheme under the Controlled Substances
Act.
It is important for the Members of the House to understand that the
question before us is whether we will say that the Federal Government
will support and encourage assisted suicide. Now, if you believe that
we should support and encourage assisted suicide, you should vote for
this amendment and vote against the bill. The question is that,
however, and we need to focus on that question: Will we authorize the
use of controlled substances for the purpose of killing human beings?
If you believe that we should do that, vote for the amendment. If you
think that is something we should not do, I suggest you vote against
the amendment. That is what is at stake before the House, and Members
need to focus on what is really at stake and put aside the scare
tactics.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 27091]]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, if a physician intentionally
kills someone, they will be subject to all of the state laws, criminal
laws. But the point here is that if you have a terminally ill patient
who has died and is full of drugs, this bill will allow the DEA to come
in to determine what the intent of the physician was. Not medical
enforcement, not the medical society full of doctors determining
whether the appropriate protocol was followed, but a law enforcement
officer. The DEA knows which drugs can be possessed and which drugs
cannot be possessed. They know nothing about over-prescribing or under-
prescribing drugs.
We need to encourage pain relief for patients. We ought not be
subjecting the physicians to additional civil and criminal penalties if
they do just that.
Now, if this bill passes, we will be subjecting them not only to
additional criminal laws, but also the fact that you violated a law
makes you exposed to more civil litigation. So even if the DEA has the
common sense not to prosecute, anybody else can come in and sue. That
is not what we need, and that is why we need the amendment.

{time} 1315

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, the balance
of the time.
Mr. Chairman, this House twice, 2 years in a row, has said we do not
think the FDA ought to be in the business of approving drugs that kill
babies; we do not find a role for it, that, in fact, we should not
spend Federal dollars to figure out the best ways to kill somebody.
If my colleagues want to talk about a slippery slope, pretty soon we
are going to figure out the best way to take a senior out, the most
comfortable way, the least expensive way, the most efficacious way to
end life. Pretty soon, we are going to figure out what is the easiest
way to terminate a pregnancy, to eliminate the consequences of a
mistake in judgment or a crime. We are going to spend Federal dollars
on how to eliminate those segments of our society that are most
dependent on us.
I am not a partisan up here. But on this issue, I say that if my
colleagues really care about those who cannot care for themselves, they
cannot be for anybody in our society to make the final decision about
whether they live or not, whether it is me making a decision about my
child or us making a decision as a group about a family member or me as
a physician making a decision about my patient.
What we are saying was said in Holland 10 years ago. The same
statements were said, and it was ignored. Today, they have active
euthanasia of newborn babies growing at 20 percent per year. They have
active euthanasia of those that are handicapped growing at 20 percent a
year. It will happen here, folks.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 106-409.

Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substituted Offered by Mrs. Johnson
of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Conquering
Pain Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS OF PAIN

Sec. 101. Guidelines for the treatment of pain.
Sec. 102. Quality improvement projects.
Sec. 103. Surgeon General's report.

TITLE II--DEVELOPING COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Sec. 201. Family support networks in pain and symptom management.

TITLE III--REIMBURSEMENT BARRIERS

Sec. 301. Insurance coverage of pain and symptom management.

TITLE IV--IMPROVING FEDERAL COORDINATION OF POLICY, RESEARCH, AND
INFORMATION

Sec. 401. Advisory Committee on Pain and Symptom Management.
Sec. 402. Institutes of Medicine report on controlled substance
regulation and the use of pain medications.
Sec. 403. Conference on pain research and care.

TITLE V--DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Sec. 501. Provider performance standards for improvement in pain and
symptom management.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) pain is often left untreated or under-treated
especially among older patients, African Americans, and
children;
(2) chronic pain is a public health problem affecting at
least 50,000,000 Americans through some form of persisting or
recurring symptom;
(3) 40 to 50 percent of patients experience moderate to
severe pain at least half the time in their last days of
life;
(4) 70 to 80 percent of cancer patients experience
significant pain during their illness;
(5) despite the best intentions of physicians, nurses,
pharmacists, and other health care professionals, pain is
often under-treated because of the inadequate training of
physicians in pain management;
(6) despite the best intentions of physicians, nurses,
pharmacists, and other health care professionals, pain and
symptom management is often suboptimal because the health
care system has focused on cure of disease rather than the
management of a patient's pain and other symptoms;
(7) the technology and scientific basis to adequately
manage most pain is known;
(8) pain should be considered the fifth vital sign; and
(9) coordination of Federal efforts is needed to improve
access to high quality effective pain and symptom management
in order to assure the needs of chronic pain patients and
those who are terminally ill are met.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to enhance
professional education in palliative care and reduce
excessive regulatory scrutiny in order to mitigate the
suffering, pain, and desperation many sick and dying people
face at the end of their lives in order to carry out the
clear opposition of the Congress to physician-assisted
suicide.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Chronic pain.--The term ``chronic pain'' means a pain
state that is persistent and in which the cause of the pain
cannot be removed or otherwise treated. Such term includes
pain that may be associated with long-term incurable or
intractable medical conditions or disease.
(2) Drug therapy management services.--The term ``drug
therapy management services'' means consultations with a
physician concerning a patient which results in the
physician--
(A) changing the drug regimen of the patient to avoid an
adverse drug interaction with another drug or disease state;
(B) changing an inappropriate drug dosage or dosage form
with respect to the patient;
(C) discontinuing an unnecessary or harmful medication with
respect to the patient;
(D) initiating drug therapy for a medical condition of the
patient; or
(E) consulting with the patient or a caregiver in a manner
that esults in a significant improvement in drug regimen
compliance.

Such term includes services provided by a physician,
pharmacist, or other health care professional who is legally
authorized to furnish such services under the law of the
State in which such services are furnished.
(3) End of life care.--The term ``end of life care'' means
a range of services, including hospice care, provided to a
patient, in the final stages of his or her life, who is
suffering from 1 or more conditions for which treatment
toward a cure or reasonable improvement is not possible, and
whose focus of care is palliative rather than curative.

[[Page 27092]]

(4) Family support network.--The term ``family support
network'' means an association of 2 or more individuals or
entities in a collaborative effort to develop multi-
disciplinary integrated patient care approaches that involve
medical staff and ancillary services to provide support to
chronic pain patients and patients at the end of life and
their caregivers across a broad range of settings in which
pain management might be delivered.
(5) Hospice.--The term ``hospice care'' has the meaning
given such term in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1)).
(6) Pain and symptom management.--The term ``pain and
symptom management'' means services provided to relieve
physical or psychological pain or suffering, including any 1
or more of the following physical complaints--
(A) weakness and fatigue;
(B) shortness of breath;
(C) nausea and vomiting;
(D) diminished appetite;
(E) wasting of muscle mass;
(F) difficulty in swallowing;
(G) bowel problems;
(H) dry mouth;
(I) failure of lymph drainage resulting in tissue swelling;
(J) confusion;
(K) dementia;
(L) anxiety; and
(M) depression.
(7) Palliative care.--The term ``palliative care'' means
the total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to
curative treatment, the goal of which is to provide the best
quality of life for such patients and their families. Such
care--
(A) may include the control of pain and of other symptoms,
including psychological, social and spiritual problems;
(B) affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;
(C) provides relief from pain and other distressing
symptoms;
(D) integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of
patient care;
(E) offers a support system to help patients live as
actively as possible until death; and
(F) offers a support system to help the family cope during
the patient's illness and in their own bereavement.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
TITLE I--EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS OF PAIN

SEC. 101. GUIDELINES FOR THE TREATMENT OF PAIN.

(a) Development of Website.--Not later than 2 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting
through the Agency for Health Care Policy Research, shall
develop and maintain an Internet website to provide
information to individuals, health care practitioners, and
health facilities concerning evidence-based practice
guidelines developed for the treatment of pain.
(b) Requirements.--The website established under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) be designed to be quickly referenced by health care
practitioners; and
(2) provide for the updating of guidelines as scientific
data warrants.
(c) Provider Access to Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--In establishing the website under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that health care
facilities have made the website known to health care
practitioners and that the website is easily available to all
health care personnel providing care or services at a health
care facility.
(2) Use of certain equipment.--In making the information
described in paragraph (1) available to health care
personnel, the facility involved shall ensure that such
personnel have access to the website through the computer
equipment of the facility and shall carry out efforts to
inform personnel at the facility of the location of such
equipment.
(3) Rural areas.--
(A) In general.--A health care facility, particularly a
facility located in a rural or underserved area, without
access to the Internet shall provide an alternative means of
providing practice guideline information to health care
personnel.
(B) Alternative means.--The Secretary shall determine
appropriate alternative means by which a health care facility
may make available practice guideline information on a 24-
hour basis, 7 days a week if the facility does not have
Internet access. The criteria for adopting such alternative
means should be clear in permitting facilities to develop
alternative means without placing a significant financial
burden on the facility and in permitting flexibility for
facilities to develop alternative means of making guidelines
available. Such criteria shall be published in the Federal
Register.

SEC. 102. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EDUCATION PROJECTS.

The Secretary shall provide funds for the implementation of
special education projects, in as many States as is
practicable, to be carried out by peer review organizations
of the type described in section 1152 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c-1) to improve the quality of pain and
symptom management. Such projects shall place an emphasis on
improving pain and symptom management at the end of life, and
may also include efforts to increase the quality of services
delivered to chronic pain patients.

SEC. 103. SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT.

Not later than October 1, 2000, the Surgeon General shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
and the public, a report concerning the state of pain and
symptom management in the United States. The report shall
include--
(1) a description of the legal and regulatory barriers that
may exist at the Federal and State levels to providing
adequate pain and symptom management;
(2) an evaluation of provider competency in providing pain
and symptom management;
(3) an identification of vulnerable populations, including
children, advanced elderly, non-English speakers, and
minorities, who may be likely to be underserved or may face
barriers to access to pain management and recommendations to
improve access to pain management for these populations;
(4) an identification of barriers that may exist in
providing pain and symptom management in health care
settings, including assisted living facilities;
(5) and identification of patient and family attitudes that
may exist which pose barriers in accessing pain and symptom
management or in the proper use of pain medications;
(6) an evaluation of medical school training and residency
training for pain and symptom management; and
(7) a review of continuing medical education programs in
pain and symptom management.
TITLE II--DEVELOPING COMMUNITY RESOURCES

SEC. 201. FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORKS IN PAIN AND SYMPTOM
MANAGEMENT.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Public Health Service, shall award grants for the
establishment of 6 National Family Support Networks in Pain
and Symptom Management (in this section referred to as the
``Networks'') to serve as national models for improving the
access and quality of pain and symptom management to chronic
pain patients and those individuals in need of pain and
symptom management at the end of life and to provide
assistance to family members and caregivers.
(b) Eligibility and Distribution.--
(1) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
(A) be an academic facility or other entity that has
demonstrated an effective approach to training health care
providers concerning pain and symptom management and
palliative care services; and
(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application (to
be peer reviewed by a committee established by the
Secretary), at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(2) Distribution.--In providing for the establishment of
Networks under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure
that--
(A) the geographic distribution of such Networks reflects a
balance between rural and urban needs; and
(B) at least 3 Networks are established at academic
facilities.
(c) Activities of Networks.--A Network that is established
under this section shall--
(1) provide for an integrated interdisciplinary approach to
the delivery of pain and symptom management;
(2) provide community leadership in establishing and
expanding public access to appropriate pain care, including
pain care at the end of life;
(3) provide assistance through caregiver and bereavement
supportive services;
(4) develop a research agenda to promote effective pain and
symptom management for the broad spectrum of patients in need
of access to such care that can be implemented by the
Network;
(5) provide for coordination and linkages between clinical
services in academic centers and surrounding communities to
assist in the widespread dissemination of provider and
patient information concerning how to access options for pain
management;
(6) establish telemedicine links to provide education and
for the delivery of services in pain and symptom management;
and
(7) develop effective means of providing assistance to
providers and families for the management of a patient's pain
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(d) Provider Pain and Symptom Management Communications
Projects.--
(1) In general.--Each Network shall establish a process to
provide health care personnel with information 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, concerning pain and symptom management.
Such process shall be designed to test the effectiveness of
specific forms of communications with health care personnel
so that such personnel may obtain information to ensure that
all appropriate patients are provided with pain and symptom
management.
(2) Termination.--The requirement of paragraph (1) shall
terminate with respect to a Network on the day that is 2
years after the date on which the Network has established the
communications method.
(3) Evaluation.--Not later than 60 days after the
expiration of the 2-year period referred to in paragraph (2),
a Network shall conduct an evaluation and prepare and submit
to the Secretary a report concerning the costs of operation
and whether the form of

[[Page 27093]]

communication can be shown to have had a positive impact on
the care of patients in chronic pain or on patients with pain
at the end of life.
(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed as limiting a Network from developing other ways
in which to provide support to families and providers, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $18,000,000 for
fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
TITLE III--REIMBURSEMENT BARRIERS

SEC. 301. INSURANCE COVERAGE OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--The General Accounting Office shall
conduct a survey of public and private health insurance
providers, including managed care entities, to determine
whether the reimbursement policies of such insurers inhibit
the access of chronic pain patients to pain and symptom
management and pain and symptom management for those in need
of end-of-life care. The survey shall include a review of
formularies for pain medication and the effect of such
formularies on pain and symptom management.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
a report concerning the survey conducted under subsection
(a).
TITLE IV--IMPROVING FEDERAL COORDINATION OF POLICY, RESEARCH, AND
INFORMATION

SEC. 401. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
advisory committee, to be known as the Advisory Committee on
Pain and Symptom Management, to make recommendations to the
Secretary concerning a coordinated Federal agenda on pain and
symptom management.
(b) Membership.--The Advisory Committee established under
subsection (a) shall be comprised of 11 individuals to be
appointed by the Secretary, of which at least 1 member shall
be a representative of--
(1) physicians (medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy)
who treat chronic pain patients or the terminally ill;
(2) nurses who treat chronic pain patients or the
terminally ill;
(3) pharmacists who treat chronic pain patients or the
terminally ill;
(4) hospice;
(5) pain researchers;
(6) patient advocates;
(7) caregivers; and
(8) health insurance issuers (as such term is defined in
section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300gg-91(b))).
The members of the Committee shall designate 1 member to
serve as the chairperson of the Committee.
(c) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at the
call of the chairperson of the Committee.
(d) Agenda.--The agenda of the Advisory Committee
established under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) the development of recommendations to create a
coordinated Federal agenda on pain and symptom management;
(2) the development of proposals to ensure that pain is
considered as the fifth vital sign for all patients;
(3) the identification of research needs in pain and
symptom management, including gaps in pain and symptom
management guidelines;
(4) the identification and dissemination of pain and
symptom management practice guidelines, research information,
and best practices;
(5) proposals for patient education concerning how to
access pain and symptom management across health care
settings;
(6) the manner in which to measure improvement in access to
pain and symptom management and improvement in the delivery
of care; and
(7) the development of an ongoing mechanism to identify
barriers or potential barriers to pain and symptom management
created by Federal policies.
(e) Recommendation.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Advisory Committee established
under subsection (a) shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary recommendations concerning a prioritization of the
need for a Federal agenda on pain, and ways in which to
better coordinate the activities of entities within the
Department of Health and Human Services, and other Federal
entities charged with the responsibility for the delivery of
health care services or research on pain, with respect to
pain management.
(f) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
Advisory Committee shall consult with all Federal agencies
that are responsible for providing health care services or
access to health services to determine the best means to
ensure that all Federal activities are coordinated with
respect to research and access to pain and symptom
management.
(g) Administrative Support; Terms of Service; Other
Provisions.--The following shall apply with respect to the
Advisory Committee:
(1) The Committee shall receive necessary and appropriate
administrative support, including appropriate funding, from
the Department of Health and Human Services.
(2) The Committee shall hold open meetings and meet not
less than 4 times per year.
(3) Members of the Committee shall not receive additional
compensation for their service. Such members may receive
reimbursement for appropriate and additional expenses that
are incurred through service on the Committee which would not
have incurred had they not been a member of the Committee.
(4) The requirements of appendix 2 of title 5, United
States Code.

SEC. 402. INSTITUTES OF MEDICINE REPORT ON CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE REGULATION AND THE USE OF PAIN
MEDICATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through a contract
entered into with the Institute of Medicine, shall review
findings that have been developed through research conducted
concerning--
(1) the effects of controlled substance regulation on
patient access to effective care;
(2) factors, if any, that may contribute to the underuse of
pain medications, including opioids; and
(3) the identification of State legal and regulatory
barriers, if any, that may impact patient access to
medications used for pain and symptom management.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning
the findings described in subsection (a).

SEC. 403. CONFERENCE ON PAIN RESEARCH AND CARE.

Not later than December 31, 2003, the Secretary, acting
through the National Institutes of Health, shall convene a
national conference to discuss the translation of pain
research into the delivery of health services to chronic pain
patients and those needing end-of-life care. The Secretary
shall use unobligated amounts appropriated for the Department
of Health and Human Services to carry out this section.
TITLE V--DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

SEC. 501. PROVIDER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN
PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Public
Health Service, shall award grants for the establishment of
not less than 5 demonstration projects to determine effective
methods to measure improvement in the skills and knowledge of
health care personnel in pain and symptom management as such
skill and knowledge applies to providing services to chronic
pain patients and those patients requiring pain and symptom
management at the end of life.
(b) Evaluation.--Projects established under subsection (a)
shall be evaluated to determine patient and caregiver
knowledge and attitudes toward pain and symptom management.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Termination.--A project established under subsection
(a) shall terminate after the expiration of the 2-year period
beginning on the date on which such project was established.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed will
each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong
support of aggressive pain management and palliative care. We need the
opportunity to oppose physician-assisted suicide and advance the cause
of pain management without having to support an aggressive new Federal
role in the practice of medicine.
In the next several years, we will see tremendous growth of the
elderly population. As we advance medical science to prolong life, we
must also do all we can to make people's final months and days pain
free. Too many patients with terminal illness and chronic conditions
suffer extreme pain without receiving adequate treatment or even
knowing the treatment options. Because acute prolonged pain is a
significant cause of people seeking to end their lives, the substitute
strikes at a major cause of suicide in an effective and progressive
way.
Our substitute amendment clearly opposes physician-assisted suicide.
But it would also eliminate the need for such extreme measures by
advancing

[[Page 27094]]

the science of pain management and making it more available to
patients.
Our substitute would help broaden access to palliative care through
the creation of family support networks and outreach programs. It would
also help disseminate information to patients, their families, and
physicians through a centralized health and human services Web site
specific to pain management and far more accessible information than
the existing Web site.
It would also help develop the science of pain management and advance
the state of medical practice at the patient's bed side. It would train
and educate physicians at the local level through the use of peer
review organizations and direct the National Institutes of Health to
convene a conference to put new developments in pain research into
practice and the health care system.
It would create an 11-member advisory committee to coordinate efforts
within the Federal Government to make recommendations about additional
research needs, practice guidelines, and other areas of pain management
practice.
Finally, the amendment would instruct the Surgeon General to issue a
report on the legal and regulatory barriers to pain management, the
level of competence in treating pain by physicians around the country,
the amount and quality of training received by medical students and
residents, and other issues relating to pain management.
I deeply respect the opposition to physician-assisted suicide of the
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). Congress has already stated
its opposition when it overwhelmingly passed legislation to ban Federal
funds and Federal health programs from funding assisted suicide.
Most States, including my home State of Connecticut, ban assisted
suicide, prohibit it as a matter of State law and as a matter of
medical practice.
Our substitute reflects the will of Congress in its clear language
opposing assisted suicide, but it goes beyond that to strike at one of
the most significant reasons people feel that suicide is the only
answer: the sheer desperation and hopelessness that severe pain causes.
Our amendment would address this desperation by promoting the
development of pain management, advancing physician knowledge, and
increasing patient expectations that their pain should be properly
managed.
In contrast, the underlying bill would discourage physicians from
prescribing appropriate pain medications. I have a long list of quotes
from physicians that demonstrates what a chilling effect this bill
would have on current practice.
This is why I have been trying to intervene when my colleagues were
saying we do not change the law, because we do change the law, it will
have a chilling effect on the willingness of physicians to deliver pain
relief care. For the first time, under the Hyde language, DEA agents
would be required to judge retroactively the intent of a prescribing
physician. With little or no medical training, agents would have to
judge if a physician intended to relieve pain even at the risk of death
or intended to ``hasten death.''
Now, remember, Mr. Chairman, there is always a risk of death when
prescribing controlled substances for extreme pain suffered by very ill
patients. Patients build up resistance to medications and require
stronger doses for relief. As a result, there is nearly always a risk
of death to the patient.
How is a DEA agent to judge whether the stronger dose was
appropriate, though it risked death, which is legal under the Hyde
language, or it was not appropriate because it hastened death? Does
this House want to delegate to nonmedical professionals that kind of
authority? Do we want the Federal Government writing regulations to
implement this section of law?
Pain management is a developing science and each terminal case has
its own tragic reality. Under current practice, the DEA already has
clear regulatory authority over physicians who are illegally
trafficking drugs and misused controlled substances.
On matters involving questions of medical judgment, however, the DEA
defers to the State health agencies and State medical boards which have
historically governed the scope and standards of medical practice.
Why would we want to change this? Why would we ask DEA agents to
judge the intention of physicians managing extreme pain in very sick
patients?
Ironically, a few weeks ago, this body passed legislation to prevent
insurance companies from the second guessing of physicians. We should
not now require DEA agents to second-guess physicians.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment that
addresses the desperation and hopelessness of suffering severe pain by
developing the science of pain management, advancing physician
knowledge, and increasing patient expectation and access to proper pain
management. I urge support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) rise?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds so that I might
respond.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) might not recognize
that every narcotic prescription that I write today, when it is
reviewed and surveyed and sampled, a DEA agent makes a decision whether
or not my judgment was appropriate in that. If there is any question,
they are in my office looking at my medical records. So the statement
to say we do not allow them judgment today is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, much of the debate surrounding the Pain Relief
Promotion Act focuses on whether it is more likely to have a positive
or a negative impact on those who suffer from severe and continuing
pain. I believe the experience in my own State of Kansas can shed
important light on this question.
Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pain
Management, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and the American
Medical Association say the bill will live up to its title. They
emphasize that, for the first time, the bill writes into the Controlled
Substances Act protection for physicians who prescribe the large doses
of drugs sometimes necessary to manage intractable pain, even when it
may increase the risk of death, so long as the drugs are not prescribed
intentionally for the purpose of assisting suicide or euthanasia.
However, a dissident group of State medical societies and some other
medical organizations predict that this very provision will lead some
physicians to hesitate to prescribe needed drugs, fearing that their
intentions may be subject to question by the Drug Enforcement Agency,
or the DEA.
Fortunately, there is evidence from a number of States against which
we can test these competing predictions. In the period from 1993
through 1998, Kansas and four other States enacted new laws similar in
effect to the disputed provision in the Pain Relief Promotion Act.
Like H.R. 2260, these State laws have combined a provision
specifically protecting doctors who prescribe medications for pain
relief with provisions preventing their use for purpose of assisting
suicide or euthanasia. Let us look at what happened at the drug
prescriptions following enactment of these laws.
Let us begin with my own State of Kansas. The bill preventing
assisted suicide was enacted in our State legislature in 1993 while I
served in the State Senate. Did that cause doctors to be less likely to
prescribe high doses? Look at the chart here. Per capita

[[Page 27095]]

morphine usage increased a little bit for a couple of years, then in
1996, began to rise dramatically. In 1998, the law on assisting suicide
was strengthened. At the same time, language specifically protecting
prescriptions for pain relief was added.
It read: ``A licensed health care professional who administers,
prescribes, or dispenses medications or procedures to relieve another
person's pain or discomfort, even if the medication or procedure may
hasten or increase the risk of death, does not violate this law unless
the medications or procedures are knowingly administered, prescribed,
or dispensed with the intent to cause death.'' That is very close,
indeed, to the language of the Pain Relief Promotion Act.
What happened to the prescriptions for pain killing drugs? Based on
the figures for the first half of 1999, per capita use of morphine rose
22 percent in Kansas. The experience has been replicated in State after
State after State.
Let us look at a chart for Kentucky. In June of 1994, Kentucky passed
a law banning assisted suicide, but specifically allowing pain control
that may unintentionally risk death. That year, per capita use of
morphine increased. While there was a little dip in 1995, usage was
still higher than either of the 2 years before the law passed. Since
then, morphine usage per capita has increased over 2,200 grams for
every 100,000 people in 1997 and 1998, and projected from half-year
figures in 1999.
Next is Iowa. In 1996, Iowa enacted legislation against assisted
suicide. The law included language to protect prescriptions for pain
relief very similar to that of Kansas and the Pain Relief Promotion
Act.
What happened? Again, let us look at the chart. Before the bill,
prescriptions of morphine per 100,000 people were almost flat, ranging
from 935 to 1,100 grams. With the bill's enactment, the amount of
morphine used in prescription soared. By 1997, it had almost doubled.
Next a chart for Louisiana. In 1995, Louisiana passed a law
preventing assisted suicide which stated that it did not apply to
prescribing medication if the intent is to relieve the patient's pain
or suffering and not to cause death. As the chart dramatically shows,
in the 4 years preceding the law's effective date, the use of morphine
was below 1,000 grams per 100,000 people. In the 4 years since, it has
soared. So that, in the first half of this year, it has stood at 3,659
grams per 100,000 people.
Michigan, the home of Jack Kevorkian is next. That chart shows a
checkered history of the laws on assisted suicide in their State
compared with morphine usage per capita. As my colleagues can see,
there is certainly no downward effect on morphine usage associated with
the periods the ban was in effect.

{time} 1330

Since a permanent statutory ban, which includes language like that in
H.R. 2260 promoting pain relief, went into effect in 1998, the trend of
morphine usage has been steadily upward.
Rhode Island. Now we will look at this particularly interesting case
because the Rhode Island Medical Society is opposing the Pain Relief
Promotion Act, saying that preventing the use of drugs to assist
suicide will chill prescriptions for pain control.
In 1996, the organization made the same argument against an assisted-
suicide bill in the State legislature that passed despite its
opposition. That Rhode Island law included the following language: ``A
licensed health care professional who administers, prescribes, or
dispenses medications or procedures to relieve another person's pain or
discomfort, even if the medication or procedure may hasten or increase
the risk of death, does not violate the provisions of this chapter,
unless the medications or procedures are knowingly administered,
prescribed, or dispensed to cause death.''
Again, this is quite similar to the language of the Pain Relief
Promotion Act.
What happened? As my colleagues can see from the chart, per capita
prescriptions of morphine shot up to almost double the highest pre-law
rate. Since then they have dropped off a little bit, but remaining far
above the pre-law rate.
Next is Tennessee. In July, 1993, a law with language very much like
the Pain Relief Promotion Act was enacted. Morphine usage that year and
the next year was up from the year before. In 1995, there was a dip,
but morphine usage per capita was still greater than that of the year
before the law. Since then it has continued up.
Virginia. Briefly let us look at Virginia. In the spring of 1997, the
Virginia legislature passed a measure to prevent assisting suicide,
which went into effect after reaffirming the vote in the spring of
1998. That law contained language differentiating between the intent to
relieve pain, even with the risk of death, and the intent to cause
death, just like the Pain Relief Promotion Act.
The result is clear on the chart. Per capita use of morphine has not
been deterred. In fact, it went up.
Finally, some of my friends from Oregon make the argument that
passing the law legalizing assisted suicide in some cases has freed
doctors to provide needed higher doses to accomplish pain relief. But
let us look at the Oregon chart.
True, morphine use per capita has increased in Oregon, but virtually
all of that increased while the suicide law was not yet in effect,
because it had been enjoined by a court order. That means the increase
occurred while physicians remained subject to investigation and
revocation of their DEA registration if they used federally controlled
drugs to assist any suicide. Clearly, that did not deter Oregon doctors
from significantly increasing their prescriptions for the pain killing
morphine.
Remember, other than Oregon, all of these States' new laws
distinguish between the intent to alleviate pain and cause death.
Because of experiences in Kansas and other States, we can be confident
that a vote for H.R. 2260 will promote and not threaten improved pain
relief. I urge a vote of passage and opposition to any substitute or
amendments.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington). The
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Johnson) has 13 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 11\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Pain
Relief Promotion Act and in support of the Johnson-DeFazio amendments.
I share many of my colleagues' discomfort with the issue of assisted
suicide, and I certainly respect the desire of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to improve palliative care and to ensure that the
seriously ill receive safe, quality, and effective pain management.
However, I also support States rights. The people of Oregon, not once
but twice, through long and through thoroughly debated ballot measure
campaigns, affirmed their desire to allow terminally ill people to seek
help from their physicians in ending their lives. For most Oregonians,
deciding on how to vote on this issue was a deeply personal and moral
process. I know, because I too agonized over how to vote on this
measure.
I agonized as a father, who watched the life drain from a young son,
and who watched as cancer worked its wicked will on a mother. I voted
against assisted suicide when it was on the ballot because I personally
have serious moral misgivings for it. But I also have a deep respect
for the underpinnings of our democracy in our State and our country,
and I respect the right of the initiative and the referendum process.
Oregon voters are probably the only ones that have voted both through
the initiative and the referendum process to stand up for what they
felt was right for their loved ones and for their lives. Now, more than
2500 miles away, a Congress, foreign to many in my State, wants to
overturn their will, wants to make that very personal decision for
them.

[[Page 27096]]

I have to tell my colleagues that in the year that I was out
campaigning for this very office there were many times people came up
to me and said, ``Are you going to go back there and undo what we
did?'' Not on this issue, but on others. Do my colleagues realize how
cynical people are about how they act at the ballot box, only to have
some level of government higher or the Judiciary overturn what they
seek to do?
So, Mr. Chairman, I stand here today in support of this amendment and
of the DeFazio amendment. And I want to close with a quote from Time
magazine from a cancer specialist, Dr. Nancy Crumpacker, who said, ``If
this bill is passed, doctors will never again be able to treat
suffering people without the fear of punishment.''
I do not want them to have to operate under the fear of that kind of
punishment. I want this decision, a very personal decision, to remain
the way it has been crafted very carefully, not only by Oregon voters
but by their legislature as well, so that it is between the terminally
ill person, witnessed in that person's physician. So I support the
amendments to this legislation.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I want to
quote Herbert Hinden, Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical
College.
``The proposed law provides protection for physicians who prescribe
medication with the intention of relieving pain, even if that
medication has the secondary effect of causing death.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is the
relationship between a doctor and a patient. Most of these patients are
dying patients, at least that is what we assume.
These people are at their weakest, they are at their most vulnerable,
their complete trust, in fact, their life is in the hands of their
doctor. They have every right to expect that their doctor is going to
be a healer and not a killer; that their doctor is not going to seek a
quick fix. Doctors have the right to prescribe very useful, very
strong, very powerful drugs to alleviate pain. But to alleviate pain,
not to eliminate patients. It is to eliminate pain.
We, in this country, believe in the sanctity of human life. I can
remember my grandmother, very ill in the hospital. I can remember the
doctor telling us she would not live through the night. She did live
through the night. She came home and she spent 3 more years with my
grandfather, and they were productive years. She was not confined to a
wheelchair, she was not confined to a bed.
Now, this bill has been misrepresented. I want to commend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I want commend the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Canady) for bringing this bill.
Once again let me repeat what this bill does allow doctors to do. And
let me say this, doctors support this bill. The American Medical
Association has endorsed this bill. The organization that cares for
these dying patients and knows more about them, the American Hospice
Organization, has endorsed this bill. Americans support this bill by
more than two to one.
This bill allows physicians to do their job effectively and
compassionately. Those with terminal illnesses often find themselves in
terrible pain, and under current laws many doctors do not have the
ability to help those sickest patients. Under this legislation, and it
clearly states this, that alleviating pain or discomfort is a
legitimate medical purpose consistent with public health and safety,
even if the use of such substance may increase the risk of death.''
This bill allows doctors to effectively prescribe medication to
control pain of patients and to improve their last few days of life,
but at the same time ensures to all of us that they will be healers and
that they will conform to their ethical code never to kill, only to
cure.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Like the gentleman from Oregon, I too have watched a loved one die of
cancer. I did not want her to commit suicide nor be put to death. I
wanted her to be healed, as the previous speaker has said, and I
believe all the doctors that dealt with her wanted to do that. But
anybody who has gone through that experience, I think, is convicted of
the fact that they want the doctor to have the latitude to use such
means and devices as in the doctor's judgment is best to relieve that
patient from the agony of death.
I will vote for this substitute and urge the adoption of this
substitute because I believe it gives that latitude. It states as a
policy that we are against assisted suicide, but it also goes on to
train and to offer counseling and education in this very difficult time
for families and individuals.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Rothman-Johnson-Maloney-
Hooley ``Conquering Pain Substitute'' to H.R. 2260--``The Pain Relief
Promotion Act.''
Assisted suicide remains a divisive issue around the nation. For
young and old alike who suffer from terminal illness, finding a way to
ease excruciating pain is a complex and difficult task.
The ``Conquering Pain Substitute'' provides a viable alternative to
the ```Pain Relief Promotion Act.''
Not only does it express this body's opposition to assisted suicide,
but it implements a variety of programs to provide information on pain
management and learn more about the importance of controlled substances
in treating the seriously and terminally ill.
The ``Conquering Pain Substitute'' puts more emphasis into research
and insuring that health professions have the information they need in
making pain management decisions.
The substitute expands access to pain management by establishing
family support networks, a pain guidelines web-site, and insures that
all Medicare recipients are informed of their insurance coverage of
pain treatment.
The bill also calls for a report by the Surgeon General on legal and
regulatory barriers to pain management as well as establishing an
advisory committee on pain to coordinate efforts to the Federal
Government.
This substitute provides a sensible approach to a difficult and
emotional issue and I hope my fellow colleagues will join me in
supporting it.
From time to time a few egregious cases, like assisted suicide, lead
us to adopt legislation with broad implications and possible unintended
consequences.
However, if the substitute fails, I will vote for final passage of
H.R. 2260.
Representatives Hyde and Stupak have made a concerted effort to win
wide-spread support of their bill including support by the American
Medical Association, and the National Hospice Association. This bill is
far superior to the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act that was
introduced in the 105th Congress.
Once again I urge my colleagues to support the ``Conquering Pain
Substitute''
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise here today in the first place because I have been
wrongly identified as a supporter of the substitute, and secondly I
rise in support of the base bill.
But I also wanted to tell my colleagues, that I, too, like the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), have had to care for terminally
ill members of my family as both a daughter and a mother. I cared for
my father at my home during his last weeks as a prostate cancer patient
and for my own son, Todd whom I lost to leukemia, and I cared for him.
Sincerely and seriously, I address this issue from the memories of the
trauma--physical and mental that my loved ones endured.
I have to tell my colleagues that originally I was too focused on
only the palliative care questions because the issues had been
misrepresented to me. And as I investigated, both with the Justice
Department and with the AMA as to their reasons for supporting these
portions of the bill, I learned that absolutely this does not interfere
with the doctor-patient relationship.
I want to read from the October 19 letter that the Justice Department
wrote to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and I want to be
specific

[[Page 27097]]

about this because there is a lot of rhetoric around here and we are
talking about legal questions. The Department of Justice fully supports
these measures. ``H.R. 2260 would eliminate any ambiguity about the
legality of using controlled substances to alleviate the pain and
suffering of the terminally ill,'' and I want to emphasize this,
because they go on to say, ``by reducing any perceived threat of
administrative and criminal sanctions in this context.'' That gives me
the assurance that I believe I need.
Further on, they go on to other questions. But, clearly, the
palliative care and the protection of the physician's professional
actions are there.

{time} 1345

But, in addition, I questioned at length, the AMA. At first I called
the AMA with deep concern about their support for the bill. And then
after discussing with the AMA, they sent me documentation as to their
reasons for support.
Because I am the wife of a doctor and I have had all kinds of
contacts with medical provisions, and they specifically explicitly
state in black and white that the addition of language explicitly
acknowledging the medical legitimacy of the double effect in the CSA
provides a new and important statutory protection for the physicians
prescribing controlled substances for pain, particularly for patients
at the end of life.
It is unambiguous and the AMA supports this because their previous
concerns have been addressed quite correctly by the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the committee.
I strongly support the bill; and oppose the substitute as ambiguous
and inadequate.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema)
described herself as wrongly identified. I would like the Record to
note that she asked to be a cosponsor of the amendment, voluntarily
signed ``dear colleagues,'' and was part of a letter to the leadership;
and while she may have changed her mind, things were not misrepresented
and she was not wrongly identified. She has merely changed her
position. And I certainly accept and respect that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose assisted suicide. If I had
the opportunity either as a Member of Congress or in a referendum, I
would vote to make that illegal. However, I am concerned about the
unintended consequences that this bill would place on providers and
patients at risk, as well as preempt State laws that have already
addressed this issue.
All of us have had experience with very dear and close family members
who have died and had to have hospice treatment. In my State of Texas,
where a physician-assisted suicide is not legal, the definition of
``intractable pain'' and the rules that govern its treatment are
carefully worked out and negotiated.
Over the past years, the Texas Board of State Medical Examiners has
modified their rules to fine tune them so that they will provide for
best care for patients without undue interference. Our pain act was
passed to reassure physicians that they would not have enforcement
action taken against them if they prescribed a prescription for a
controlled substance.
Now I see we have a difference between the AMA and Texas Medical
Association. Because before this act was passed by the legislature,
many physicians were consciously undertreating patients because of the
fear of State disciplinary action. I worried this would happen. That is
why I stand in support of the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This will improve
the bill. I am very concerned, as a physician, that this bill will do
great harm to the practice of medicine. This is micromanaging the
palliative care of the dying.
So I strongly support this amendment because it will remove the
severe penalties and the threats. Physicians are accustomed to
practicing with lawyers over their shoulders. Now we are going to add
another DEA agent over our shoulders to watch what we do.
It is said, well, there is not going to be any change in law. Well,
if there is not, why the bill? Certainly there is a change in law. This
bill does not state that it is dealing with euthanasis. It says it is a
pain relief promotion act.
Generally speaking, I look at the names of bills and sometimes
intentionally and sometimes just out of the way things happen here,
almost always the opposite happens from the bill that we raise up. So I
would call this the pain promotion act. I really sincerely believe, as
a physician, that this will not help.
Too often physicians are intimidated and frightened about giving the
adequate pain medication that is necessary to relieve pain. This
amendment will be helpful. This is what we should do. We should not
intimidate. The idea of dealing with the issue of euthanasis,
euthanasia is killing. It is murder.
I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to
euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is
a State issue, not a congressional issue.
I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will take a legislative step which is as
potentially dangerous to protecting the sanctity of life as was the
Court's ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision.
The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title
21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative
care patients from the scourge of ``assisted'' suicide. However, by
preempting what is the province of States--most of which have already
enacted laws prohibiting ``assisted suicide''--and expanding its use of
the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper
medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer
to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited
powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every
other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of
the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the
people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance.
The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution
is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No
serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the
Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal
Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to
federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts
. . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.''
Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political
pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill
or sensational crime.''
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply
threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of
certain drugs--it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to
dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of
assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this
legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be
protective of life in this instance, we mustn't forget that the saw (or
scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision--the Court's
intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect
by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed against--was
quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it
obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation
issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted
suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide
standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds

[[Page 27098]]

shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then,
of course, it will be the federal government's role to make the tough
choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical
care doesn't justify life extension. Current law already prohibits
private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they've
treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
Additionally, this bill empowers the Attorney General to train
federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to discern the
difference between palliative care and euthanasia. Most recently,
though, it was the Attorney General who specifically exempted the
physicians of Oregon from certain provisions of Title 21, the very
Title this legislation intends to augment. Under the tutelage of the
Attorney General, it would thus become the federal police officer's
role to determine at which point deaths from pain medication constitute
assisted suicide.
To help the health care professionals become familiar with what will
become the new federal medical standard, the bill also authorizes $24
million dollars over the next five years for grant programs to health
education institutions. This is yet another federal action to be found
nowhere amongst the enumerated powers.
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients
is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left
to the states' criminal justice systems and state medical licensing
boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize
such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the
unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done
so prior to the federal government's unconstitutional sanctioning of
violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260
ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly
reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the
Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice
Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief
Promotion Act of 1999.

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will
report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, many of us are against assisted suicide. But,
in my view, in an attempt to get at that problem, this bill is a
blunder and it pushes us away from added protection for patients.
I am for the amendment that is being considered. Because what this
bill does is to say that, when a doctor prescribes pain killing agents,
the Drug Enforcement Agency could look over the doctor's shoulder and
threaten that doctor with 20 years in jail.
That is an outrageous Big Brother intrusion in the doctor-patient
relationship. Nobody, not government, not religion, not politicians
have the right to tell any individual how much pain they have to endure
and how it has to be managed. That is my business and my doctor's
business. It is not yours or yours or yours or anybody else's.
Does anybody really believe that today there is too much bias in
medicine toward relieving pain? If they think that is the case, they
have not been in many hospital rooms lately.
The fact is that today incentives are in the opposite direction to
make doctors so careful that they often will err on the side of not
enough pain relief. This bill would make that problem worse. That is
why I am opposed to it, and that is why I support the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition, and I yield to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the House why we
are here today, and that is because the Attorney General of the United
States has made a determination as the Attorney General that physician-
assisted suicide is legitimate medical practice. That is what she
decided.
Now, that was a break with tradition. That was a break with the
policy of the Federal Government. She decided that. And we are here
today, as the Congress, to express our view legislatively on whether
she was right or wrong. I submit to the House that she was wrong and
this House should not endorse the position of the Attorney General that
physician-assisted suicide is legitimate medical practice.
That is the real issue before us here today. There has been a lot of
things talked about, but I want to thank the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for bringing out the fact that the Department of
Justice has endorsed the provisions of this bill that deal with
palliative care.
There have been many things said about those provisions, criticizing
them and saying they are going to create additional problems. But the
Department of Justice has written in a letter of October 19 that H.R.
2260 would eliminate any ambiguity about the legality of using
controlled substances to alleviate the pain and suffering of the
terminally ill by reducing any perceived threat of administrative and
criminal sanctions in this context. The Department, accordingly,
supports these portions of H.R. 2260 addressing palliative care.
This is a very important statement coming from the Department of
Justice, and I think the Members should evaluate some of the attacks
that have been made on this bill and look at what the Department of
Justice, which does not support the overall bill, I hasten to add, they
do not support provisions with respect to the effect on Oregon. That is
very clear, as well. But palliative care they support.
I suggest that the Members ask themselves as they consider how they
are going to vote on this whether we wanted to say that the Federal
Government will support and encourage assisted suicide or are we going
to authorize the use of controlled substances for the purpose of
killing human beings?
It is the Federal Government that authorizes the use of controlled
substances. We have a general prohibition on them. But we allow them to
be utilized in certain circumstances. Is it going to be the position of
this Federal Government that we will authorize them for the purpose of
killing human beings? That is the issue that is before us here today,
will we allow this well-established regulatory scheme governing
controlled substances to be undermined in that way. It is my view that
to allow it to be used in that way would be to undermine it.
Now remember, when a physician authorizes the use of a controlled
substance, he has to take out a special prescription pad is my
understanding, a prescription pad that is authorized by the DEA; and on
that special controlled substance prescription pad, he is going to
write out a prescription to kill somebody.
Now, do we want to put in place a mechanism where that sort of thing
takes place? I do not think so. But we have got to decide today, are we
going to go on record supporting the decision of the Attorney General
that this is a legitimate medical practice, or are we going to say no?
Now, it is very interesting that each of the proponents of the bill
say they are against physician-assisted suicide. Well, if they are
against physician-assisted suicide, why do they want to allow a Federal
regulatory scheme to be utilized in a way that supports and encourages
it? Why do we want to authorize the use of federally controlled drugs
for physician-assisted suicide if we are opposed to physician-assisted
suicide? I think there is a fatal contradiction.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) a question.
Whenever he prescribes a controlled substance, does not the DEA
review that prescription?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, now
did my colleagues hear that? Every time he writes a prescription for a
controlled substance, the DEA, that horrible gestapo, reviews the
prescription and the purpose for it.

[[Page 27099]]

Now, therefore, the DEA has a role to play today as we speak in the
existing law, and this bill does not change it. It just says to Oregon
that they are back in with the rest of the 50 States now.
We do not create a gestapo. We simply say that what exists now will
continue to exist, but they cannot use controlled substances to execute
people, however directly or indirectly.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) is absolutely correct.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The motion was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise that both Members
have 6\1/2\ minutes remaining in the debate.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we should not support H.R. 2260 in its present form. As
a physician, I rise in support of the substitute amendment offered by
my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney), and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), which
tries to lessen the damage that would be done by the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, one would believe that the proponents of this bill
never have had someone close to them terminally ill, their body taken
over by cancer and racked with pain. The only thing that families ask
for at times like these is that the last days of their loved ones be as
comfortable as possible. And the only thing that we as physicians can
offer is palliative treatment or pain relief.
This is not assisted suicide. It is good and caring medical practice.
What we need to be doing as a Congress, instead of preventing
physicians from providing the care that a person needs, is to do
precisely what the amendment asks us to do, allow us to practice our
healing arts with compassion and also provide for research and training
to expand our options for palliative care so that our loved ones can
transition with dignity.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is misguided and it is one more attempt to
interfere with the practice of good medicine. Let us pass this
amendment. I would want my doctor to be able to provide needed pain
relief if I were terminally ill, and so would my colleagues.

{time} 1400

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
substitute. I would like to make it quite clear to all of my colleagues
what the substitute does. Both bills have funding and authorization for
more education for physicians so that they will more aggressively treat
patients with pain. I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut one-ups
the authors of the original bill. She has got $19 million in there and
a website, et cetera. But she very strategically does not have the
language that addresses what is going on in the State of Oregon, and I
will again reiterate what I said earlier. When you hold out suicide as
an option, it is a fraud. You can take care of these patients.
I practiced treating these people. I took care of them. In proper
hands you can manage their pain. You can treat their depression. And to
say that in some cases we cannot handle those things and therefore you
have to allow them to commit suicide to me is a hoax.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, so much has been said in this debate already. I seek
not to restate any of that. I ask my fellow Members of the House to do
one thing and one thing only, and, that is, to read the Oregon statute
before they vote. Please read the Oregon statute before you vote. There
are dozens of protections in the statute. They should be fully informed
about what they vote on today, because this body is about to substitute
its judgment for the judgment of individuals in small rooms in my home
State. Please read the statute before you vote.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
bipartisan Johnson amendment. This debate today is not about squashing
the Oregon law 3,000 miles away. It is about whether or not people can
get appropriate pain relief in our own neighborhoods at home, our
parents, our friends.
One of my constituents writes, ``After 5 years and one suicide
attempt and my doctor saying he could not legally go any higher on my
pain relief medication, I do not want to live anymore. I want to be
productive and see my young girl grow up but I really feel I have been
sentenced to death.''
I ask my colleagues to consider the lives of people who depend on
appropriate pain medication to live. It is not our place or
government's place to come between doctors and their patients and
potentially criminalize their efforts to ease the suffering of those
who need help, who need pain relief.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Johnson substitute and
against the base bill.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me correct my colleague and
friend from New Jersey. On page 3 of the Justice Department's letter to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), they say specifically they
oppose the portion of the bill with regards to the Oregon law. They are
in favor of the palliative portion but oppose the Oregon portion. That
is clear.
Now, let me read from the substitute: ``The purpose of the act is to
enhance professional education in palliative care and reduce excessive
regulatory scrutiny in order to mitigate the suffering, pain and
desperation many sick and dying people face at the end of their lives
in order to carry out the clear opposition of the Congress to
physician-assisted suicide.''
That is the substitute. We are against physician-assisted suicide but
we want to foster palliative care to the tens of millions of Americans
suffering chronic, debilitating, horrible pain. Now, the doctors in
this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, are on both sides of this
question. The doctors in the major organizations in the United States
are on both sides of this question. Most of the nursing organizations
are for the substitute. Why? Because they know that there is a chilling
effect, a real one, on doctors in prescribing pain medication if the
underlying bill is passed and we reject the substitute. If you are
against the Oregon law, go to the Supreme Court and throw it out. But
do not affect the ability of tens of millions of Americans to get the
pain relief that they need. Vote for the substitute that says we are
against physician-assisted suicide but we want doctors to be able to
prescribe pain medicine to relieve the pain of people suffering
horrible, debilitating pain in their last weeks and days of life.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time. I rise in strong support of my amendment and urge my
colleagues to support it as well.
It is far more aggressive in developing the science of pain
management and advancing physician knowledge of pain management and
increasing patient expectation of pain management. That is why the
National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain, the American Pain
Foundation and many other organizations, including the American Academy
of Family Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the
Emergency Room Physicians, the Hospice and Palliative Nurses
Association

[[Page 27100]]

and many others support my amendment. It is also why many State medical
societies support this in spite of the AMA's stand.
Furthermore, it is very clear, according to the former counsel of the
DEA office of the chief counsel, that under current DEA law and policy,
physicians can prescribe controlled substances for pain management, but
it is also true that this new bill contradicts the Department of
Justice's and DEA's findings that the agency should defer to the
medical community on appropriate standards for providing palliative
care and that the PRPA would for the first time establish Federal
criteria in statute to define ``legitimate medical purposes''. This is
a departure from current law that would prevent deferring to State and
medical standards and create a conflict with State medical guidelines
as to the appropriate standard of medical care. It would create
conflict with State law, conflict with State guidelines, conflict with
the State agencies that have traditionally implemented this part of the
DEA statute. It is a significant change in Federal statute, because for
the first time it requires federal criteria as to what is ``legitimate
medical purpose'' and requires DEA agents to judge the intent of a
physician as he administers to a patient suffering acute pain during
the concluding days of serious illness.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think three points need to be made. There is well-intended thought
in the substitute but there are a couple of factual errors. Number one,
we would not be here if the Attorney General had not said that
physician-assisted suicide is the legitimate practice of medicine. It
is not. That is number one.
Number two is the rules and regulations that the Oregon law put up
were good. They are intended to make sure the wrong things do not
happen, to make sure that if in fact somebody helps somebody die, that
they did that when they are not depressed, when they are not coerced,
when they are not in a position. But we already have this experiment
that has been carried out for us in Holland. They have the exact same
rules.
I want to quote to Members the testimony before the Committee on
Commerce. There is a substantial practice of euthanasia now, primarily
voluntarily, but definitely also not voluntarily. Even 5 years after
the regulations were established, the majority of cases of euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide and almost all cases of nonvoluntary
euthanasia are not reported, making effective control by the legal
authorities impossible in Holland.
In fact, the first publicly reported case of assisted suicide in the
State of Oregon involved an out-of-State woman who was found to be
depressed by one doctor that she consulted. Within 3 weeks of
contacting Compassion in Dying and moving to Oregon, she was dead by
lethal overdose. Significantly, while two doctors rendered opinions
against the assisted suicide, including a physician who believed the
woman was suffering from clinical depression, these opinions were not
included in the Oregon Health Division Report of the law's first year
after enactment.
So we can be well-intentioned. We can try to design it, but the fact
is there are holes. And the very first case in Oregon slipped through
the cracks.
Let me read to Members about what we are going to see in the future,
and I am not saying this is happening in Oregon today but this is where
we are going:
``Thanks to another `prosecution' of a doctor who euthanized an
infant, euthanasia, already practiced on adults in the Netherlands,
will soon openly enter the pediatric ward. Dr. Henk Prins killed a 3-
day-old girl who was born with spina bifida, leg deformities and
hydrocephaly, which all babies who have spina bifida have. The doctor,
a gynecologist, not a pediatrician or medical expert in such cases,
although experts were consulted, was defended. He testified in the
trial court that he killed the child with her parents' permission
because of the infant's poor prognosis.''
I am not saying that is going on right now. And I understand and
believe the people in opposition to this base bill that they do not
believe in physician-assisted suicide. But I beg you to open your eyes
to see where we are going. When abortion was first made legal in this
country, it was to prevent back alley abortions. The number one reason
for abortion today is birth control. That was not the intended purpose
when we said we should allow medical abortions. But where are we? Just
50 million babies that are not here for birth control. The lazy birth
control. Have an abortion.
So think about what can come out of this. There are legitimate
options in the substitute as far as enhancing the treatment of pain
control. There is no question. But the fact is this bill will protect
physicians. My own experience tells me that. My own gut tells me that.
But most importantly we will not violate the State right of Oregon. If
Oregon wants to kill somebody not using a Federally controlled drug,
they have every right to do it. But what we are saying is, if you are
going to use a Federally controlled product, you do not have that
right.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, further
proceedings on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott); amendment No. 2 in
the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 268, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 542]

AYES--160

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler

[[Page 27101]]

Napolitano
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--268

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

NOT VOTING--5

Delahunt
Hinojosa
Mascara
Rush
Scarborough

{time} 1437

Messrs. TANCREDO, PASCRELL, MARTINEZ, BENTSEN, HALL of Texas,
BILBRAY, OBERSTAR and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. WISE, Mr. BOYD, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas and Ms. SLAUGHTER
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 Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Pursuant to House Resolution 339,
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 the additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.

Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mrs. Johnson
of connecticut

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 239, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 543]

AYES--188

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--239

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich

[[Page 27102]]

LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Delahunt
Hinojosa
Mascara
Pickering
Rush
Scarborough

{time} 1449

Mr. HAYWORTH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote is announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 543, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hobson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ney, Chairman pro tempore of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2260) to
amend the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and
palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 339, 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.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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.

Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. In its present form, Mr. Speaker, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Blumenauer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2260 to the
Committee on Commerce with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Page 3, line 25, before the period insert ``, except a law
adopted or confirmed through a State citizen initiative or
referendum''.
Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. 103. EXCLUSION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

No person shall be held criminally liable for any violation
of law based on the effect of the amendments made by section
101.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is offered on
behalf of myself, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley).
The supporters of this legislation have every right to attempt to ban
assisted suicide or to promote the pain management in this country.
Unfortunately, the legislation that we have been offered today is the
worst of both worlds. It does not just trample on States rights, but it
most assuredly does so, effectively overturning legislation that has
been approved, not just once, but twice by the citizens of Oregon.
In addition, the physicians that I represent in Oregon tell me that,
regardless of their position on physician-assisted suicide, it will
make it much, much harder to manage pain, allowing additional second-
guessing of their professional judgments as they seek to meet the needs
of their patients.
I sincerely believe that virtually nobody outside this Beltway wants
to criminalize doctor-patient decisions of this most sensitive manner.
Tough decisions are made every day in hospitals all across the country,
withdrawing life support, and sometimes, in instances, withdrawing
drugs that can, in fact, hasten death.
There are some tragic cases that involve actual suicide. Outside of
Oregon, people are often driven to desperate acts alone, seeking to
insulate their families from the trauma.
We have heard repeatedly in the course of this discussion that pain
management is a serious problem around the country. But most often in
this country, as these decisions are made in quiet, most of America
looks the other way and ignores the difficulty and the trauma. The
citizens of Oregon have taken a difficult decision to help deal with
these end-of-life questions, providing the only framework in the United
States.
Those of us who listened to the debate on the floor of this assembly
heard very eloquent statements by my colleagues about how they arrived
as individual citizens in making the decision to vote on that measure
themselves, the eloquence of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden)
from Hood River talking about very personal instances that affected his
family.
Twice Oregonians have decided this is the way they want to go.
Despite all the rhetoric about opening the flood gates for physician-
assisted suicide, such has not been the case. There are only 15 cases
last year in Oregon, and in fact the research suggests and common sense
would reinforce that when we give people, their families, and their
physicians control over the situation, they are less likely to take
desperate and unfortunate action.
The ironic approach that is taken by the supporters of this
legislation may actually lead to an increase, if they are successful,
in suicide in my State but without the framework.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that Members of this assembly move this
bill back to committee to strip away the provisions that would
criminalize the decisions that are made by physicians exercising their
professional judgment on how best to meet the needs and wishes of their
patients and the patients' families, and that we would exempt States
which have, by a vote of their citizens, squarely addressed this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues'
recommittal of this bill. What I have heard around this place today are
a lot of people talking about this group supports it, that group does
not support it. What we are talking about are real people in every one
of our districts.
If that doctor feels a threat of law enforcement, the DEA looking
over their shoulder, will they give one's friend, one's neighbor, one's
son or daughter, one's wife, one's husband, will they give them
adequate pain medication? That is what it is about. It is about whether
or not we are going to let people that we care about suffer. Please
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) rise?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 27103]]

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. End of life
issues always are. What the people of Oregon have done, they have every
right to do as long as they follow the laws of the United States that
do not supersede that.
The fact is, this bill will not keep Oregon from having physician-
assisted suicide. What it says is they just cannot use federally
controlled drugs to do that.
Now, how did we get where we are? The Attorney General of the United
States decided that physician assisted-suicide as far as Oregon's law
is concerned is a legitimate practice of medicine.

{time} 1500

I am here to tell my colleagues that that is not a legitimate
practice of medicine. Matter of fact, even Oregon put great safeguards
into their bills to make sure that mistakes were not made. Let me read
to my colleagues what happened with one of the first cases.
The first publicly reported case of assisted suicide in Oregon
involved an out-of-state woman who was found to be clinically depressed
by her doctor. Within 3 weeks of contacting the Compassion in Dying and
moving to Oregon, she was dead by lethal overdose. Significantly, two
other doctors had rendered opinions against the assisted suicide,
including a physician who believed the woman was suffering from a
clinical depression. These opinions were not included in the Oregon
Health Division report in the law's first year.
The fact is with this motion to recommit what we will be saying, if
we follow it in its essence, is that it is okay for a doctor in Oregon
to use federally controlled substances to kill a patient, but it is not
okay to harm them. So what we will see is, if they harm someone, they
are going to be held liable; but if they kill somebody, they will not.
I would put forth to the body of the House that we have a wonderful
example of what happens when a group of people follow this logic, and
all we have to do is look at Holland. Last year in Holland, a very
small country, 80 babies were euthanized by their gynecologists. Now, I
know Oregon does not allow euthanasia of babies, but neither did
Holland when they first started. The vast majority of people, well over
2,000 people in Holland, were euthanized against their choice. What is
in the testimony is the fact that they are incapable in Holland of
knowing how many people were euthanized against their will.
I would ask the Members of this body to throw off the false argument
that we are having the DEA look over the shoulder of doctors. In fact,
the opposite is true. We have created a safe harbor for doctors that
says if their intent is to eliminate pain, then they are held without
liability. We also had charts presented and facts presented that showed
that in every State that had put in a common-sense approach like this,
the use of pain controlled medicines, morphine, has dramatically risen
in helping those who are in the pains of dying with manageable pain.
And, in fact, we are now moving as a Nation to manage that pain.
I reject this motion to recommit, and I ask the House to support that
position.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
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 noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271,
noes 156, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 544]

AYES--271

Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--156

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark

[[Page 27104]]

Stump
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--6

Delahunt
Hinojosa
Kennedy
Mascara
Rush
Scarborough

{time} 1519

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

OFFERING CONDOLENCES TO FAMILIES OF VICTIMS AND PEOPLE OF ARMENIA

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, we were appalled to learn earlier today of
the assassination of Armenia's Prime Minister Sarkisian and several
other high officials in the Armenian Government. It is tragic that this
form of political violence has intruded upon the democratic path to
which the Armenian people have committed themselves.
It is our hope and prayer that the people of Armenia not allow this
kind of despicable terrorism to deter them from pursuing their
democratic ideals and the institutions that provide for a free society.
Armenia has been a good friend of our Nation, and America stands
ready to continue to provide the assistance needed to our friends to
help them overcome this tragedy. It is our profoundest hope that
Armenia will speedily recover from this violence and resume the
practices that have provided its people the full measure of political
freedom and opportunity.
I want to offer our condolences on behalf of the Congress to the
families of the victims and to the people of Armenia.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). 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.

____________________

TRAGIC EVENTS IN ARMENIA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise
today to indicate to my colleagues and the American people the tragic
events that have taken place in the Republic of Armenia.
News reports indicate that Prime Minister Vazgen Sarkisian has been
assassinated in an attack by four gunmen who stormed into Parliament
during a session earlier today. Other lawmakers and government
officials were killed in the attack in the Parliament chamber,
including the Speaker of Parliament Karen Demirchian, according to news
reports. The death of the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the
Parliament have now been confirmed by the office of Armenia's
president.
The gunmen are currently holding some 100 hostages, including members
of Parliament. However, the government is in full control of the
situation outside Parliament in the Armenian capital of Yerevan and
throughout the country. There is no state of emergency. There are no
indications that this was part of any organized coup, but merely the
action of a few gunmen whose motives are not yet clear.
The Prime Minister and members of the government were gathered in
Parliament for a presentation of the budget. So, clearly, the gunmen
chose an occasion when they could attack many of the top leaders at one
time. The gunmen have reportedly released the women hostages.
Armenia's President Robert Kocharian was not at the Parliament
complex at the time of the shooting. He is there now personally
directing the security forces and trying to negotiate for the release
of the remaining hostages.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that democracy in Armenia is strong.
The commitment on the part of Armenia's elected leaders and the vast
majority of Armenia people to democracy, to the orderly transfer of
power, to peace and stability in Armenia and within the region, all
remain as strong as ever.
Clearly, Armenia must be in a state of shock right now. The same is
true for me, Mr. Speaker, and for all the friends of Armenia in this
Congress on both sides of the aisle and for all the American friends of
Armenia, including more than one million Americans of Armenian descent.
But Armenia will continue to move forward with the political and
economical reforms it began when it won its independence more than 8
years ago.
Mr. Speaker, there is a special poignancy for me and many of my
colleagues in learning of the death of Prime Minister Sarkisian. The
Prime Minister was our guest in this very Capitol building just a few
weeks ago, 4 weeks ago to be exact. More than 30 Members of Congress
and many of our staff had the opportunity to hear the Prime Minister
give a very strong speech in which he stressed his commitment to
continuing with economic reforms while working for a settlement of the
Nagorno Karabagh conflict and greater integration between Armenia and
her neighbors.
Vazgen Sarkisian had only been Prime Minister since May of this year
following nationwide elections for the National Assembly, the
Parliament. His party was the Unity Federation. Prior to becoming Prime
Minister, he served as Defense Minister from 1995 to 1999. And like
many political figures in Armenia, his real involvement in politics
began in 1988, as the Soviet Union was collapsing. That year he joined
the National Liberation Movement for Independence of Armenia and
Constitutional Self-Determination of Nagorno Karabagh.
Also, like many of the political leaders of today's Armenia, Prime
Minister Sarkisian was quite young. He was only 40 years old and had an
extremely bright future ahead of him as leader of his country.
Mr. Sarkisian was committed to the goal of reform, rebuilding the
nation after decades of Soviet domination. He supported integration of
Armenia's economy with the region and the world. He sought to promote a
society that protects private property with a stable currency and a
balanced budget, while providing social protections to its citizens.
During his visit to Washington, the Prime Minister met with Vice
President Gore, attended World Bank and IMF meetings, and met with
officials of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, as well as
other Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, Speaker Demirchian had been the leader of Armenia during
Soviet times. In the post-Soviet Armenia, he has emerged as a champion
of reform. I have had the opportunity to meet Mr. Demirchian during a
congressional delegation to Armenia that I participated in this summer
with four of my colleagues. We were all struck by the fact that the new
leadership, with President Kocharian, Prime Minister Sarkisian, and
Speaker Demirchian represented an extremely strong leadership team
poised to lead Armenia into a new millennium and into an economic area
of prosperity and peace.
While I am sure President Kocharian will continue at that legacy, he
has lost two valuable partners. Armenia and the world have lost two
fine leaders. But even on this saddest of days, and it really is a very
sad day, I am confident that Armenia will continue its progress in
establishing a strong, prosperous, and free society.

____________________

[[Page 27105]]

SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House
today with what I consider good news but also maybe some bad news, a
little bit sweet and a little bit sour.

The good news is that there is a great deal more attention to the
serious problem of saving Social Security. The bad news is that we are
not doing too much about it.
I was disappointed when the President sent over his proposed
legislation that in effect says, let us add another IOU promissory note
to the Social Security Trust Fund. An IOU is, of course, a promise to
pay in the future. And that is what this would do is say, somehow, some
way, raising revenues from some source down in future years, Congress
will come up with the money to keep Social Security going for a little
while longer.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, just give a little background on Social
Security. It was started in 1935. It was a program then and always has
been a pay-as-you-go program. In other words, existing current workers
were asked to pay a Social Security tax. That tax came in and was
immediately sent out to senior citizens, retirees, beneficiaries.
So today the money comes in one day and by the end of the week it is
sent out in benefit payments. Right now we are bringing a little more
in because we have substantially increased the FICA tax, the Social
Security tax; we are bringing a little bit more money in than is needed
to pay benefits. That is what is called the Social Security Trust Fund.
And that is what Republicans, the Democrats and the President have been
arguing about, should we continue spending that Social Security Trust
Fund money for other government programs.
I think now most of us agree, no, that we should not. And the
challenge is how do we calm the desire of the President and some of the
spenders in this body that would like to spend more money and yet not
spend the Social Security Trust Fund reserve.

{time} 1530

That, however, not spending that Social Security trust fund, does not
solve Social Security. The trust fund, the IOUs in the trust fund, the
money the government has borrowed in the past, now accounts for
approximately $800 billion. But when we consider that benefit payments
are $400 billion a year, that trust fund reserve would not even hardly
last the full of 2 years. The actuaries at Social Security and the CBO,
the Congressional Budget Office, estimate that the unfunded liability,
I will go into detail on those words, but the unfunded liability of
Social Security is $9 trillion. In other words, if we were to hire a
private firm and say we want you to continue paying Social Security
benefits indefinitely, they would say, okay, you have got to give us
the right to tax all workers 12.4 percent of their taxable payroll,
plus you have got to give us $9 trillion today to put in an interest-
bearing account so that that will be the only way that we will take on
as a private sector industry the responsibility of paying Social
Security benefits in the future. $9 trillion. Compare that with our
annual budget in this country of $1.7 trillion. It means that we have
got a long ways to go. It means that Social Security is not solvent and
cannot continue the way it is currently structured.
So back to the good news. The good news is there is more attention to
it. I say hurrah to the President for the last two State of the Union
speeches, saying let us put Social Security first and so the Republican
leadership, the Democrats, all of us in Congress have said, good idea,
let us put Social Security first but we have not done it yet. We have
not come up with the kind of proposals that are going to keep Social
Security solvent.
Next Wednesday at 11 a.m. in room 210, Mr. Speaker, I will be
announcing my Social Security bill that does just that. It keeps Social
Security solvent into the future. It is not easy. To pretend that
somehow the Social Security trust fund and the promise that government
has made that it will somehow pay that trust fund money back is going
to save Social Security is not true. It is not right. It will not work.
Somehow, we have got to increase benefits for widows and widowers that
are asked to substantially reduce their money coming in from Social
Security as they try to survive. I think we are challenged with a
situation that Congress does not usually react and do something unless
the people of this country demand that something be done. That has not
happened yet. There needs to be better information. There needs to be
more understanding that at risk are future generations and current
retirees if we do not step up to the plate and solve Social Security
now.

____________________

MARKING 100TH YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF H. HORWITZ CO., CHICAGO'S OLDEST
FAMILY-OWNED JEWELER

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
one of Chicago's finest and most longstanding family-owned businesses,
the H. Horwitz Company, jewelers since 1899. 1999 marks the 100th year
anniversary of H. Horwitz Company, Chicago's oldest family-owned
jeweler. Founder Hyman Horwitz emigrated to the United States from
Russia in 1895, equipped with a jeweler's training and desire to start
his own business. At first, his one-room loop shop handled only jewelry
repairs. But it soon blossomed into a thriving boutique that in
addition to gems, provided gainful employment for a passel of Horwitz's
Russian Jewish brothers and sisters. Scooping Service Merchandise by
decades, he sold his diamonds alongside luggage, radios and cameras
from the 1930s through the 1960s through his jewels values catalog.
Horwitz and his son Donald, who ran the shop until 1998, experimented
from the start with cutting edge jewelry designs. Theirs was one of the
first companies to produce the pearl mystery clasp, a setting in which
a necklace or bracelet clasp is drilled into two pearls, allowing them
to screw together. The all around channel setting, now a common setting
for diamond rings, was another pioneering step forward in jewelry
design for the company.
This spirit of innovation also characterized Hyman Horwitz's
humanitarian interest. In addition to supporting several Chicago
charitable organizations, such as the Shrine Foundation and Chicago's
Scholarship Fund, Horwitz created a custom braille watch to give to the
blind of Chicago. This watch was made to size with the bracelet band
and engraved with the name on the back. Of the luminaries who have
shopped at H. Horwitz, least surprising is the one famous for his
diamond fetish, Liberace. Other patrons have included former Illinois
Governor Otto Kerner, Henry Youngman, Archbishop Samuel Cardinal
Stritch, Chicago's Goldblatt family and insurance magnate and
philanthropist W. Clement Stone.
Now run by Donald's wife Phyllis and son Craig, H. Horwitz and
Company continues to offer fine jewelry at a discount. The company also
imports all of its diamonds and precious gems directly from diamond
cutters.
Mr. Speaker, 100 years is a long time, especially is it a long time
to own and operate a business in one of the Nation's finest cities,
Chicago, the windy city, city of the big shoulders, the city of
neighborhoods. Yes, Chicago, the home of Horwitz jewelers. Yes, Ms.
Phyllis Horwitz, we salute you and your family for an outstanding
century of providing services to Chicagoans and all of those who have
come to know of your service, professionalism and contributions to
humanity. We say congratulations. We wish you well as you continue down
the road to success. You are makers of history and we are pleased that
you are a part of our community and that you prepare and distribute
some of the finest jewelry in the world.

____________________

[[Page 27106]]

``CUBA PROGRAM,'' TORTURING OF AMERICAN POWs BY CUBAN AGENTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the Geneva Convention prohibits
violence to life and person, in particular murders of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture and outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. That is
an exact quote.

However, all of those barbaric acts are exactly what took place in
a prison camp in North Vietnam known as the Zoo, seen here in a
declassified photo. North Vietnamese POW prison called the Zoo, site
of tortures of American POWs by Castro agent. During this period of
August 1967 to August 1968, 19 of our courageous servicemen were
physically and psychologically tortured by Cuban agents working under
orders from Hanoi and Havana.
Assessed to be a psychological experiment to test interrogation
methods, the Cuba Program, as the torture project was labeled by our
Defense Department and intelligence agencies, was aimed at obtaining
absolute compliance and submission to captor demands. It was aimed at
converting or turning the POWs and to be used as propaganda by the
international Communist effort. It was inhumane. It was incessant. It
was barbaric.
Air Force Major James Kasler, who is pictured here in one of the
posters, 19 of the U.S. POWs in the Cuban program, Major Kasler said
that during one period in June 1968 he was tortured incessantly by a
man known as Fernando Vecino Alegret who had been identified as Fidel,
the Cuban agent in charge of this exercise in brutality. In a Time
magazine report entitled ``At Last the Story Can Be Told,'' after one
beating, Kasler's buttocks, lower back and legs hung in shreds. The
skin had been entirely whipped away and the area was a bluish,
purplish, greenish mass of bloody raw meat. The person he has
identified as the possible torturer is this man who is the current
Minister of Education in Cuba. He could be one of the agents
identified by our POWs as Fidel.
Colonel Jack Bomar, another victim of the Cuba Program, pictured
here, has described the beating of a fellow prisoner and Readers
Digest printed this eyewitness account for an article they wrote on
POWs. It says, The sight of the prisoner stunned Bomar. He stood
transfixed trying to make himself believe that human beings could
batter one another. The man could barely walk. He was bleeding
everywhere. His body was ripped and torn. Fidel, Fernando Vecino
Alegret perhaps, smashed a fist into the man's face, driving him against
the wall. Then he was brought to the center of the room and made to go
down on his knees. Screaming in rage, Fidel took a length of rubber
hose from a guard and lashed it as hard as he could into the man's
face. The prisoner did not react. He did not cry out or even blink an
eye. Again and again a dozen times Fidel smashed the man's face with
the hose. He was never released.
This man who stood firm in the face of such brutality, who would not
surrender himself to the wishes of his torturer was Air Force pilot
Earl Cobeil. Earl Cobeil died in captivity, and he is pictured here.
As a result of being tortured by a Castro agent, Earl passed away.
These accounts are but a microcosm of the terrible acts committed
against American POWs in Vietnam by Castro agents, acts which are in
direct violation of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. To
violate the provisions enshrined in this document run against the grain
of civilized society and undermine the integrity of the international
community as a whole. Humanity is one. When one suffers, we all suffer.
Thus, violations of this protocol are not just crimes against one
individual but against all of humanity.
The Cuba Program was part of a difficult period in our Nation's
history, one which many would like to forget. However, we cannot allow
the suffering of those brave soldiers to have been in vain. Thus, the
unconscionable acts which they were subjected to cannot and must not go
unnoticed and they must not go unpunished.
Substantiated by declassified DOD and CIA documents, survivors have
been eager to identify and trace the Cuban agents who systematically
interrogated them and tortured their fellow Americans. Yet despite
their best efforts, a successful resolution of this matter has still
not been achieved.
For them and to ensure that the facts about the program are fully
uncovered, the Committee on International Relations will be holding a
hearing on this issue next week. We thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) for his leadership in order to get leads that could get us
closer to identification of the Cuban torturers and have the Department
of Defense continue their investigation into this new evidence. We hope
that this hearing will serve to honor all of those POWs who sacrificed
themselves for us.

____________________

EXPORTATION OF TECHNOLOGY REGARDING SUPERCOMPUTERS AND ENCRYPTION
SOFTWARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, rapid advances in technology
have presented challenges to all of us on a number of levels but one of
the most profound challenges that our Nation faces is in the area of
national security. These rapid advances in technology place new
challenges to our folks who are trying to protect our Nation and
protect our security interests as they try to figure out how to deal
with this new technology. As technology changes basically the old rules
do not apply but the challenge that faces us is figuring out what the
new rules are. How do we deal with the changes in technology in a way
that will protect our national security? The area that I want to talk
about this afternoon is in the area of the exportation of certain
technology, namely supercomputers or so-called supercomputers, today a
lap top almost qualifies as a supercomputer by the old standards, in
fact a few of them do, and also the exportation of encryption software,
the software that helps encode messages and protect it from outside
sources gaining access.
In the old days, the method for protecting national security was, if
a new weapon was developed on a horizon that presented a threat to us,
one of the things we tried to do was to make sure that nobody else had
access to it. If it is a product that is developed in the U.S., we try
to severely restrict the exportation of that product.

{time} 1545

That is, in fact, what we have done with encryption software and with
supercomputers. We have placed severe restrictions for years on the
ability of U.S. companies to export either something that is classified
as a supercomputer or encryption software to any place outside the
United States, and these restrictions were intended to prevent that
technology from getting into the hands of other people.
This has not worked, and I rise today to offer a better solution and
to offer a solution that will best protect our national security, and
that is the critical point here. It is not my argument that we should
export this stuff because it is good commercially and the national
security losses are minimal. On the contrary, it is my argument that if
we do not allow greater exportation of this technology, our national
security will be threatened, and let me explain that.
It is threatened by two realities. One of them is ubiquity. What that
means is that things become easily accessible anywhere in the world. It
used to be that a supercomputer was a rather large cumbersome series of
machines and boxes that were very difficult to put together and even
more difficult to transport. That is no longer the case. You can put
together a supercomputer now with the chip that is really basically
about the size of the tip of my finger; put together that, pull
together seven or eight of those chips, and you have a computer capable
of something way beyond what any computer was capable of even a decade
ago. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, controlling this becomes very, very
difficult.
In addition to being small and easily transportable, the other thing
that has happened is a lot of other countries have started to catch up
in the area of technology. If you want to buy the computer chips that
will put together a

[[Page 27107]]

supercomputer, you do not have to come to the U.S. You have literally
hundreds of other options. So we in the U.S. are not able to restrict
that. We can restrict our own exports, but that does not stop other
countries from having companies develop that product.
It is even more true in the area of encryption software. Encryption
software is now produced by over a hundred countries. If you want
access to top-of-the-line encryption, you can get it from dozens of
other places other than the United States of America. We are powerless
to control it.
Now you may argue, well, so what? At least we can do our part. We can
control what the U.S. exports and, therefore, protect national
security, at least to the best that we are able. But the problem with
that is the second key point I would like to make, and that is
something that everybody acknowledges from the FBI to the NSA to the
most ardent opponents of exporting technology. They all acknowledge
that one of the keys to our national security is for the U.S. to
maintain its leadership in technology, and the reason for this is
obvious.
Technology is critical to our national security. If we are developing
the best encryption software, the best computers here in the U.S., then
our FBI, our NSA, our national security and Armed Forces units will
have access to that information that they will not have if some other
country develops it; and if we allow our countries to get ahead of us
in the area of both supercomputers and encryption technology, pretty
soon nobody will be buying from the U.S. because we will not have the
best product. Our industries will die and we will not have access to
the best technology.
Now recently, after years, the White House has stepped up and
expanded our ability to export both supercomputers and encryption
technology. I rise today to make the critical point that that is a good
move not just for our industry, not just for jobs in the U.S., which is
not an insignificant concern, but it is also a good move for our
national security, and I want folks to understand that because I think
for too long we have been stuck in thinking that has long since been
passed by technology.
We cannot wrap our arms around technology and keep it here in the
U.S.; those days are gone. If we want to protect our national security,
we need to maintain our leadership in both the development of the best
computers in the world and the development of the best encryption
software in the world, and the only way to do that is give U.S.
companies access to the foreign markets they so desperately need to
maintain that leadership.
I am very pleased as a member of the new Democratic Network that the
new Democratic Coalition and Caucus have so much to do with pushing
this issue, making the White House aware of it, because I think it is
critical to the future of our country both economically and in terms of
national security, and I urge that we continue down the sensible path
to protecting national security.

____________________

A SAD DAY FOR ARMENIA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for
democracy. Today is a very sad day for those of us who are friends of
Armenia. Those of us who have been able to watch today's unfolding news
have been struck by the horror in the government in Armenia as the
prime minister and several lawmakers were struck down by bullets in the
middle of their session.
I had the opportunity to meet Prime Minister Sarkisian last year when
I visited Armenia and just 2 weeks ago when he walked the halls of this
United States Congress to bring the cause of Armenia here to the
bastion of democracy, and Prime Minister Sarkisian was struck down and
murdered and assassinated today in Armenia. All of us in the United
States Congress and all friends of Armenia all over this country, our
hearts go out to the families of Prime Minister Sarkisian and all those
lawmakers who lost their lives today in Armenia.
For all Armenian Americans today is a very sad day, and I must say
for all of us today is a sad day because this kind of senseless act of
violence threatens the very foundations of democracy which we hold so
dear here and which Armenia is struggling so much to establish in that
former Communist country.
Mr. Speaker, our sympathies go out to the families with our
condolences.

____________________

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Congress this year, I am
pleased to be here to represent the 12th Congressional District of New
Jersey. Running for Congress is indeed a wonderful experience. It
reminds one of what a magnificent place America is, a place full of
hard-working, talented people. It reminds you that citizens here truly
care about important issues facing our communities throughout the
Nation, things like improving our schools and fighting suburban sprawl,
protecting Social Security, holding the line on taxes for seniors and
middle-class families.
But running for Congress also reminds one of something else, that our
country's campaign finance system is broken and needs to be fixed. We
all know it. A campaign system where wealthy corporations can donate
millions of dollars to political parties has the potential to drown out
the voices of ordinary citizens. A campaign system where special
interests can spread an unlimited amount of money on attack ads to
smear and distort a candidate's record is wrong; a campaign system
where we, as elected representatives, have to spend time raising money
instead of addressing the issues.
One of the best ways, I believe, that this can be accomplished is
through a restructuring of our campaign finance laws. It is one of the
essential steps to begin restoring people's faith in government. That
is why the first act I undertook after being sworn in as a
Representative was to become an original cosponsor of the
reintroduction of the Shays-Meehan bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform
Act, and furthermore it is why I voted in favor of the legislation when
it came under the consideration of this House.
It appears that this legislation will not pass Congress this year,
that we who care about a government that is responsive to the people
rather than special interests must not let up. This bipartisan bill is
desperately needed to shut down the out-of-control soft money system
which undermines the values upon which our democratic system of
government is based.
The stakes are high and we must act.

____________________

SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to for the next hour be
coordinating a special order on the very important topic of Social
Security. In the course of the next hour I am going to be talking about
the very critical importance of this program. We are also going to put
in perspective something about the present debate waging in this
Chamber even as Congress works to conclude this session, and clearly we
are in the final weeks of this session.
I also want then to highlight the emerging opportunity that we have
in this Congress still this year to take the steps necessary to do
something to strengthen Social Security, to prolong the solvency of the
program, to push the life of the trust fund out from its present
expectation, and these will be the areas that we will be discussing.
I am very pleased that joining me during this hour to discuss this
matter will be a number of Members, and we will be pleased to
incorporate them into the discussion.

[[Page 27108]]

I will begin just by talking about the Social Security program. It is
our foremost family protection program. It is truly, when you talk
Social Security, a program of all of us for each of us, and it has been
that way for 6 decades. I do not think there is much question about
what has made Social Security America's most successful Federal
program. It comes down to the fact that it helps families in very real
ways with risks that they otherwise cannot avoid. We all have risks of
life. We may die too soon. We may become ill and unable to work. We may
outlive our assets. Maybe we live too long and outlive our assets.
All of these are risks, all of us have them, and yet Social Security
steps in and helps mitigate those risks by helping us in very
fundamental ways. Let me just outline three of the coverages of the
Social Security program.
The first, retirement income. There are millions in this country that
every month receive a Social Security check that are in retirement
years. This retirement check will continue as long as they live. It
will be inflation adjusted to keep pace with rising costs. This program
is the primary source of income for more than two-thirds of those on
Social Security. It is 90 to 100 percent of the income for one-third on
Social Security.
Let me make that clear again. Social Security is most of the income
for two-thirds of Social Security's retirement recipients. It is all of
the income for one-third of the recipients. You do not have to figure
too hard given statistics like that to conclude how vitally important
this program is to seniors on retirement depending upon this income.
But that is not what is the best known of the Social Security
coverages. It is certainly not the only coverage because Social
Security also provides a survivors benefit. Now what is that?
That is coverage that applies when the bread winner dies prematurely
leaving dependents at home. Ninety-eight percent, 98 percent of the
children in this country are covered under that survivor's protection.
If their dad dies, they are going to have some support while the family
tries to recover from that devastating tragedy. There, I do not think,
is another program that has ever been passed that provides such
comprehensive coverage to the children of this country, 98 percent.
The third is disability benefits because if you become disabled and
are unable to make an income, what are you going to do? There are an
awful lot of people in that category that simply have no other means
for support. In fact, the disability benefit provided from Social
Security is the only disability protection for three out of four in the
workplace today.
You think about it. All the millions of people in the workplace
today, driving to work this morning, absolutely depending on their
paycheck at the end of the day or the end of the month or the end of
the pay period to make it. Suddenly they become disabled, unable to
work. What happens then?
Well, thanks to Social Security, they can make it because there is a
Social Security check under that disability component of the program.
Now sometimes, as my colleagues know, we get up here and we talk
about programs, and it sounds like just so much politics and government
nonsense.

{time} 1600

Social Security has had a very personal impact in the lives of
millions of Americans, and I know well, because it has had a very
personal impact in my life. My dad died when I was a teenager. I
received a Social Security check. I have been a Social Security
beneficiary. I, quite frankly, have no idea what my family would have
done without the protection of Social Security, as we tried to regroup
after the unanticipated death of my father at a relatively young age.
My mother now has another experience with Social Security. She is
now, some 25 or more years later, 79 years old. She is living
independently, thanks to that Social Security check that arrives every
month.
My grandmother really did not have that opportunity. In the late
fifties and early sixties, my grandmother's final years, she had to
live with my family because she did not have the financial independence
that my mother now has because of the Social Security check. Again, it
could not be more personal to me, this program, which allows my mother
the independence that she wants and deserves, thanks again to Social
Security.
Well, Social Security is running a surplus now, but we know that that
changes in the years ahead. Right now, the demographic bulge known as
the baby-boomers are in prime career years, and they are generating the
surpluses into the Social Security account. Those surpluses end in the
year 2011, and at that time the claims payments equal the cash inflow
from the FICA tax. Over the next 10 years we actually have to draw down
the interest on the trust fund that has accrued in the Social Security
trust fund to make the cash flow obligations of the Social Security
system.
But it does not stop there, because in the year 2024 the interest
part has been exhausted and you are dipping into principal, and, for
the next 10 years, that principal is drawn down. So the Social Security
checks are paid by the FICA taxes coming in and the liquidation of the
Social Security trust fund until the Social Security trust fund is
broke in the year 2034.
At that time, the only thing available to pay the benefits will be
the cash flow coming in from the taxes, and that will only pay 75
percent of what the Social Security recipients would otherwise be
expecting to receive. Benefits will fall by one-quarter in the year
2034 if we do not take steps now to strengthen the trust fund, to
prolong the life of the system, and that is why taking steps now to
address the long-term are so critically important.
Take note of these changing demographics: In 1960, 5 workers per
retiree; in 1998, 3.4 workers per retiree, so today, 3.4 workers per
retiree; the year 2035, when the baby-boomers are fully into retirement
and advancing in age, 2 workers per retiree, just 2 workers per
retiree.
So if we do not bank this money now and keep it and take steps to
strengthen the trust fund going forward, we are going to have the
prospect of collapsed benefits and a tax obligation on our children and
grandchildren that is impossible for them to bear. That is why we have
to act.
Basically there are three ways to strengthen the solvency of Social
Security. It is very, very simple. You can cut benefits, reduce that
benefit, kick out the COLA, the cost of living adjustment. I do not
think you ought to do that.
The average Social Security check in this country is $700 a month.
Remember, one-third of the people are living on that. For two-thirds of
the recipients, that is most of their income. So we better not cut that
monthly benefit. Far from it, we must stand resolved to hold that
benefit and the cost of living adjustment on it.
Another way to cut benefits is to raise the retirement age. But, you
know, the retirement age is already set to go up to 67. I do not think
we ought to have 70-year-olds in the workforce because they cannot draw
a Social Security check. I am against raising the retirement age. We
have had people work for decades, counting on Social Security to be
there when they retire, and to raise that retirement age, I believe, is
just fundamentally wrong.
So if you are not going to cut those benefits, what else can you do
to prop up Social Security solvency? Well, you can raise taxes. But I
do not think you should do that either. The FICA tax presently is 12.4
percent. We are at a point in this country where more people pay more
in FICA taxes than they pay in income taxes.
For those of us that have an employer, we pay the employee's share
and the employer pays the employer's share, but I represent a lot of
farms and self-employed people. They pay the whole 12.4 percent, and it
is breaking their back to do it. So that tax is as high as it can go. I
would like to see tax relief on that one.
So what else are you going to do? You cannot raise the taxes. The
only other way to strengthen the solvency

[[Page 27109]]

of the Social Security trust fund is to invest general fund revenues so
that this Social Security program, the crown jewel of the Federal
Government, stays able to meet its commitments over the long haul.
Fortunately, there is a plan that has been advanced that would afford
us doing that, and I will describe it in a minute. Before I do, I want
to describe instead the position taken by the House majority this
session on Social Security, because right now we are in the middle of a
pitched battle where the House majority has launched frankly the most
audacious attack against Democrats that I have ever seen launched on
this issue. They have accused us of raiding Social Security to pay for
programs, to finance government programs, and they say they are trying
to stop it and they are going to save Social Security. These charges
are unfounded, they are hypocritical, and they are untrue. Let us look
at the record.
First of all, this is a GOP-controlled Chamber. They have the
majority. We are operating under their budget. Their majority passes
the appropriations bills. So for them to suggest that the Democrats,
operating from the minority position, are raiding Social Security, is
flat-out baseless and untrue. In short, it is a damnable lie.
You do not have to take my word for it, because it has been very
heavily covered in the media across this country. Take a look at this
Wall Street Journal coverage. ``Social Security surplus triggers
concern. CBO study shows Congress intends to spend billions on
unrelated programs.'' Wall Street Journal coverage of the GOP budget
and appropriations bills.
Here is what the Congressional Budget Office shows has already been
spent out of the Social Security surplus, looking at the appropriations
bills passed and marked up by this Republican majority. Already into it
to the tune of $14 billion. And yet this same crowd that is spending
the surplus are running the ads in my district and other districts
across the country saying that the Democrats are doing it.
It is really a new level of political hypocrisy: Do something, and
then charge your opponents with doing that very same thing.
Washington Post story: ``GOP spending bills tap Social Security
surplus. CBO notes planned use of $18 billion.''
Again, the source document for all of this is the Congressional
Budget Office, the nonpartisan number crunchers in the bowels of the
Capitol here that relay the factual information on the budget. ``CBO
notes planned use of $18 billion of Social Security revenue.''
Here is in fact a copy of the letter from Dan Crippen, head of the
Congressional Budget Office, that outlines where that spending has
occurred.
So for a start you have to fault them on the pure baseless hypocrisy
of their attack that the Democrats have raided Social Security. The
spending that has occurred in this Chamber has been under the GOP
budget by GOP-passed appropriations bills. Make no mistake about that.
Even more importantly than that, however, is that this focus on trust
fund spending as we try to get the last appropriations bills worked out
distract from the true measure of who has done something for Social
Security. The true measure of who has done something for Social
Security depends upon who has advanced the life of the trust fund. That
trust fund, slated to go bust in 2034, that trust fund that, if not
replenished, will cause benefits to fall 25 percent just when baby-
boomers are most dependent on Social Security.
We are now at the end of a full legislative year. The President
advanced a plan for Social Security in January, and what have we seen
come to the floor? Nothing. Not one thing, not one vote, not one debate
on the floor of this House on how to strengthen the Social Security
trust fund. They are not even talking about it.
Why are they not talking about it? I think they are not talking about
it, frankly, because the tax bill that passed this very Chamber last
summer, and, fortunately, was vetoed by the President in September,
would have taken all of the general fund revenues that we need to fix
Social Security for the long haul and sent it out the door in a tax cut
benefiting disproportionately the wealthiest people in this country.
That is the hard fact.
Their tax bill, passed by this majority, vetoed by the President,
would have taken the general revenue we need to strengthen Social
Security and it would have shipped it out the door, forcing us to one
of the following alternatives: Benefit cuts, tax increases, or a busted
trust fund in the year 2034.
We have quite a different plan. The plan of the Democrats is to take
the Social Security surplus and preserve it for Social Security. Put
them in and invest those proceeds in a way that draws down the national
debt.
This national debt drawdown will produce tremendous savings for this
country. Debt held by the public in 1997 was $3.77 trillion, 47 percent
of the gross domestic product. Today it stands at $3.4 trillion. By
drawing down the surplus in this fashion, we can reduce this debt to a
point that by the year 2011 we are saving in interest charges paid
alone $107 billion every year.
Do you know that 15 percent of every tax dollar today goes to pay
interest on this debt? Fifteen percent. If you just think about it for
a second, if you bring that debt down, think of the money you save,
that you no longer have to pay in those interest charges.
The Democrats' plan is pay down the debt, take the interest money
saved and invest that back in Social Security. That is where you get
the general fund revenue available to invest in Social Security to
strengthen the trust fund, to prolong the life of the trust fund, to
strengthen Social Security, so that it is there past the year 2034 when
we need it most.
That is the President's plan. That is the plan that is being
introduced into this Chamber, and we strongly support, because it
really gets to the core issue, who is doing something to strengthen
Social Security for the long haul? And on that one, this majority has
fallen woefully short.
I used to be an insurance commissioner. I would regulate agents.
Sometimes I would see sales practices that were really shocking. The
more they talked, the louder they talked, the more fancy materials they
had, often masked the fact they were doing the opposite of what they
were saying, and time after time I would revoke their license and put
them out of business for lying to their customers.
You know, sometimes I wish we had kind of similar restraints on the
action of both political parties here. If that was the case, these guys
would be out of business, because they are flat out lying to their
customers, the taxpayers of the United States, about their intentions
for Social Security.
I am very pleased that we have had a couple of other Members join me
in this Chamber. I would like to incorporate them into the discussion
right now, beginning by yielding to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was just talking about the
use of the interest. I wonder if he would reclarify that. He is telling
us we can get rid of the interest on our debt, which is almost $4
trillion, and by paying down our debt, that interest payment, that
amounts to almost as much as we are paying on defense for our whole
Nation, could ultimately be used in the Social Security program and
Medicare. Talk about that for a minute, would you, please?
Mr. POMEROY. I certainly will. Then I would very much invite the
gentleman's presentation on this vital topic, because I want to hear it
and I know that we all do.
The way we have constructed this package is that the general fund
money we get to strengthen Social Security comes from the interest we
are no longer paying on this debt. Remember again, there are three ways
to make this trust fund more secure: Cut benefits, you do not want to
do that; raise taxes, you do not want to do that. You have to invest
some general fund money. Where are you going to find the general fund
money? Over time, by drawing down that debt, you free up interest
payments that we are now having to make.

[[Page 27110]]

{time} 1615

You have got a smaller debt. You have got a smaller interest payment.
You take the difference in interest payment, and you put it into the
Social Security Trust Fund, and you strengthen it for years.
In fact, under the plan that we have introduced, it will carry the
life of this trust fund out to the year 2050, 2050. What is so
important about that is this baby boom demographic bulge that we have
got, it will be pretty well wiped out by then. I say so as a baby
boomer myself, born in 1952. I would be 98 years old in 2050. Quite
frankly, I do not think I will be drawing a Social Security check
anymore personally. Most of us will not be. Our time will be at an end.
That is why our children and grandchildren and their children will
have a shot at getting a Social Security benefit themselves because we
will have seen this program pass the middle of the 21st century, and
that is exactly the steps we need to take to make sure this program can
meet our needs going forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson),
because he has been very patient listening to me, and I would like to
hear his presentation, his own personal reflections on Social Security.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy) for yielding to me.
It is nice to be able to rise and join the Speaker and other Members
and begin to talk about this particular issue because it affects
hundreds of seniors, millions of senior citizens across this country
and their families. They are the people that I am hearing about in my
own office. It is not just the comments that I get from my own mother
and others in my family, my uncles and aunts; but it is the letters
that are written there concerning the future of Social Security.
Americans from all walks of life recognize that this sacred contract
between the public and their government must be addressed and must be
addressed now. If it can be done as simply and logically as what the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) has just said, then it does
not make sense for us not to pick it up and go forward with it.
The people do not want Congress to play games with this matter, with
this retirement security that they feel so strongly on. As we look
toward the 21st century, we cannot afford to risk losing this
opportunity to save Social Security by allowing ourselves to become
mired in partisan rhetoric or by failing to use creative approaches to
problem solving.
It has been said that opportunity knocks but once, and Congress has
to answer the door. We owe that to the American people.
Nancy Lampson happens to be my mother. She lives in Texas. She is 89
years old and lives by herself. Like millions of other senior citizens,
she is worried about the future of Social Security. She, indeed, relies
on it. She is afraid that it will not be there for me and my brothers
and sisters. She knows what it has done for her. My mother knows that
Social Security is not just good for retirement security for her. It is
also good for me, her children, her grandchildren, and great
grandchildren, including my own grandchild who will be born in just a
few weeks.
Just as the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) spoke a few
minutes ago about his own personal experiences, my mother, who is now
89, faced the task of raising six children when my father died when I
was 12 years old. Not an easy task for a family to face, not an easy
task for a single mother who had no education to be able to face in
this country.
Without the assistance of Social Security survivors benefits, our
family would not have stayed together. It is difficult to imagine, as
the gentleman from North Dakota said, what would happen to those
families who do not have that kind of security, that wherewithal. One
child goes off to live with one relative, another goes off with
another. Perhaps they never see each other again. Perhaps they are not
able to grow up in the manner that we all believe so strongly in, as
family can support each other in their quest to become productive
citizens in this country.
Well, many claim that this Congress is claiming, and particularly the
Republicans within Congress, claiming their budget does not touch the
surplus. But such a claim is a ruse. The leadership of this House
continues to use gimmicks and false promises in an attempt to mislead
the American public. We need to put aside the surplus for Social
Security, not spend it and, in turn, reduce the national debt and the
billions of dollars that we are wasting each year on those interest
payments that I asked the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy)
about a minute ago. Winnowing down the national debt will be good for
my mother's great grandchildren, my grandchildren.
Currently, the United States of America spends nearly as much on
interest payments as it does on national defense. If we wisely invest
the surplus in Social Security, then we can reduce our interest
payments from almost 20 percent of the budget in 1999 to around 2
percent in 2014. It is just 15 years away.
Investing in Social Security will not only reduce the debt, but it
will also lower interest rates, boost economic growth, and increase the
financial security of working families. One does not have to be a
Harvard economist to know that this makes good sense for the American
people.
Well, I am dedicated to ensuring the long-term solvency of Social
Security and committed to guaranteeing American families financial
security upon retirement and in the event of death or disability.
Social Security has kept millions of retired seniors from living in
poverty and by providing a guaranteed cash benefit with a lifetime
protection against inflation.
That amount of money only amounts to $571 for my mother, but it makes
a difference in her life. For about two-thirds of the beneficiaries,
Social Security provides about half of their annual income. For 30
percent of the beneficiaries, Social Security provides 90 percent of
their annual income. Social Security is the only source of income for
one in six older Americans. If the Republicans succeed with their
budgetary sham, the quality of life of seniors in this country will be
put at risk.
On behalf of my mother, on behalf of the people of my district in
southeast Texas, on behalf of the millions of people across this
country that we in Congress represent, I urge all of my colleagues to
avoid the trap that is being set by the leaders of this House. Before
we do anything else, we must save Social Security.
We need to focus on the present and the future by investing the
budget surplus in Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to participate more as this dialogue
continues. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for
the leadership that he is showing on this issue.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
very, very much for that very compelling statement. In his family, as
in my family, this is a program that has really mattered. I cannot
think of anything more important for us to do than to join forces and
try to protect it for the millions of families that are depending upon
this program.
It really all comes down to, are we taking the steps necessary to
strengthen the trust fund, prolong its solvency? If this Congress
leaves in the face of these surpluses without lengthening the solvency
of that trust fund, we will have failed the people mightily.
I am terribly concerned at this very late point in this session, here
we have been here all year, not one bill on the floor, not one hour of
discussion on the majority side in terms of actually pushing out that
solvency date, strengthening the Social Security program. Without,
really, that key point, we really miss the mark in terms of taking
steps to shore this program up for, not just our retirement needs, but
our children and grandchildren as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for organizing this

[[Page 27111]]

special order this afternoon, since Congress got out much earlier than
we normally do, and to talk about Social Security.
But because I, like a lot of Members, have seen, not only here in
Washington but around the country, the ads that our Republican
colleagues have that shows the Democratic Caucus squandering Social
Security funds. I kind of laugh. The gentleman from North Dakota has
been in our caucuses, and they are pretty boring compared to those ads.
Obviously, I do not think they are getting their money's worth. In
fact, some of us have said, well, we need to go to where they have
those ads.
But it is amazing to me that they would spend whatever they are going
to do, the millions of dollars, to put those out in selected districts
around the country when, historically, Social Security was not created
with any Republican support. It has not been supported typically, in
fact even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader,
has said that Social Security is something that he would not have
supported. It is a falsehood on the American people.
But since the 1930s, and following the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas
(Mr. Lampson), and how important Social Security is, it is one of the
most successful domestic programs we have ever seen. It guarantees
retirement security for millions of Americans and health care benefits
for the disabled.
It also, as the gentleman from Texas said, survivors benefits for
children, if a person who pays his Social Security dies, his children,
until they are of age, can have some help in just surviving.
So what we are seeing here today, instead of those ads that are
saying something about Democrats challenging or threatening Social
Security, I think it is ridiculous. I think the American people know
that. What we are seeing, though, is the rhetoric for one side who is
just about the biggest falsehood I have seen in history, because we
know that threatening of the program is because of what is happening
now with their budget projections.
In the article of the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), he
has, CBO notes a planned use of $18 billion of Social Security surplus.
It was $14 billion, but up here we change those numbers almost on a
daily basis because of appropriations.
As always, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle leave
everything to the last minute. So that is why we are here today looking
at a Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill tomorrow that
very well could go higher in Social Security numbers. Instead of $18
billion, it could go as high as $24 billion in using Social Security
and trying to scramble to balance the budget.
But even with that, even with going as high as $24 billion in using
Social Security trust funds for their budget, they are still going to
cut math teachers and reading teachers for public schools. They are
going to cut veterans health care programs with that proposed across-
the-board 1 percent cut. It was 1.4 percent 2 days ago. Now it is a 1
percent cut.
But even then, they are still dipping into Social Security. We cannot
allow that to happen. Social Security is simply too important, not just
to my father who will be 85 years old and who benefits from Social
Security, but not only for the baby boomer generation that we are
members of, but also for our children and our grandchildren.
Social Security is a primary source of income for two-thirds of all
Americans over 65. Two-thirds of all Americans is the primary source.
For one- third of seniors over 65, it represents 90 percent of their
income. That is not just true for those recipients today, not just like
my father or the mother of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), it
is going to be true for our generation.
Sure we have opportunities to save and invest and things like that.
But, again, Social Security was created not to make one rich. I use the
example, it will not buy one one's Cadillac, but it may buy one a used
Chevy. That is what we need to make sure, that it is there for every
generation, not just the current generation, but for every generation.
It is more than a retirement program. It is a critical survivors
benefits, as the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson), said.
One out of every five Social Security beneficiaries receive survivor or
disability benefits.
So many children in the United States receive some type of benefits
from Social Security. It provides disability benefits for our Nation's
workers. Three out of four of the workers sometimes can benefit from
disability in some form.
So where is the Republican plan to extend the life of the Social
Security Trust Fund? Well, obviously from that article we see and the
article we have seen, it really does not exist. Because, again, if it
gets as high as $24 billion with the drastic cuts in programs and
diversions of money, I guess what worries me is the 1 percent I am
hearing today would be across the board.
Instead of prioritizing our appropriations, it is much easier to say,
well, I am going to let a $500 million aircraft carrier that the Navy
does not want, we are going to cut it 1 percent. But we are also
cutting math and science teachers and reading teachers in our public
schools.
While my Republican colleagues for months were proposing an
irresponsible tax cut and talking about how they were really saving
Social Security, but that is not so. Thank goodness the President
vetoed that. They have not brought that up to try and override the
President's veto. Maybe we need to talk about that sometime on the
floor.
They propose a budget that does not do anything to, again, reduce the
class size, put more police on our streets. In fact, they are cutting
the successful Cops on the Beat program. Computers in the classroom,
like I said math and reading teachers, after-school programs, and,
worst of all, they are proposing to cut immunizations for children with
that 1 percent, yet still spend $24 billion of Social Security trust
funds.
Their budget plans leaves nothing for strengthening the fund. It does
not leave anything to extend the life of Medicare Trust Fund or
modernize Medicare to provide for prescription medication.
Now, there is a plan that both the administration and Democrats have
proposed that we have talked about to extend the solvency of Social
Security to 2050 and avoid the difficult choice of reducing Social
Security benefits or raising the retirement age of seniors. According
to the primary estimates by the Social Security program's Office of
Actuary, the administration's proposal would extend the solvency until
2050. This is an extra 16 years added to the program.

{time} 1630

The administration's proposal would devote the entire Social Security
surplus over the next 15 years to paying down the debt held by the
public. This would reduce the debt held by the public by $3.1 trillion
over the next 15 years.
We have a responsibility to take the necessary steps to make Social
Security safe and strong, and not only for our baby boomers and our
parents' generation, but also for future generations. Hard-working
Americans pay a lot of their income into Social Security, both
themselves and their employers, and they are relying on that program to
make sure they are not in the poor house as they used to be before we
had a Social Security program for our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we put politics aside and also put
gimmickry aside and really get down to trying to do what we can to make
sure we balance the budget and still provide for the safety of Social
Security, and looking at the Medicare Trust Fund too, along with
prescription medication. We can commit enough money to shore up both
Medicare and Social Security.
Again, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy), for asking for this special order and giving us the
chance to come and talk about it.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for
participating and the observations that he has made. They are so apt.

[[Page 27112]]

Basically, we have a majority here that says the Democrats are
spending the Social Security money, when in fact the media coverage,
based on the Congressional Budget Office shows it is the GOP spending
bills, based on the GOP budget. After all, they are the majority party
in the body. If anyone is raiding Social Security, it is the majority,
not the minority. We do not have the votes, if we wanted to, and we do
not want to.
Second, they accuse the Democrats of jeopardizing Social Security
when this same crowd running the Chamber has not offered a proposal and
debated on this floor any ideas relative to strengthening the trust
fund.
I think it is terribly unfortunate that we cannot work together,
Democrats and Republicans, to strengthen this program. Because it is
not a Democrat program or it is not a Republican program, it is
America's program. And in the middle of all this political smoke I hope
Americans keep one thing in mind: The way to evaluate whether anything
is happening or not on Social Security is to look at that 2034 date,
the date at which the trust fund goes bust. If that date is not
addressed, those benefits are going to fall by 25 percent. And the
prospects of our children and grandchildren getting a meaningful Social
Security benefit are greatly reduced, even though they definitely face
the prospects of significantly higher taxes.
So has the trust fund been strengthened? The answer; not by anything
they have done so far this year. And that is a deep disappointment to
me, and I am sure the American people.
Joining me, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Vic
Snyder), from Little Rock, Arkansas. Well, from the State of Arkansas,
I am not certain if Little Rock is in the gentleman's district or not.
I am happy the gentleman has joined us for this special order, and I
yield to him at this time.
Mr. SNYDER. Well, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I was over in
my office and watching the gentleman's usual thoughtfulness. The
gentleman has been a beacon in this town for the last several years, a
light in all this fog that is surrounding us here right now.
As the gentleman knows, when I first came here 2\1/2\ years ago, I
was invited to attend the gentleman's Democratic budget study group
that meets every Wednesday morning, and it has been through those group
meetings that I have been helped in sorting through this fog of these
numbers and in trying to understand in an unbiased way what all these
numbers mean.
I remember when the gentleman had that terrible tragedy of the floods
in North Dakota and he was literally immersed in flood waters and
stayed overnight in the shelters there, at least for one night. Well,
now the gentleman has immersed himself with these budget numbers trying
to understand this very, very complicated issue of budgets and how it
impacts on Medicare and Social Security. And I appreciate the
tremendous work that the gentleman has done.
I have seen these ads that have been running against the gentleman in
North Dakota, and those are an insult to the people of North Dakota.
Anyone wanting to put out those ads does not understand the kind of man
the gentleman is and the kind of work the gentleman has done in trying
to provide for the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Anyone can put together a 30-second ad for short-term political
advantage, but that is not what I think the people of America want us
to do, it is certainly not what the people in North Dakota and Arkansas
want us to do. They want us to work on long-term solvency of these very
important programs, not short-term political advantage.
It is 4:30 in the afternoon. We have our usual about empty Chamber
here when we are doing these special orders. I would like to think that
everyone is out trying to solve the problem of Social Security. My
guess is a lot of them are out trying to raise more money trying to
figure out how to run more ads against good people like the gentleman
from North Dakota. But I do not think that will work and I commend the
gentleman for his efforts in this regard.
I want to pick up on the some of the last comments the gentleman made
about the importance of Democrats and Republicans working together. We
cannot solve the long-term problems of Medicare and Social Security,
and I will put down there defense and veterans issues, in a partisan
manner. We cannot do it. And the American people will not stand for it.
Any party who has the votes can put bills through, but that will not
lead to the ultimate long-term solvency of these programs that the
American people care about so much.
Somehow we have to get past all this. We also have to recognize that
this country has a lot of needs. Our senior citizens have a lot of
needs, not just Social Security, even though it is vital. Veterans.
Very important to senior citizens. Medicare is very important to senior
citizens. A lot of the senior citizens in my district care very much
about our defense budget. They came through World War II and the Korean
War and the Vietnam War, and they recognize the importance of a strong
defense. They also recognize the problems of paying for drugs when on
Medicare, and they care about that deeply.
They also understand the importance of education. When I go visit a
friend in the hospital, I am very much aware most of the people working
in the hospital are fresh out of our high schools and colleges. We
depend, even in our retirement years, on the education level of the
generations coming behind.
So for many what long-term solvency means is to have a program that
my mother can depend on, that I can depend on, and that the staff that
work for me in their 20s in my office can depend on. I have one
pregnant staffer. To me, long-term solvency means that those kids that
are coming behind us, that are now toddlers and in grade school, that
they know that their Congress is watching out for this program, not for
short-term political gain, not to run a 30-second political spot to try
to hurt a good Member like the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy), but that we are working together in a bipartisan way,
Republican and Democrat, old and young, so that we can make this Social
Security, Medicare, and veterans programs be there for all our retirees
in the future.
And once again I commend the work the gentleman has done on this
issue and, I am confident, will do for many years.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for those kind comments. The
gentleman's measured, reasoned analysis is once again so directly on
point relative to what types of response we ought to work together in
this Chamber to take. Not running 30-second attack ads, just playing
politics with an issue that is as important as Social Security, but
working to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund by taking the
interest savings generated by Social Security, as we pay down that
debt, and putting it into the Social Security program.
I am very pleased to call on my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who has been very patient in the course
of this afternoon. I thank her very sincerely for staying and
participating, and I yield to her now.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to
salute him for spending time to put together this special order with
regard to Social Security. And as my colleagues have said, I would say
to him that he should stand tall; we know that the gentleman is doing a
great job here in the Congress of the United States. Those ads will not
last for long, because we are going to get the message out that the
gentleman is doing a great job and that the Democrats are not trying to
raid the Social Security fund. So I thank the gentleman very much for
his consistency.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the cornerstone of our retirement
system. Social Security is the principal source of retirement income
for two-thirds of the elderly. In 1959, the poverty rate for senior
citizens was 35.2 percent. In 1998, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest on

[[Page 27113]]

record. Last year, Social Security benefits lifted roughly 15 million
senior citizens out of poverty. At the same time, poverty remains high
for widows and other groups.
Social Security is more than just a retirement program. One in five
beneficiaries is under the age of 62, receiving either disability or
survivor benefits. As my colleagues have said, I am blessed to have
parents who are living and healthy, 78 and 79 years old. I am blessed
to have in-laws who are living, whose health is somewhat in disrepair,
who are also 78 and 79. And as I campaigned throughout the City of
Cleveland back in 1998, the major issue that senior citizens brought to
my attention was Social Security and they told me that they were
counting on me to go to Washington and save Social Security.
Now, over this past year, as a new Member of Congress, I have watched
and learned about this discussion with regard to Social Security, and I
am begging my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to stop talking
the political language of Social Security and get down to the issues
that are important with regard to Social Security; that the people of
these United States expect that we are going to do.
Social Security is projected to become insolvent by 2034 as a result
of the demographic pressures it faces. In 1960, there were 5.1 covered
workers for every Social Security beneficiary; in 1998, there were only
3.4 workers for every beneficiary; and by 2035, there are projected to
be only two workers for every beneficiary. That is why it is so
important that we now hold on to the dollars for Social Security and
put them aside, put them into a fund so that they will be maintained
and be able to bear interest so that Social Security will be around. It
is important that we assure the young, the old throughout that Social
Security is something that they can count on over time.
I do not know who else has been on the floor today with the gentleman
from North Dakota, but I think it would be of interest for those who
are listening to us to hear about The New York Times piece that said,
and I quote the next to the last paragraph: ``Asserting that it is
merely trying to save money for Social Security, the Republican
leadership in Congress wants to cut spending by 1.4 percent,'' or now I
understand it is 1 percent, ``across the board, and block the White
House's initiatives for money to hire new teachers and police officers.
The leaders' approach has been so wrongheaded that yesterday it
provoked a revolt in the party rank and file, and the cuts were being
scaled back. But it is not necessary to slash programs to `save' Social
Security. More to the point, there are better places to save money, by
cutting billions of dollars in pork barrel projects and eliminating
some of the expensive tax breaks for special interests that have made
big campaign donations to the party in recent years.''
This is clearly on line and on point with what we have been trying to
say over the past few days. The House GOP'ers have already dipped into
$14 billion of Social Security surplus. They are on track to spend $24
billion of that surplus. The appropriations exceed the President's
request by $14 billion. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey), is on record as stating he never would have created Social
Security. The number of days the GOP budget plan would extend the life
of Social Security is zero.
By way of contrast, the number of years the Democratic tax budget
plan would extend the life of Social Security is 16 years.
Finally, while ignoring the needs of the Social Security System and
its financial viability, the Republican leadership, through tax breaks,
provides for the wealthiest and special interests, and that amount
would come to close to $1 trillion.
As a freshman Member of Congress, I have had an opportunity over the
past year to get to know some of my Republican and Democratic
colleagues. I am confident that through working together, through
strong leadership, we can arrive at a resolve for the Social Security
System. And that resolve is in saving Social Security dollars, putting
it aside, investing it, paying down the dilemma that we are in in terms
of debt as a country, and moving on to dealing with the other issues
that impact the people of these United States.
Again I would like to congratulate the gentleman from North Dakota on
his leadership on this issue, and I yield back.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments.
There have been, in the course of our discussion, some comments made
as to a series of ads, and among the places they are being run is in
the State of North Dakota. I would just read for my colleagues the text
of this ad, to put in context what we are dealing with as we try to
make difficult decisions at the end of a legislative session. The
majority party has unfortunately decided to launch, as a political
strategy, apparently some sleight-of-hand way to disguise what they are
doing on Social Security.
This is the text of the ad that has already run in North Dakota. It
begins with a fadeup of shots of threatening criminals looking at the
camera. Cut to the criminals. He looks to the camera and smiles, and
here is the text: Imagine a world where there's no punishment for
committing a crime, where thieves can steal from unsuspecting victims.
It is hard to imagine, yet it is about to happen in Washington. The
Democrat and the President's budget could raid Social Security and
spend our retirement money on big government programs. Protect your
family's future. Insist every penny of the Social Security trust fund
go to the people who paid into it.

{time} 1645

``Call Congressman Pomeroy. Tell him keep his hands off Social
Security.''
This ad, run to the people that I have lived with all my life,
actually implies that somehow I am engaged in criminal activity
involving a raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. It is run by the
same majority that the Washington Post has analyzed has already spent
Social Security surplus, ``CBO notes planned use of $18 billion.'' That
is the crew that paid for that television ad. So they have done what
they are actually buying advertising to accuse others of doing.
This is a House operating under the GOP budget. It is a GOP majority.
Those are GOP appropriations bills. It is their control of this chamber
that would result in spending that Social Security-derived revenue.
But the question, the broader and most important question, is has
anyone in the majority offered on this floor a plan to strengthen the
trust fund? And on that one, regrettably, we must conclude, no, there
has not been a plan to strengthen the trust fund.
Any plan that does not call for an additional infusion of resources
to strengthen Social Security for the long haul is going to rely
instead on benefit cuts, higher retirement age, or higher FICA taxes.
There is just no other way around it.
So when the Republican tax plan took all the available general fund
revenue and kicked it out the door, going primarily to the wealthiest
people in this country, it was a plan that would have savaged Social
Security and required steep benefit cuts after the year 2034 because
there would have been no way to make the fund solvent for the long
term. That is their record.
Not only have they done that which they accuse us of doing, they have
passed a tax bill, fortunately vetoed, never to become law, that would
have taken the means to strengthen Social Security and taken away from
us instead forcing us to rely on benefit cuts.
We are now in the final minutes of this presentation, and I have a
request that has come in from the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton) who has experienced a situation I am very familiar with,
disastrous flooding for her neighborhoods. And so, for the concluding 5
minutes of this special order, I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to bring us up to date as to the heartache and
the tragedy her folks are experiencing.
I would just say to my colleague in yielding, representing the City
of

[[Page 27114]]

Grand Forks, the city that was inundated in 1997 and is clawing its way
back now thanks to the strong support of Federal disaster aid, we would
not have made it without disaster aid programs.
I will listen closely to the description of the problems of my
colleague. And if we can help, we need to help with a similar Federal
response so that her brave constituents can similarly make the tough
road back.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton).

Federal Disaster Aid

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy) for yielding and thank him for his offer to help.
By the way, my citizens also are concerned about Social Security
spending. I want my colleague to know that. But, in addition to being
fearful of how they will have Social Security or how we will manage it,
they must now manage this disaster.
My colleague knows well how this sort of disaster not only unsettles
the community but frightens human lives. It puts everything in
uncertainty and fear and the anxiety that prevails and the lack of
hope.
I have come to just raise with my constituents and I am so pleased
that my colleague is willing to assist and I want to tell my
constituents they need additional help.
This is a picture of Tarboro taken some weeks ago. It is not flooded
like that now. But I will have my colleagues know that 68,000 persons
have now called the FEMA line for assistance. 68,000. More than 46,000
homes have been damaged. The governor has now brought his figures
thinking that maybe 10,000 of those homes will not be able to be built
back again.
So we are now wanting Congress to begin helping us just move beyond
just the relief and have a recovery fund. And what we are doing, by the
way, as Members of Congress, many of us are going to North Carolina to
give a hand, to share our concern, but also to express our personal
participation. Members from Congress, on November 6, will be going on
buses with their staff and other public officials to eastern North
Carolina, working in five selected communities helping to remove
debris, clean up, give hope, have discussion with the local leaders
and, in the afternoon, to have a rally of hope.
There will be gospel singers and inspirational singers, B.B. Weiner,
C.C. Weiner, Shirley Caesar and our former Member. And Bill Hefner, who
was a Member with us here who sings gospel, has agreed that he may
come. We want to make sure Bill Hefner hears us and comes on down. And
the Phelps brothers. We have a Member from Illinois, and he is going
down.
So we have a strong delegation of American citizens for us, yes,
Congresspersons, but American citizens too who want to identify and
say, beyond just thinking about you or looking at these pictures.
Because you see, now the stories have ceased, we do not see the
cameras, but the mud is there. The flood has done devastation.
There is one other final piece I want to show my colleagues. This is
showing the devastation to infrastructure where roads have been just
devastated, bridges, the waterway, the environment. This is showing a
hole in the road in 301. By the way, the railroad came across this way,
too. So it has not only interrupted the water and the travel by car,
but also the railroad system had to be rebuilt.
So the power of water first sustains life, but also we saw the power
of water where it has taken life.
Finally, more than I think now 51 persons have died because of this.
Life indeed is precious. But what we want to do is to make sure those
who are living and those who are struggling with that will have a sense
of hope.
So I am urging my colleagues to consider a bill before we end this
session so we can show a sense of passion, not only the resolution we
passed, but having the monies. We need the money to go build the
houses.
And my colleague is right, FEMA is that relief that the Federal
Government has, but we need those extra resources to allow individuals
to build their homes back, to have structure.
By the way, more than 2.5 million chickens were killed, 120,000 hogs.
I mean, the wildlife suffered just tremendously. And the environmental
impact, we are still assessing that. We do not know what it will mean
to our beaches and our waterways and our fishermen. Because if we do
not mitigate this harm and do it very rapidly, we will be paying a
severe price.
I would say more than just have relief, we need opportunity for a
major recovery for more than 18 counties who are involved.
I thank the gentleman for both sharing his time but, more
importantly, understanding the need for support for the people in North
Carolina.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
Clearly, the initial disaster package added to the agriculture
appropriations bill does not begin to compensate the economic loss that
North Carolina has sustained.
I just know from again my own flood experience in North Dakota,
everything that filthy water touches it destroys. And so, once that
water recedes it leaves your families' belongings, some of their most
treasured things, in a distorted, grotesque, and disgusting condition
requiring removal. And then you build back starting from scratch. We
are going to have to have a bigger Federal response helping your people
off the floor, just as the Federal Government helped Grand Forks, North
Dakota off the floor; and I stand to help my colleague.

____________________

ONE-PERCENT SOLUTION

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from North Dakota
and North Carolina for the conclusion of their time on this floor as
they renewed their calls for something quite needed.
As a North Carolinian by birth, but now proud to represent the State
of Arizona, Mr. Speaker, I would assure those North Carolinians and all
Americans who have been affected by Nature's wrath and fury that we are
acutely concerned for their plight. And I believe that we can work in a
bipartisan way to solve those problems of an emergency nature, although
one cannot help but note, Mr. Speaker, how much better it would have
been if some $20 billion in American taxpayers' money had not been used
for foreign adventurism in the Balkans, but instead that money remained
in the Treasury of the United States to help Americans when they were
put in harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to respond to some of the other
less bipartisan statements made earlier by my colleagues on the left. I
think it is important to offer straight talk, Mr. Speaker, to the
American people about what we can call the 1-percent solution.
First we must celebrate our achievement. And my former colleagues in
journalism, as I spent many years in radio and television covering the
news before I was honored to be sent by the people of the Sixth
District of Arizona to this chamber, I would commend to my former
colleagues and, Mr. Speaker, to the American people news that may have
escaped the notice of the American people over the last 10 days as the
budgeteers in both the White House and the Congress sat done and
reevaluated what has transpired.
The fact is there is very, very, very good news. Because, for the
first time since 1960, for the first time since Dwight David Eisenhower
served as our President, this Congress has not only balanced the
budget, this Congress did so without using one penny of the Social
Security surplus. And moreover, Mr. Speaker, this Congress generated a
surplus for the American people of $1 billion over and above the
reports we received today of close to $124 billion of Social Security
surplus money. So that is indeed good news.
But it does not change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that good people can
disagree.

[[Page 27115]]

And even as we welcome former President Ford and his lovely wife,
Betty, today to receive jointly the Congressional Gold Medal and, in so
doing that ceremony, we welcome the current President of the United
States, it is worth noting that there are profound differences in our
approaches.
Even as we celebrate the achievement of not raiding the Social
Security Trust Fund for the first time in 40 years, we must remain
steadfast in our resolve to stop that raid. And accordingly, those of
us in the common sense conservative majority have offered the 1-percent
solution.
I am holding in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a shiny new penny, no doubt
made with copper from my home State of Arizona; and I hold this up, Mr.
Speaker, to symbolize the 1-percent solution that we offer. Because we
in the majority, to preserve and make sacrosanct the Social Security
Trust Fund, say to the American people, Mr. Speaker, we simply need to
have savings of one penny out of every Federal dollar in discretionary
spending, a 1-percent savings; and in so doing, Mr. Speaker, we will
continue to protect the Social Security surplus.
Now, sadly, from time to time in the discussion of public policy and
different philosophical approaches, there is a casualty. The casualty
is truth. And perhaps there were mistakes offered unintentionally by
the House minority leader earlier today. Perhaps there were mistakes,
misunderstandings offered by the White House press spokespeople today.
But as former President Reagan used to say, ``Facts are stubborn
things.''

{time} 1700

Here are the facts with all due respect to Education Secretary Dick
Riley, a former governor of South Carolina who stated yesterday that
there would be massive cuts in education. Let us state for the record
the fact, our majority budget plan spends $34.8 billion on education.
The President's proposal was $34.7 billion. In other words, Mr.
Speaker, our common sense conservative majority is prepared to spend an
additional $100 million on education but to put those funds in the hand
of the people who can make the difference, teachers in the classroom
locally. Because while we understand that education is a national
priority, it fundamentally remains a local concern. And again the math
lesson is quite simple and unequivocal and apparent to all. We are
using more resources and more dollars for education but we are using
them at the local level. There is no cut. And quite frankly, Mr.
Speaker, I wish the fear and smear and the failure of the Education
Secretary to apparently learn his own mathematical lessons, well, I
wish he would simply pay attention to this particular lesson: More
funds than the President even requested but spent where it counts, in
local classrooms, in local school districts, by local teachers and
local school boards.
Mr. Speaker, I must also confess my surprise and remorse at the
statements of General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Shelton, a fellow alumnus of North Carolina State University,
Mr. Speaker, was quite simply wrong in his testimony to the Senate
Armed Services Committee yesterday. I find it amazing that the minority
leader claims that there would be military layoffs. Again, Mr. Speaker,
facts are stubborn things.
Here are the facts. This common sense conservative majority in
Congress has sought time and time and time again to increase our
spending for national defense and indeed a check of the budget requests
will bear this out. Our majority has devoted $265.1 billion. The
President proposed expenditures of $263 billion. Simple mathematics
points out that our common sense conservative Congress offers more than
2 billion additional dollars to keep America strong. It is unfortunate
that those relied upon to lead our American fighting men and women have
somehow descended into the realm of politics. I regret that, but I
offer this criticism candidly and publicly to General Henry Hugh
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Mr. Speaker, General Shelton is
wrong. Mr. Speaker, the administration and the minority on the Hill is
engaged in a game of fear and smear.
I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States
joined us for a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda just a few minutes ago.
I appreciate the bipartisan sentiment there, and I would ask the
President in a true spirit of bipartisanship to join with us in leading
through example. Because, Mr. Speaker, this House is prepared to reduce
its salary, the men and women who serve in the Congress of the United
States within our common sense conservative majority, have pledged to
reduce salaries by 1 percent. Constitutionally, we cannot do that for
the executive branch at this juncture, but, Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the President, does he share that commitment? Will he voluntarily
reduce his salary by 1 percent? Will he ask his Cabinet secretaries and
other employees of his administration to reduce their salaries by 1
percent? Indeed, the 1 percent solution while we are intent on wiping
out Washington waste, fraud and abuse, there are actions we can take to
lead by example. How refreshing it would be, how truly bipartisan it
would be if the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, if our President
at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue would in fact join with us. We
are happy to hear legitimate criticism. We took the remarks to heart,
Mr. Speaker, and we hope the President would join us.
While I was meeting the press along with many of my colleagues who
will join me here in short order in this special order, White House
spokesman Joe Lockhart was meeting with the White House press at the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Let me quote from his press briefing
today. The question comes on Social Security. The question for Mr.
Lockhart is as follows:
``Just to be clear, the third option, you would under no
circumstances accept going to the Social Security surplus at this
point, is that correct?''
Mr. Speaker, listen to Press Secretary Lockhart's answer:
``We have put forward a better way. We hope they'll consider it.
We'll be here. They understand what our ideas are.''
Mr. Speaker, the ideas are encapsulated in the President's budget
plan. The ideas have been borne out in a veto of some of our
appropriations bills. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have the sad and sorry
spectacle of the President of the United States vetoing a foreign aid
bill because he says it does not spend enough money. He wants to
increase those foreign expenditures by 30 percent, by some $4 billion,
and, Mr. Speaker, he offers no plan of where to find that money. Quite
the contrary. The implication is clear, Mr. Speaker, for all to see. He
has made a choice to take those funds out of Social Security, to take
the retirement funds of American taxpayers who have paid into that
system for years and years and years and use those funds, not for
Americans but for others around the world. Facts are stubborn things.
And in this day and age where we have to parse statements, where we
fail to see a clear answer to the questions, we have to parse the
statements. Again let me repeat the question from a member of the
fourth estate from the journalistic fraternity at the White House:
``Just to be clear, the third option, you would under no
circumstances accept going to the Social Security surplus at this
point, is that correct?''
Lockhart's answer:
``We have put forward a better way. We hope they'll consider it.
We'll be here. They understand what our ideas are.''
Mr. Speaker, it would be refreshing if those who seek to offer
variations on the definition of what ``is'' is, if those who parse so
many different statements could simply offer to the American people
what President Ford gave us in his time of healing, what he in his
first televised address to the American people called ``A Little
Straight Talk Among Friends.'' How refreshing it would be if this White
House could say ``yes'' means ``yes'' and ``no'' means ``no'' and
``is'' means ``is.'' The sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is clear. There is a
clear and present danger to the Social Security funds of America's
retirees because this administration in its budget pronouncements, in
its veto messages, is prepared once again to

[[Page 27116]]

raid the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, ``no'' means ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined on this floor for this hour by
three hardworking Members of Congress. I would yield at this point to a
gentleman who has served capably as an educator, who understands
educational administration, who comes to this Chamber from the great
State of Colorado, I yield now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I am a freshman Member of the Congress. I
have been here all of 10 months. I must say that in that time, I have
witnessed a number of strange things, of course. I am sure that has
been the case of all of my predecessors who came in. In their first
time around this particular hall they saw things that were astounding
to them. Recently, we put forward a plan, what I consider to be a very
modest plan to achieve a very important goal. That goal, of course, is
to hold inviolate the Social Security trust fund. In order to do that,
we have to reduce some spending of the Federal Government. About $600
billion worth of spending that the Federal Government now undertakes in
discretionary programs alone, that is what we are going to have to
reduce, by about 1 percent, or $6 billion, in order to achieve the
laudable goal that I described earlier. And the amazing thing that I
have seen as a freshman is this reaction, the reaction of the
administration, the reaction of my colleagues on the other side of the
House, the reaction to a proposal to save 1 percent. Because people use
the term ``cut,'' and we get into that weird sort of definition of what
a cut is. Are we really cutting any agency of the Federal Government if
we were to reduce the budget by 1 percent? No, of course not. Because
all of them, what we are talking about is next year's budget and all of
the budgets have been increased fairly dramatically. So to cut from a
proposed increase is not truly a cut. It is a savings. So we are
talking about a savings of 1 percent.
You would think, of course, that we had proposed the end of
civilization as we know it. You would think that the results of a 1
percent savings in the departments of the government that spend $600
billion, you would think that it would mean blood in the streets if it
were to be accomplished. That is what is incredible to me as a
freshman, to observe something like this. Then you see statements,
statements of the President's Cabinet, members of the President's
Cabinet. This one is just another amazing thing. Here is a statement by
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt just yesterday. Pool reporters asked
Secretary Babbitt, ``Can I just say based on your answers generally
that there really, as a practical matter, there is no more waste in
government in your department?'' To which Secretary Babbitt replied,
``Well, it would take a magician to say there was no waste in
government, we are constantly ferreting it out, but the answer
otherwise is yes, you got it exactly right, that there is no waste in
the Department of Interior.''
Now, what is really incredible about this, on its face it is idiotic,
that is for starters, but beyond that, at the same time that the
Secretary of the Interior was telling the pool reporter that there was
no waste in his department, a member of his department was telling the
Committee on Resources that in fact they had lost $7 million. The
Committee on Resources heard testimony by Assistant Secretary Don Barry
of the Fish and Wildlife Service explaining that his department could
not account for $7 million. Beyond that, the Department of Interior
officials in the Department of Insular Affairs have used Federal
property. Right now there is a major investigation going on because
government employees in that department have used time and resources to
assist the campaigns of Members of the Congress, Democrat Members of
the Congress. I would say to my colleague, is that not a waste?
Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think, Mr.
Speaker, that this bears amplification. What the gentleman from
Colorado is telling this House at this hour, based on investigations by
the House Committee on Resources, officials within the administration,
on government time, using taxpayer dollars, were involved in partisan
political campaigns.
Mr. TANCREDO. That is exactly what has happened. And it has happened
to an extent that is quite extraordinary. I think we see these kinds of
things periodically where someone might put up a poster in their office
or something like that and maybe that is a technical violation but in
fact it is no big deal and there is not a major case made.

{time} 1715

What has happened in this particular department is egregious, the
violations are egregious, and there are certainly going to be
ramifications to it, and there is an ongoing investigation. But already
people have left the government.
As my colleagues know, they have seen this happen before when
somebody accuses this administration, when facts are uncovered about
what this administration does. All of a sudden people start leaving the
country, are no longer to be found. Well, that is what is happening now
in this particular case.
Remember this is the same gentleman, Secretary of Interior, telling
us there is no waste in his department.
Mr. HAYWORTH. It would seem to me that the gentleman from Colorado
has not only pointed out wasteful spending, but something that is
equally, if not more, troubling, the blatant disregard for simple
ethics and honest stewardship of the organs of government.
Indeed my friend from Colorado mentions his experience now as a
freshman. I can harken back to my first term in office, honored to come
here as part of a new majority, also serving at that point in time on
the House Committee on Resources; and let me tell you this waste notion
is nothing new. I can remember our first hearing on the subcommittee
dealing with parks.
Now, Mr. Speaker, government does this, and my friend from Colorado
can bear this out with his past administrative experience because
government gives an interesting name to accountants. The Federal
Government calls them inspectors general.
And so the Inspector General for the Interior Department was seated
besides at that time the Director of the National Park Service, and the
audit offered by the Inspector General at that time said that the
National Park Service could not account for over 70 million dollars of
taxpayer funds; and indeed, as we have seen from the latest study
offered by our budgeteers and the General Accounting Office, the folks
who do this to check on the business of government, if you will, there
is waste and a lack of accountability to the tune of $800 billion, and
yet there are those in this administration who refuse to stand up and
offer straight talk, who sadly, as agents that are in essence political
provocateurs, abuse government property and taxpayer funds for
political endeavors and still cannot seem to come to grips with a 1
percent solution that we need now more than ever to save Social
Security and make sure that the raid is not renewed, a raid that will
come based on the insistence of this President who vetoed a foreign aid
bill saying he wanted to spend $4 billion more on non-Americans. One
penny out of every dollar of discretionary spending is all we ask.
And I appreciate the service of the gentleman from Colorado who will
offer us more thoughts on his past experience in a moment, but I must
turn now to a gentleman in his second term in office who honors us and
honors the people of the Lone Star State of Texas. I yield now to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in trying
to cut the waste and fraud and abuse from our government, working hard
as a Member, esteemed Member, of this body that has tried to get more
bang for the buck, to be the first Congress to balance the budget
without using the Social Security Trust Fund to rebuild the defense we
all know has us so vulnerable today and to start, finally, after so
many decades of deep digging such a deep hole for Social Security,
being the first Congress to stop digging, to stop digging a deeper hole

[[Page 27117]]

and to start rebuilding it; and I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
his leadership.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln received a report
from one of the generals that the President suspected was probably
exaggerating the damage that he had inflicted upon the confederate
soldiers in battle. Lincoln said the report reminded him of a man he
knew who used to lecture about his travels abroad, but in his lectures
often played sort of fast and loose with the facts. Well, the lecturer,
knowing he was prone to exaggeration, asked a friend of his to yank on
his coattails every time he drifted from the truth.
Well, soon after that, the other was telling an audience about a tall
building he had seen in his recent trip to Europe. He was describing
it, and he said, ``and this building must have been a mile high and a
mile and a half long.''
Now just then, feeling a tug on his coattails, someone in the
audience called, ``And how wide was the building?''
Scrambling, the lecturer replied quickly, ``Oh, about a foot wide.''
There must be a lot of coattails being tugged over at the White House
these days as the President, his dutiful military leaders and agency
heads scramble to outdo each other in exaggerating the impact of our
tiny 1 percent savings in this large and growing Federal budget.
America, I think though, knows best because here is the real question
we are facing:
Is there anyone in America who does not think Washington cannot
become 1 percent more efficient? Is there a taxpayer anywhere who
believes that we cannot work 1 percent smarter, 1 percent better?
Because these taxpayers know they have, and even government employees
we have got, well, we have got a big bureaucracy. We have got some very
good people in these agencies, and even they are frustrated with the
money they see wasted at work each day.
As my local constable, David Hill of Magnolia, told me Monday
following a drug awareness program we had before one of our schools for
Red Ribbon Week, he said, ``One percent is nothing. Anyone can do that
and especially to save Social Security.'' Well, David Hill is right; 1
percent is nothing. Anyone can do that, Mr. Speaker, and especially
because we have Social Security at stake.
Look at some of the duplication we have. As my colleagues know, just
look at some of the duplication we have here in Washington. Despite our
best efforts, and I think we are just getting started, we still have
more than 500 inner-city programs, 500 different urban aid programs,
more than 300 different economic development programs, more than 200
education programs, and recently people were congratulating us because
we had consolidated down to only 100 different job training programs.
That duplication has a real cost to taxpayers, Mr. Speaker; and it
means that we are not helping the people the way we can.
In the Committee on Resources, which I serve on, it is the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, I was shocked recently to
learn that each year government spends about 1 billion, that is with a
``B,'' $1 billion, helping about 5,000 salmon swim upstream, back
upstream each year. The Federal Government share for each fish each
year is between 2,000 and $20,000 each year. Literally it is cheaper
for us to rent a limousine for each fish or to put them in a first-
class airplane seat and fly them to the top of the river each year.
That would be cheaper than the way we go about saving these fish today,
if indeed we need to.
The bottom line, as we all know, there is enough money for defense
and health care and Social Security and the essentials here in
Washington. There is not enough money for the foolishness. Despite our
best efforts, we still have pork barrel projects, and they are real
stinkers that we want to root out.
People want money left here in Washington so that votes can be
traded. Well, last year during the Fast Track debate, one of the
Democratic Members of Congress went to the White House to have his arm
twisted to support Fast Track, and as he left, he quipped to reporters,
``Well, the good news is I have six new bridges. Now if I only had a
river.''
The fact of the matter is that if we leave these dollars in
Washington, they are going to go for pork barrel projects, they are
going to go for trading votes, and again families and businesses have
had to trim their budgets, set priorities. In Texas we all made it
through a recession recently. It was not much fun. We all hunkered
down, and we did it.
But government in Washington has never had to make the tough
decisions. In government, Washington does not want to have to tell no
to anyone. We do not want to make those tough decisions.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) because he
points out something that there are so many examples of, and some of
these examples, quite frankly, you laugh to keep from crying, Mr.
Speaker.
For example, the Agency for International Development. Now remember,
the President has just vetoed a foreign aid bill saying we are not
spending enough on other folks around the world, we need to take $4
billion of the Social Security Trust Fund, or I guess he is suggesting
we ought to raise taxes, to take care of this. But here is an example
of international development, the Inspector General, the accountant,
checking that from the report.
Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, the folks up in Vermont; they have a few
stores in Arizona, a couple of stores in the Sixth District, but also
they have an interest in the former Soviet Union, the Russian Republic.
In fact, the Agency for International Development, Mr. Speaker, gave
Ben and Jerry's $850,000 to develop and distribute ice cream in Russia.
Now the folks at Ben and Jerry's wrote our majority in Congress and
told us, ``Oh, this is a pretty good idea to use taxpayers' money for
ice cream going to Russians, and instead of following the free market
route, to have taxpayers pay for the marketing of Ben and Jerry's ice
cream.''
Oh, there was something else, Mr. Speaker, that the Ben and Jerry's
folks added in their letter; their belief, Mr. Speaker, that we should
completely zero out defense spending and defense capabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I can arrange an introduction of General Henry
Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to Ben and Jerry and their
ice cream, and I would just like to clear up any rumor, Mr. Speaker.
There apparently is no truth to the rumor that Ben and Jerry want to
develop a new flavor in honor of their pacifist leanings, even as they
are happy to take American tax dollars to market ice cream in Russia.
There was some talk going around that they had developed a new flavor:
surrender sarsaparilla. But I do not think that is going to happen.
I gladly yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I agree so much with what you are saying and
examples of duplication and waste that we have here in Washington. Let
me conclude with this:
My constable back in Magnolia, Texas, is right: 1 percent is nothing,
and we can do that especially to save Social Security. It seems to me
that this is kind of a hopeful start, to start to trim the fat here in
Washington, to start to eliminate obsolete agencies and duplication,
just to give people a better bang, a bigger bang for the buck that they
send up here because 1 percent savings is so small. And I am convinced
that because we are dealing with Social Security and our kids' futures,
their retirement, and our neighbors' future and retirement, I guess I
would ask that the President rather than the President acting like a
Democratic President and perhaps trying to make us just conduct
ourselves a Republican Congress, I am convinced that if we acted as an
American President, an American Congress, worked together on this, that
would solve this.
So I ask, Mr. President, join us in cutting wasteful spending that
tiny little bit, 1 percent; and we will join with

[[Page 27118]]

you together, Republicans in Congress and a Democratic President, to
save Social Security. But let us stop digging now.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I think, Mr.
Speaker, the American people reflect the sentiment expressed by my
friend from Texas (Mr. Brady). We need to approach this not as
Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans; and yet even as we
celebrate that notion of nonpartisanship, we cannot help but note a
difference that, Mr. Speaker, we need to inform the American people
about.
You see, to us we have taken the commitment. No means no, hands off
Social Security funds, Social Security funds should be used exclusively
for Social Security. No means no to this common sense conservative
majority, and yet to my friends in the minority and the folks at the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue no means maybe.
Here is the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri, on ABC's
This Week last Sunday. The gentleman from Missouri says, quote:
``We need to save the Social Security surplus as much as we possibly
can.''

{time} 1730

Again, Mr. Speaker, why can he not join with us to say let us save
100 percent of the Social Security surplus?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to another newcomer to this
Chamber, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and appreciate the
opportunity to join him here tonight to discuss waste, fraud and abuse.
Yesterday House Minority Whip Tom Delay and Republican Conference
Chairman J.C. Watts gave the American people specific examples of
wasteful spending in the Federal Government. These examples included
the construction of a $1 million outhouse in Glacier National Park and
the Department of Defense misplacement of two tugboats.
Continuing with this theme of promoting and advancing better and more
efficient government by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal
agencies, I come to the floor this evening to speak about management's
problems that permeate the Federal student loan program.
American taxpayers currently provide through the Department of
Education more than $48 billion annually in Federal finance aid to
roughly 8.5 million students. Unfortunately, the Department has serious
problems monitoring these dollars and the individuals to whom they are
awarded.
For almost 10 consecutive years, the General Accounting Office has
put the Department of Education on its high risk list for waste, fraud
and abuse because of its management shortcomings. Among other things,
the GAO has reported that, first, the Department does not adequately
oversee schools that participate in student loan programs; second, that
the Department uses inadequate management information systems that
contain unreliable data; third, that the Department has too little
information on the program's effectiveness to meet the information
needs of Congress and other decision makers; and, finally, it cannot
determine the taxpayer liability associated with almost $150 billion in
outstanding student loans.
These problems were outlined in a report released earlier this year
by the Department's own Inspector General. The Department's Inspector
General found that the Department of Education has forgiven over $3.8
million in loans to individuals who were reported dead, but in fact
were alive. The Department's Inspector General also found that roughly
$73 million in loans were forgiven to individuals who claimed to be
permanently disabled when in fact they were not. That is what I call
fraud.
Congress and the Department have taken steps to correct problems in
this program by creating the Federal Government's first performance-
based organization within the Office of Student Financial Assistance.
While I applaud this effort and recognize the progress made by the
Department, problems persist. A recent Associated Press article
outlined errors made by the Department on 3.5 million college financial
aid forms, 100 of which were distributed to colleges across the
country.
Fixing this problem, which included recalling, destroying and
reprinting these forms, will cost the American taxpayer another
$480,000, a half a million dollar mail mistake. That is what I call
waste.
At a time when Congress is struggling to find the dollars needed to
fund so many important programs, waste and mismanagement similar to the
examples mentioned are unacceptable. Not only do the Department's
management deficiencies hurt the taxpayer, but they also take away from
the parents and students who legitimately need this aid. The millions
lost by the Department's mismanagement might have been used to fund
other critical programs such as educating homeless children and youth.
This is a program that has not seen so much as a dollar increase for
the past few years. Yet the $4 million the Department lost by forgiving
loans to the living dead would have gone a long way to helping homeless
children across the country to succeed in school.
The millions lost by the Department's mismanagement could have been
part of the saving of the 1 percent across the board efficiency we are
looking for, not the wasteful spending that has occurred.
Mr. Speaker, we all understand the difficult funding circumstances
under which this Congress and the administration are working. We can
begin to ease these problems by working with the Federal agencies to
identify and to root out and then correct the problems that waste
hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
While the Federal student loan programs would be a good place to
start this process, every other area of spending needs to be looked at
as well, which we are doing tonight on several of the issues. But the
education of our children is one of our top priorities, if not the top
priority, and, as a matter of fact, this side of the aisle is spending
$34.8 billion on education in our appropriation bills versus the
President's proposal of $34.7 billion. So there will be no cuts to our
children's needs. In fact, there will be more money than the President
even requested. But we must be ever-vigilant to ensure that there is no
fraud, waste and abuse so that we will have the money to spend on those
critical programs that are necessary.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois,
because she points out the vital human equation at stake here. Not a
mere recitation of facts and figures, though they are important, but
the question becomes not only how much is set aside in terms of
funding, and a substantial amount more by this common sense
conservative majority in Congress than even proposed by the President
in his budget when it came to education, but more how it is spent in
local communities, for more accountability at home, and also honoring
the commitments this Congress made when it was in the hands of the left
back in the mid-seventies with reference to special education, the IDEA
program that was left unfunded for so many years. This Congress stepped
up. That is true compassion, when you couple a sense of commitment with
accountability, and we are indebted to the gentlewoman from Illinois
for sharing those very cogent points about inaccuracies, and, yes,
fraud in terms of student loans and a breach of trust that goes beyond
simple inefficiency, simple negligence, to in essence be a crime
against the American taxpayer. We are indebted for her point.
Again, we should reaffirm this. We are talking about a 1 percent
solution. One penny out of every dollar, one penny out of every Federal
dollar spent will keep the budget balanced, stop this raid on Social
Security and pay down $2 trillion in public debt.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, can we not save a penny for grandma,
because, in so doing, Mr. Speaker, we are helping her grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by another newcomer to
Congress. He is a gentleman who has

[[Page 27119]]

learned his lessons well in the field of business, a noted restaurateur
and a capable new representative from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I yield now to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for
yielding. I want to commend the gentleman for the effort he has made
consistently to establish and reiterate the importance of fiscal
discipline and the opportunity we have before us, which is truly
remarkable. But I wanted to suggest that we consider that there are
three alternatives, really, to resolving this dispute that we have with
the current administration versus Congress in how we are going to end
up in this appropriation process this budget process.
The first is the easy way out. The first way would be to follow the
suggestion, the budget that the President presented back in February.
The easy way out, that has been done for the last three decades at
least, and that would be simply raid that Social Security trust fund.
That is what has happened so many times in the past. That would be the
easy and, I would argue, irresponsible and the wrong way out. We have
made it such an important priority of this Congress that we are not
going to take that easy, irresponsible way out, that I am delighted to
see that it appears that the President has come around to our point of
view on this, and it appears that the President recognizes that it
would be wrong to spend that Social Security surplus.
There is another way that Congress could get out of this apparent
dilemma. That would be to raise taxes. Let us consider this for a
moment. This year Federal spending will be higher than it has ever been
in the history of this great Nation. This year Federal taxes are higher
than they have ever been in the peacetime history of this Nation. The
Federal tax burden on working Americans is consuming almost 21 percent
of the entire output of our economy.
Now, even after we set aside all the Social Security funds for the
next decade, for the purpose of either reforming Social Security or
retiring debt, without a penny of that being in the calculations, we
still have unprecedented surpluses, projected as far as the eye can see
by administration budget forecasts, Congressional budget forecasts,
private forecasts.
Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that when taxpayers are paying more than
it takes to fund the biggest Federal Government in history, and in
addition to that taxpayers are paying Social Security benefits for the
next 10 years and then $2 trillion above and beyond that, which is
going to be used for the Social Security trust fund and for retiring
debt, when in fact taxpayers are paying $1 trillion above and beyond
all of that over the course of the next 10 years, it seems obvious to
me that taxes are simply too high. For the President or anyone else to
seriously consider raising taxes in that context is an outrageous
infringement upon the freedom of working Americans.
We need to lower taxes, and I am happy that yesterday this body voted
on a resolution which I authored which expressed the sense of Congress
that we will not raise Federal taxes. That resolution passed with a
vote of 371 to 48. I think it is worth noting, however, that there were
48 Members of this Chamber who felt that despite a record high tax
burden on the American people, we should make it an even higher tax
burden.
Well, we do not have to worry about that, I do not think, because an
overwhelming majority said no, we are not going to raise taxes. So we
have established that we are not going to spend that Social Security
money on the President's spending wishes.
I think we have established that we are not going to raise taxes to
do it. How else do we deal with this issue? We do it from the spending
side. This is the common sense solution that we have before us.
Frankly, the fact that a 1 percent across-the-board reduction in
waste and fraud and abuse that is in so many of our government programs
can solve this problem, can solve this entire budget problem, makes it
the obvious solution to me.
As my colleague from Arizona pointed out, my background is in
business. I am to this day an owner of two restaurants. Prior to
getting in the restaurant business I was in the business of finance.
I can tell you that despite the incredibly intense pressures in the
private sector, the pressure that comes from competition, the pressure
that comes from another operator, whether it is a restaurant or a shoe
store or you name it, despite enormous pressure to be efficient, to
lower your costs, any halfway decent business manager can find 1
percent of his budget to trim when he has to. That is despite the
enormous ongoing pressures that he already faces.
Now, the government, of course, does not live under the same kind of
economic pressures. The Department of Energy, for instance, does not
have a competitive Department of Energy down the road against which it
has to compete, against which it has to demonstrate consistently that
it can lower its costs. The government just does not face those kinds
of pressures, which only means it is even easier in government to find
out opportunities to eliminate some waste, some excess costs.
That is the opportunity before us. This is a no-brainer. This is an
easy opportunity for us to do the right thing, not the irresponsible
thing, but to go ahead and allow 1 percent, just 1 percent across the
board, of the waste and excesses and frivolous expenses that we know we
spend in virtually every government program to be taken out and to
achieve the fiscal discipline, the fiscal responsibility, that comes
with that.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania,
and I congratulate him on the overwhelming passage of House Concurrent
Resolution 208. I was honored as a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means to bring that legislation to the floor and then yield the time to
my friend from Pennsylvania to manage, which he did quite capably, and,
Mr. Speaker, we saw evidence of his expertise in the real world dealing
with budgets, being responsible for employees offering services to his
clients and customers, lessons that served him well in the private
sector, Mr. Speaker, lessons that serve us well in the Congress of the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to one of my friends who preceded all of
us in this Chamber, another former broadcaster, in fact, let me just
point out again something that the American people may have missed,
because on Sundays Americans are at church, enjoying time with their
families. The truth be told, Mr. Speaker, a lot of folks do not hunker
down for all the public affairs programming that exists, no matter what
may happen within the banks of the Potomac.

{time} 1745

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the House Minority
Leader, on ABC's ``This Week,'' when asked about the Social Security
Trust Fund and keeping those funds off limits for spending, said this,
``There is a feeling now that, since we have a surplus, and since we
have got to get ready for the baby boomers, that we really ought to try
to spend as little of it as possible.'' He later said, ``Oh, we need to
save the Social Security surplus as much as we possibly can.''
Again, Mr. Speaker, even though I heard the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt) offer a wonderful tribute to President Ford, where he
called on the need for bipartisanship, I would note the gulf between
rhetoric and reality, how he has instructed every Member of the
minority to vote no on our appropriations bills, how he has said that,
while no means no on the constructive business of governing in terms of
the appropriations bills, when it comes to keeping the Social Security
Trust Fund off limits, no means maybe.
Mr. Speaker, no means no. All we are saying is this, one penny out of
every dollar spent, realize those savings, and my colleagues will save
Social Security in the process. They will pay down

[[Page 27120]]

$2 trillion in public debt. We will continue to balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook), the man who has to make so many challenging decisions as
the chairman of the Subcommittee on District of Columbia of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman who will have some action on
this floor, dare I say, tomorrow as we vote for this 1 percent
solution.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I was watching as the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth) was making some of the comments. Tomorrow on the floor
of this House, as the gentleman has mentioned and so many other Members
have mentioned, we are going to have a very, very important vote.
I will be the one that will be handling this particular bill on the
House floor, because it is a bill that not only appropriates money for
operation of Federal agencies, but it says, okay, what is the final
thing we need to do to make sure that the budget being passed by
Congress, one, is a balanced budget? It does not spend more than we
take in. Secondly, it does not spend any of this Social Security
surplus to make sure that the money that we spend is only the money
that comes from the other revenues of the Federal Government.
Somebody said this is kind of like sanding a block of wood. When one
is trying to make something and one has to get all the pieces to fit
in, one gets that last piece, and maybe it does not quite fit right, so
one sands it down and gets it down to the right size so it does fit in.
This is going to be sanding down the Federal Government so it fits
within the goals of balancing the budget and making sure that we do not
spend Social Security money in the process. I think that is a worthy
goal.
I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle say, oh, we
share that goal. We want to balance the budget and not touch Social
Security. The President of the United States stood here in this House
chamber in January and said he was going to save 68 percent of the
Social Security surplus and not spend it.
Now, I know math; and I know that if one saves 68 percent, one spends
32 percent. So the President's plan was let us spend 32 percent of this
Social Security Trust Fund.
We as Republicans, the majority party in the Congress, said, Mr.
President, the right thing is do not spend any of it. We know that for
years it has been normal in Washington, D.C. under Democrats and then
as Republicans as we were taking those final steps to balance the
budget, yes, Social Security money was used in the process for far too
long. But that time is over.
Now we can balance the Federal budget without using any of that
Social Security Trust Fund, without jeopardizing the future security of
people who are now retired or who may be retiring in the future. At the
same time, this will be reducing the national debt, so that people who
are younger today will have the security of knowing that the national
debt either will be smaller or nonexistent so they will not be stuck
with paying it off; so people today will know that the size of
government has shrunk. Now, that seems to me like that is what
everybody is saying.
Yet we had the meeting on the conferees of the bill this morning, the
bill that comes up tomorrow, the meeting of the conferees; and I could
not believe it, the things I heard from some other person. I will not
even name the person who said this. One of the Members of Congress on
the other side of the aisle today, he said, ``One, we cannot afford
these cuts. We cannot do this 1 percent across the board cut.'' Then he
said, ``And, by golly, you are spending money out of Social Security.''
I called him on the carpet, frankly. I said, ``One, I think everybody
can afford a 1 percent cut. But, two, if you think that is not enough,
if you think we would have to cut further to make sure we do not dip
into Social Security, why are you not proposing larger cuts instead of
opposing the 1 percent cut?'' He got kind of speechless at that point.
I notice this same rationale or lack of logic in the President's
comments. I was reading the transcript of his comments today, saying
that he does believe in balancing the budget without using Social
Security money, and he wants to claim that Republicans are dipping into
Social Security.
So we would think, therefore, he would say cut spending further. No,
he says raise spending more. Wait a minute. If they claim we are
spending Social Security money at this level, and they want to spend
more, they would be spending more Social Security money.
They ought to be helping us. They ought to be helping us reduce the
size of government. They ought to be proposing more than 1 percent
across the board to save money. But, instead, they want it both ways.
That is not right. That is Alice in Wonderland-type thinking. I grew up
knowing better.
I remember all the meals that we had in my family, and it was a
family of five kids, my mom, my dad. My dad was hard working. He would
go to work during the day, come home for dinner, and go back to work.
What we would commonly have for dinner, my favorite dinner when I was
growing up, was beans and cornbread. If it was not that, it was sliced
diced potatoes and white gravy or Kraft dinners, we called them, the
macaroni and cheese.
I thought that we had those meals so often because they were so good.
Well, it took a while, until I had five kids myself, that I realized we
had those meals so often because they were so economical. They were
healthy. They were nourishing. We got by fine, but it saved money. The
family needed to save.
Maybe we have some Federal bureaucrats that need to be talking about
beans and cornbread instead of doing the things that I have heard them
say, Cabinet officers on TV, oh, there is no way that we can do a 1
percent cut. Tell that to Mr. And Mrs. America. Tell that to them when
they have to sit around the table and have to balance the family
budget, and they have to make decisions a lot bigger than cutting 1
percent.
I remember when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, and
he said we cannot spend so much money and so much expense on energy. He
said, turn down your thermostats in the winter. Turn them up in the
summer. Do not use so many lights. Conserve electricity. Families do
that all the time.
Maybe bureaucrats need some leadership at the top saying conserve
things instead of spending more. The President took 1,700 people on a
trip to Africa, announced all these government give-aways, and, on top
of that, spent, what was it, $50 million, $70 million for that huge
entourage.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, for three trips, Africa, Chile, China, the
grand total was in excess of $70 million with thousands accompanying
the President, well over 1,000 in his entourage. That is not taking
into account the justifiable needs for security, secret service, and
the like for the President of the United States.
I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma. We need at long last, Mr.
Speaker, leadership by example. Part of that bill that the gentleman
from Oklahoma will be talking about and helping to manage on this floor
tomorrow includes a 1 percent reduction in salary for Members of
Congress. Again, I would renew my challenge to the President. He should
reduce his salary. Cabinet level officials should reduce their
salaries. They should lead by example.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is
especially appalling to see the Clinton-run Pentagon using Clinton-
speak. We are putting more money into the Pentagon, even after the 1
percent cut, more money than the President proposed. He had the
Pentagon people come to the Congress and say, under the President's
budget, they can get along just fine. But now, under the larger budget
they will be getting from Congress, the President has been claiming
they cannot get by. That does not make sense. They can get by on less
from the President. They can get by on more from Congress. They can
handle this 1 percent cut like everybody else.

[[Page 27121]]

I speak as a member of the Subcommittee on Defense that wants to
strengthen our defense, and we are doing it because we are still
strengthening it even after applying the same standard to them as to
the rest of government.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again, we are actually adding $2 billion
more to this defense budget than this White House and the Pentagon
requested.
Facts are stubborn things. No means no. But to the minority party in
this chamber and to the folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue,
no apparently means maybe when it comes to the Social Security Trust
Fund.
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, the transcript of what transpired today
in the White House press room, a journalist to Joe Lockhart, the Press
Secretary, question: ``Just to be clear, the third option you would
consider, you would under no circumstances accept going to the Social
Security surplus at this point; is that correct?'' Mr. Lockhart
responds, ``We have put forward a better way. We hope they will
consider it. We will be here. They understand what our ideas are.''
This President stood in the well. He said save 62 percent of the
Social Security surplus, implying he would spend 38 percent of it on
other programs. He outlined various new ways to raise revenue. We
brought it to the floor of this House. Not a single Member voted for
the Clinton tax-hike package, not anyone on that side. So no meant no
when it came to raising taxes.
All we say is this, Mr. Speaker, our 1 percent solution, one penny
out of every dollar in savings will save Social Security and stop the
raid. A penny saved is a retirement secured.

____________________

ARMENIAN TERRORISM AN OUTRAGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I appear here to add my voice to those who
are expressing our strongest sense of outrage at the reported terrorism
against the Armenian Congress which has so far claimed the lives of
Prime Minister Vazgen Sarkisian, the Speaker of the Assembly Karen
Demirchian, Deputy Speaker Bakhshian, Energy Minister Petrosian, and
senior economic official Kotanian.
I was pleased to lead a congressional delegation to visit Armenia
during the August month. We had the opportunity to personally meet with
these individuals who were clearly professionals on all they did,
dedicated to the well being of the country and its people, and
repeatedly demonstrated their obvious commitment to bringing peace and
prosperity to the region. In fact, we were there to help to promote the
peace process with Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Prime Minister Sarkisian, only a few days before we arrived, had
addressed the people of Armenia on a television broadcast talking about
the window of opportunity that Armenia had for the peace process as
well as opportunities for trade in Armenia by those from other parts of
the world, as well as the need to do something about corruption, to
prevent corruption, and for transparency, for openness of the system.
He got great applause; but it was, indeed, a very courageous statement
he made.
He was also here less than a month ago, and many of us who were
interested in Armenia met with him and again discussed the process of
the peace progress as well as the openness to trade and the
advancements that are being made by the brilliant Armenian people.
I am just very saddened by what we have learned about what has
happened. This unwarranted intrusion against the Armenian people's
democratically elected leaders must not in any way deter the commitment
of the Armenian government to further develop and strengthen the
nation's democracy.
Our prayers and our best wishes are with the people of Armenia in the
hope that the current hostage situation will be peacefully resolved and
the perpetrators of this heinous crime are brought to justice.

____________________

DIGITAL DIVIDE AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentlman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, today across our Nation, we are most
fortunate that this economy that we are participating in continues to
surge and roar. Yet, Mr. Speaker, today based on the finding of the
Commerce Department, we find an alarming trend throughout this country
as it relates to something that is commonly referred to as the digital
divide.

{time} 1800

The genesis for this special order this evening is to discuss that
divide and potential solutions through prospective legislation that
will be introduced in a compendium of bills that colleagues from the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Education and the Workforce
will be addressing as we move forward this evening.
In a conference report entitled Falling Through the Net, Larry
Irving, in testifying before the Subcommittee on Empowerment of the
Committee on Small Business, and speaking directly to the ranking
minority member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald), reported the following: He cited that there is an alarming
trend that is taking place all across this Nation. Even though there is
greater access to the Internet, what we find is that the gap is
widening between those who have access to information and those who do
not. And for those who do not, most disturbingly we find that it is
happening along the lines of race, gender, geography and wealth.
We must seek to close that gap. We must seek to make sure that in the
policies that we enact here in the United States Congress that we leave
no one behind in this economy.
This poses a problem for us because of this gap. It is three-tiered.
First, in terms of the economic isolation that it creates; economic
isolation that all too often takes place within our urban areas and,
therefore, impacts our minority populations who live there; economic
isolation that takes place in our rural communities because of the
inability for us to reach those communities with the technology they
richly deserve and need; and it also results in an inferior form of
education.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who serves on the Committee
on Science, and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) on the
Committee on Science, have pointed out, there is not a sufficient
pipeline for us to make sure that there is a transition in our public
school systems from school to work. In fact, many people have come
before this Congress, many from the business community, asking us to
ease immigration quotas so that they can import people from abroad to
provide for the more than 350,000 jobs in the high-tech area that are
currently going unfilled.
Any economist worth their salt has spoken at length about the
Information Age. We have come to acknowledge that knowledge will be the
future currency in this country, and it is knowledge that will make
this economic engine that is propelling us forward continue to thrive
in a global economy. Tonight, we hope to address this by way of
solutions.
Now, I know all too often that Congress has a deserved reputation of
talking at length about the problems but does very little in the way of
solutions. What we are hoping to address by way of legislation is to
look at three fundamental areas. All of us involved in education
understand the three Rs of reading, writing and arithmetic, and yet to
guarantee in the future that teachers will have the best tools afforded
to them, that we will be able to provide our children with the very
best and most up-to-date technology within the classroom, fundamentally
we have to do three things: We have to look at retooling our
infrastructure; we have to look at retraining our teaching force; and
we have to rethink how we look at education from the bottom up.

[[Page 27122]]

We are of the mind, and hope to address this this evening as well,
three bills that are before the Committee on Science and the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. Those bills focus on the problem. And
let me start with the issue of retooling.
What do I mean by retooling? Fundamentally, most Americans, when they
think of retooling, think of our great failure in the 1970s when we
found out what happens when a business does not retool, as was the case
with respect to the automobile industry. We did not make the necessary
steps in that area, and we found that we lost market share. We found
that all of a sudden the United States, once the preeminent producer of
automobiles, fell behind competing nations. It is a lesson that we
learned hard.
That was in the automobile industry. The industry we are speaking
about this evening is education and, fundamentally, it is our children
that we are talking about. We need in this Nation, just like we have a
national highway system and a highway infrastructure that transports
our commerce, and that our parents made sure was constructed after the
Second World War, we need to make sure that our children have an
information superhighway that links up our public schools and our
libraries so that everyone can have access to information; so that
everybody will be able to have access to the knowledge that they are
going to need to flourish and to grow in the Information Age in an
increasingly shrinking world in this global economy of ours.
We expect to close this gap. If we expect not to leave any child
behind, we also must provide for having teachers who are able to
utilize that technology within our classrooms. I am a former school
teacher. I understand implicitly the need and the desire on the part of
teachers to be able to individualize instruction for all of their
students. We now have the capability, we now have the technology to do
just that; to allow the teacher to individualize instruction; to be
more diagnostic in their approach to teaching and, therefore, more
prescriptive in the remedies that they apply to their students.
We have the opportunity to allow the gifted to learn as fast and as
far as their minds and creativity will carry them. We have the
opportunity to remediate for those students that need our help the most
and, for the vast majority of students, to allow them to participate
and thrive in the fullness of this economy, by providing them with the
skill sets that they are going to need.
Frankly, that is going to require a change. We have to provide
incentives for our teachers. First and foremost, tax incentives so that
they can pick up equipment on their own, purchase computers, purchase
the hardware and software that they need and receive a tax credit for
it; to go back and get an education and receive a tax credit for that
so that they can be further trained in their ability to integrate
voice, video and data within the context of their lesson plan, within
the context of their curriculum, so that they are a more effective and
efficient teacher.
And incentives need to be provided to the business community as well;
to allow them to buddy up with teachers, to allow them to buddy up with
school systems. And where they will provide hours, by lending the
expertise of their corporations to public schools, they should receive
a tax credit for that as well.
Secretary Riley has pointed out that we are going to need 2 million
teachers over the next 10 years, and we have to make sure that our
universities are turning out teachers that are well versed in voice,
video, and data technology, and capable of integrating them within
their lesson plan.
Now, I am constantly reminded by my wife and by others, and I believe
this to be true, that no piece of legislation, no bill that is
proposed, ever reads to a child at night, or tucks them in, or provides
them with encouragement. Only caring parents can do that, and only
professionally trained teachers, within the context of the classroom,
can provide for the kind of ubiquitous individual education that I
believe the technology that we possess now can provide for our
students.
But we need to act now. And what I am suggesting this evening is that
aside from the infrastructure needs that I know that we must address,
and besides the retraining, that we fundamentally have to think about
that technology and how our children use that technology. It has been
stated on more than one occasion that oftentimes the fifth grader in a
local school knows more than the teacher, or is the technology expert
in the school. We have to take advantage of this.
We are submitting legislation that focuses on creating a National
Youth Tech Corps starting in the fifth grade, reaching out to children,
making sure they understand the importance of not only being served but
providing service, letting them participate fully in mentoring other
students and, in some cases, of course, teachers as well.
We want to let them also participate civilly and understand the
importance of putting a civic face on technology and the responsibility
that goes along with that. Let them work with the elderly in a
community and help shut-ins use E-mail and talk directly through
technology to their children and to their grandchildren.
I know that it will take some time to look at what is the most
efficient technology and infrastructure. Will it be wide band, will it
be radio wave, will it be infrared, will it be satellite transmission
that we use to bring this ubiquitous form of technology to our public
schools and libraries? And to fully train teachers is going to take
time as well. But our youth are already hungry. Our youth already
understand and grasp the technology oftentimes better than their
parents. And I believe that from the bottom up, if we encourage their
involvement, and acknowledge and recognize them for their effort, that
we can move this Nation forward.
I have felt for some time that as a nation we have our head in the
sand with respect to this issue, and that we, as a Congress, have got
to wake up and understand. If we will consider just for a moment the
dilemma the local superintendent of schools or boards of education
face, all wanting and desiring to light up the desktops of their
children and the blackboards of their teachers, but faced with enormous
economic costs and something that we refer to as Moore's law on the
Committee on Science, where technology is eclipsing itself at a rate so
that every 6 to 12 months it has become almost obsolete, no
superintendent, no principal, no board of education is going to be able
to find themselves in a position to put the monies forward needed to
bring this technology into their classroom if there is not a plan for
ongoing maintenance, and if the very technology that they install could
be obsolete in 6 to 12 months.
Mr. Speaker, this requires the best and the brightest minds in this
country, an alliance for progress that will bring together the National
Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Education, the business
community, and government focusing on the best solutions to bring that
technology into our classrooms and our libraries.
I am joined this evening by a distinguished colleague on the
Committee on Science as well, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and
at this time I would yield to him.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I have
had many occasions in recent months to observe the digital divide as it
plays out in my home State of Oregon. On some of my elementary school
visits there are whole roomfuls of computers.

{time} 1815

In one school that I visited just about 10 days ago, there was a
roomful of windows, Intel machines, and there was another roomful of
Apple computers; and in that particular elementary school, there was
literally dozens of computers on two different software systems. And in
stark contrast, in some other schools that I have visited, there are
barely two computers available to the entire school.
This is one example of the digital divide. I would guess that the
same situation is played out at home, that the wonderful parents that
have contributed these machines at the school with

[[Page 27123]]

two rooms full of computers, that they also provide computers at home
and in the other neighborhoods where they have struggled to put two
computers into the entire school, that at home perhaps there is much
less access to computer technology and all the marvels that it can
bring into our lives.
I think we need to address this digital divide situation and we need
to address it aggressively. By all estimates, in this century and going
forward in this century, 75 percent of all future jobs will require
some form of computer literacy.
Now, one of the things we know is that, just as in the private
sector, where the cost of putting a box, a machine, a computer on a
desk and its associated software is only about 30 percent of the cost
of actually implementing computer technology. The other 70 percent is
really the cost of training the users of the computer and fully
integrating that into the business.
The parallel in the education arena is that while it costs a lot to
put computers into the classroom, and many classrooms still have not
successfully done that, it will cost even more and take even more time
to integrate the computers into educational curricula, to properly
train teachers, as well as students, in the use of the machines which
we hope to make available to them.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made several good points,
and I just want to amplify a couple.
Another concern that has arisen, and I spoke about the need to retool
with respect to the need for infrastructure improvement. In this
Congress, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has introduced bills
with respect to school modernization. It is important that we modernize
our schools. It is important as we do this that we bring in the kind of
technology, as I will continue to say, that will light up the desktops
of children and the blackboards of teachers.
Other nations are moving ahead of us. And just like the automobile
industry was arrogant in the 1970s, not believing that anyone could
ever compete with them, we are being leap-frogged by other nations.
Countries like Costa Rica, nations like India in many instances have
more sophisticated technology within their classrooms and understand
its importance if they are going to thrive in a global economy.
And so, we have got to make sure that, as a Nation, that if we
anticipate leaving no one behind and if we are going to close this
digital divide, that the way to do that is through our public education
system.
These are not reports that came from the Department of Education.
This is the Department of Commerce. The Department is citing this
alarming gap; and it understands fundamentally, as does the business
community, that we lack the sufficient pipeline coming from our school
systems that will provide them with the workforce that they need in the
future.
So it is of vital importance that we are able to get this legislation
enacted and that we are well on the way to closing this divide.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and a leader in educational
issues and an expert in this area.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut
for yielding.
Let me thank him for bringing this issue before us tonight and
hosting this special order so that we could talk about an issue that is
important not only to schools. So many times when we talk about them,
we talk about as if it is important only to schools and to children and
to teachers and to parents. But my colleague has properly framed it. It
is important really to this country and our competitiveness.
We have seen in the 1990s, as an example, where business has
absolutely used technology to increase productivity at a level that we
have not seen since the dawning of the industrial revolution in this
country literally, and it has increased our productivity and given us
one of the best economies really that we have had in our lifetimes. If
we can just sustain it for a few more months, it may be the longest
sustained economic period of growth in the history of this country. And
a lot of that goes to the technology that is driving our economy.
That being said, your point of acknowledging that the challenges we
face at the public school level and the digital divide that is there
already, that is why the business roundtable as come forward on
education and put their shoulder to the wheel, as some would say, the
titans of industry. But they are not industry as we expect; they are
industry that understands that a well-educated citizenry, as Thomas
Jefferson said, is really our key not only to a democracy but to a
thriving economy.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and almost every chamber of commerce now
across this country, and I had the privilege when I was State
superintendent in North Carolina of working not only with our, what is
called the Citizens of Business and Industry, which is really our State
chamber of commerce, each chamber of commerce now has an education
component.
Now, there is a reason to have an education component and a support
unit there for public schools. Because they recognize that if we are
going to have a strong economy and children are going to be able to
produce in the 21st century, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) was
talking about 75 percent of those who are going to be moving into the
workforce need to have computer skills and I would challenge him, I
think it is 100 percent, the truth is everyone is going to have to have
some knowledge of computers. But we are going to have to have a much
higher competency on a large segment of our population in the 21st
century because most jobs are going to be driven in one way or another
by technology.
The thing that I see in our public schools and the issues my
colleague has talked about in the bills, and I want to commend my
colleague for the bills that he has in committee that he is working on,
I have a bill on school construction that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) is on and he has been since I have signed on, it is
important to get those bills in and get them moving. Because just to
have technology without space for children and to have those buildings,
some of those old buildings just absolutely will not take the wiring
and the technology that is needed to get on the Internet. The school is
the ramp that we are going to get onto the Internet to get to the
world, and too many of our schools do not have an on-ramp.
And unfortunately, as we talk about computers and Internets in our
schools, as badly as they are needed, too many of our classrooms do not
even have telephones, things that we thought of years ago that were
important that on every executive desk and that in each one of our
offices where we have computers.
I went in a classroom just this past Monday and visited where they
are trying to get just five computers in each classroom, a very modern
school in a very progressive county in my district. But guess what
happened? They could not afford to have them and have them tied to the
Internet. So now they have computer labs.
Computer labs are not all that bad. The problem is children get to
use them only when they go. How would we like to have all the
automobiles that we have placed in a garage and we could only use them
once a week? That is really what we are doing with computers. As
important as computers are to a child in learning, we are saying you
can get to them once a week; and by the way, you can only use them
about an hour and we will teach you how to drive it. That is really
what we are doing. And an item that is so important, the technology
that is driving the changing world and yet we want to deny it to our
children.
I commend the gentleman for what he is doing. I think we are on the
right track. And I would trust that this Congress would do everything
within our power not only to raise the issue to a

[[Page 27124]]

higher level but to put some money behind it. Whether it takes
allocating resources or whether it takes tax credits to encourage the
private sector to help us, it is so important to make sure that that is
in the classroom where children can learn, whether they are in the
inner city or whether they are in isolated rural areas. If they are
part of the digital divide, they suffer just as badly no matter where
they are. Every child ought to have that opportunity no matter what
their economic or ethnic background might be.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I have been to several hearings and a
variety of different forums as it relates to this issue, and the
general public and the business community and in fact the academic
community is crying out for leadership.
This Nation has always been able to move forward on critical issues.
We have always been able to respond, especially when the very fabric of
our economy is at stake here. If we are going to continue to thrive and
compete in a global economy, then we have got to make sure that we have
the students who can make that transition from the school to the
workforce, that, in a knowledge-based society, that our students going
on to higher education are exposed to the same kind of data and
research.
But what we find from the Department on Commerce is that, while more
people today have purchased more technology, i.e. computers and voice
video and data integration within the context of work and home,
fundamentally the gap has widened between those who have access to that
information and those who do not, creating the haves and have-nots in
the information age.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that
point for just a moment, because I think he is absolutely correct. But
the point he made that was made earlier by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Wu), as we talk about technology in the classroom, it is
imperative that we make sure our teachers get the staff development
training they need so that, whatever that technology may be, it is not
just computers, it is integrated technology, that they have it so they
can integrate it in the curriculum.
Because it has to be a part of the taught curriculum, not just an
add-on to the daily activities. And until it is taught and the teachers
have the time, and many are doing it and many States are working at it,
but they need every bit of help we can give them to do that so it
becomes a part of the active curriculum every day.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, in my State, in Connecticut, and in my
hometown of east Hartford, united technologies have buddied up very
successfully with fourth and fifth grade teachers to expose them. These
are teachers that had, frankly, not ever used computers, who had never
seen a laptop, who were exposed to it. And as they became more familiar
and were able, as my colleague pointed out, to integrate the technology
within the context of their daily lesson plans and their curricula,
then they began to see the wonders of this technology.
I have pointed out this evening that there is wide concern about
rural areas, many of which my colleague represents in North Carolina.
But there is no one who is more sensitive and understands more
succinctly the problems of urban America with respect to technology
than our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner),
who also serves on the Committee on Science with us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman at this point.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson) for yielding. I also wanted to thank him for bringing this
issue to the floor. He has really tried to push this issue to the
forefront, and he is frankly bucking some of our conventions around
here in the House of Representatives.
One of the things that we are known for in this great body is acting
with great alacrity, with great speed in times of crisis. It is a time
when we come together on both sides of the aisle and we manage to get
the People's work done, whether we stare down the barrel of very often
misfortune or war or crisis in the country.
But it is very difficult often to discuss the types of issues that my
colleague is discussing here tonight because it requires our making an
intellectual leap not just to next week or next year but maybe to
events that might happen 10 or 15 years down the road. And when we are
looking at issues like this, frankly, this process has never been very
good at it. We have never been very good on planning for the next
generation for 4 or 5 years hence.
But I would argue, and my colleague has made this point abundantly
clear, as has the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), that we are at that crisis mode right
now.

{time} 1830

Our students today are doing very poorly as compared to other major
industrialized nations, in math, in science. Frankly they rank near the
bottom. And we are also seeing that there is a crisis and that jobs are
very mobile. Perhaps no community is more evident of that than the one
that the gentleman represents in Connecticut, one where once upon a
time it was unheard of that insurance jobs could be anywhere else
except around one another in one community. The same is true for my
financial services in New York City. Now with the new technologies
being what they are, jobs are extraordinarily mobile and it does not
just stop at one district, it does not stop at the borders of our
country. Jobs could almost overnight at the throw of a switch leave our
shore and go overseas. This is a crisis of our economy.
I have to say that this is also a crisis because decisions that we
make today in 1999, on the legislation that you are pushing, are
decisions that will manifest themselves 5 or 6 or 10 years down the
road. If we do not act on these things now, it is going to be too late
if we wake up and see, wait a minute, we have got a terrible brain
drain, we have a terrible circumstance where we cannot fill the good
jobs that our economy is producing, we better hurry up and invest in
education. It does not work like that. You have to invest in 1999 to
see the benefits in 2009.
So I would argue we are at the precipice of a crisis in our education
system right now. But another element that we are kind of bucking
against here and this one is a philosophical problem. Many people in
this Chamber and perhaps many people in the country at large still have
what I would argue is an outdated federalist notion of education
issues. We are still very much hung up on the idea that education is an
issue that they deal with at the local level and the city council from
where I came, in the States from where you came and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu) came and it is really Congress' job to stay out of the
way. And in fact we go so far as to say it is our job here in Congress
to pave a road but if it goes by a school, we cannot touch it. We can
pave a highway but we cannot plug a school into the Internet. That is a
philosophical objection that we hear around here from time to time that
speaks to a federalist argument that is literally generations behind
us.
Today, we have a national crisis. Today, we have an emergency that
transcends that type of thinking. Now, I would share the argument that
many of my colleagues make here that we should not, once we plug the
school in, say here is what we think you should look at with that
Internet hookup, here is what we think how many kids you should have in
the classroom. Although I have views on that, perhaps that is something
for a local school board or a local city or local governance. But for
the Federal Government to stand back in the face of what is really an
economic battle, an economic war that goes beyond these shores and say
we will not get involved really does ignore a major problem.
The legislation that you have proposed and are sponsoring recognizes
that the Federal Government has to get in the game, has to begin to
participate in solving this problem. This is, I believe, an intuitive
point among

[[Page 27125]]

parents around this country in districts, Republican, Democrat,
independent and the like.
Mr. LARSON. I would like to amplify that point by saying that the
legislation acknowledges that decisions with respect to education are
best made locally. I am a former member of the board of education in my
community in East Hartford. I served locally on a town council and
served in the State legislature. I understand the importance of local
control. This legislation seeks not to intervene with local control but
augment the ability. And to your point, and I think the most critical
issue that we face with respect to supplying our schools with the
wherewithal to do this without bankrupting them through local property
taxes is to come up with a strategic means of supplying information,
through whatever conduit, satellite, broad band width, radio wave,
infrared, whatever is most economically feasible and efficient to bring
technology into those classrooms. That is an information superhighway,
not different infrastructurally than a national highway system and
only, and I would argue along with you, is the Federal Government in a
position to do that. No community, no State, even a city as large as
New York or a State as affluent as Connecticut or Oregon can provide
itself with the wherewithal to do the kind of infrastructure work and
maintenance that will be needed. But this Nation does, because what is
at stake here is to make sure that we have the ability to facilitate
learning throughout a lifetime.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I have to tell
you, and it is interesting to hear you use that language. Last night a
bipartisan group of Members of Congress sat down and heard a speech by
John Chambers, who is the CEO of Cisco. Cisco Systems, they are a
company that makes the switches that all Internet commerce and all
Internet traffic travels over. They do not actually make the wire. It
is kind of like no matter who is carrying the information they are
making the switches to get it there. They are a very successful
company, a market capitalization that frankly boggles the mind at this
point. When he was describing his company, the gentleman sitting next
to me was I believe from Chase Manhattan Bank and he turned to me and
said, ``That's five times the market capital of my company,'' and he is
a major bank. It was interesting because very often we are visited on
Capitol Hill by folks who are making narrow appeals for legislation
that might help their particular business. But what Mr. Chambers argued
for is the two major things that he thought would not only benefit his
company but the country as a whole is, as you said, one is the
infrastructure, making sure the infrastructure is available for this
new economy to travel over, and he harkened again and again to the
notion of education. His argument was very simple. He said that a
company like his, if he so desired, could in a matter of a year or two
move its work elsewhere, move its jobs elsewhere. That is how
interconnected the community has become. If you think that is an
exaggeration, I would ask you when you go back to your office here at
the House of Representatives, if you want a bill, you go onto the
Internet and you just print it up on your computer. When I was here
working on Capitol Hill, not eons ago, just 5 or 6 years ago, you had
to look up in a book the bill number or call over to someone and get
the bill number and then there was a House documents room, where you
had to walk down, someone would climb up on the ladder and they would
actually pull down a copy of the bill and there you had a copy of the
bill.
So this is technology that is making every corner of this economy
work much faster and much more efficiently. With that same speed, if we
are slow on the uptake with education changes, with infrastructure
changes, we are simply going to get left behind. It is very easy for
somebody like John Chambers who employs thousands and thousands of
people at Cisco to say, well, I am going to go to Australia tomorrow
because so little of his business actually involves bricks and mortar
in Silicon Valley. That was one lesson that I think he left with us
that was very poignant.
He kept coming back to education. On some level I would argue, for
him, he will find his workforce, because there are going to be
countries out there who are smart enough to figure this stuff out and
invest quickly. He was describing the slow evolution, perhaps
revolution is the wrong word to use about China, I say to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Wu), but evolution that is going on where they are
starting to catch up and investing more and more of their resources in
education. So I think we have a window of time here. You have described
it very well. We have a window of time here where we can take advantage
of the enormous intellectual wealth that is being created in this
country and try to pass some of it along to our schools and these three
bills do that.
Mr. LARSON. A point very well made. I yield to the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding and for
his strong commitment and leadership to advocating for adequate
technology training for our teachers and in our classrooms. To further
expand upon the gentleman from New York's comments concerning
federalism, what we need is a federalism of commitment and not a
federalism of convenience. Today, we saw in this House a situation
where our commitment to federalism became inconvenient to certain
values and we ran roughshod over a certain State's rights, but we are
going to stay focused on the issue of education here. And with respect
to local determinations, no one would more strongly advocate for
completely taking care of educational issues at the school board level,
at the school level, at the classroom level than I. However, in my home
State of Oregon, because of certain property tax limitation measures
which were passed several years ago, the local school boards no longer
have the resources or the authority to take care of some of their
crucial, basic mission. As a result of that, some of those financial
resources and the authority has gone to our State capital of Salem.
It has also become apparent that between the local school boards and
our State capital, there is not enough to go around to solve the
problems that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) has
tried to address with his school modernization and school construction
bills. And I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their leadership in school
modernization.
In my congressional district, there are schools which are only 2
years old and yet they are already overcrowded. I did a class size
study of my congressional district and over 70 percent of the students
in grades K through 3 were in class sizes which were over the optimum
and a significant percentage were in class sizes of 27 and above. Many
high school students are in classes where there are more than 40, 45 or
50 students. That is just not an adequate environment in which to
learn. Other schools in my congressional district have a lack of
facilities, they need to build the additional space so that additional
teachers can teach, and other schools have old facilities. In Astoria,
Oregon, there has not been a new classroom built since 1927. Some
schools do not have telephones. Many classrooms have only one plug in
the wall. The bill that the gentleman from North Carolina has sponsored
would help address that issue, not by taking that function away from
the local school board but by assisting the school board in its job. It
respects federalism and it helps education. Between the school
modernization initiative which would bring $200 million to the State of
Oregon, and the class size initiative putting 100,000 teachers into
classrooms across America, that would put 2,500 teachers into the State
of Oregon. That is a very important first step. It respects federalism
because there continues to be a crucial role for the State and for the
local school board, for the teacher and for the parent. But we must do
what we can to address these issues of classroom overcrowding and
antiquated facilities.

[[Page 27126]]

Mr. ETHERIDGE. If the gentleman will yield, he is absolutely right.
And tie that together with what the gentleman from Connecticut is
trying to do in terms of linking up with technology. My State is one of
those fast growing States, not unlike yours where we are just growing
by leaps and bounds. Over the next 10 years as we look out, the
projections are by the Department of Education, as the gentleman from
Connecticut knows, they have projected that the high school population
in this Nation will grow substantially, and my State is one of the
probably top five fastest growing States. But even with the growth,
technology can have a significant impact in helping that, but we need
to be able to help not only a facility with technology but also with
those teachers in the classroom and staff development.
I have been in a lot of classrooms, as all three of my colleagues
have, and I have never in the years that I was State superintendent and
as a legislator now as a Member of Congress ever had a child or a
teacher for that matter to ask me where the money came from, whether it
was Federal, State or local, recognizing that at the Federal level we
probably only put in about 6 percent, depending on where you are it may
be a little bit more or less in States, not much more than 7, but they
have never asked that question.
The problem we face is tremendous challenges. Children never know
what they need. They only know what they get. In many cases, they do
not know that what they get is not what they should be getting, that it
is woefully short in a lot of cases and in a lot of communities. This
digital divide that you are calling attention to tonight is a critical
issue. It spans whether you are rural or urban. I commend the gentleman
for that, because I think all of us need to be better educated but more
importantly once we are educated, we need to act on it.

{time} 1845

Mr. LARSON. Like so many individuals across this Nation, I
participated in Net Day and was responsible in Connecticut for what we
referred to as Connect 96. But even there with the electronic
barnraising that took place and the single connections to our schools
where we are able to hook up libraries and schools, we recognize
fundamentally that there was still a problem that persisted.
I do not want to leave here this evening, and I want to make sure
that I allow you time to talk about an important issue as it impacts
schools in your State that has been severely impacted by the flooding
that has taken place throughout the great State of North Carolina, but
I did just want to reemphasize three points. One, with respect to
retooling. We need a national plan; we need a Marshall Plan for our
public education system. No different than the ability that our parents
recognized when they came home from the Second World War and said,
Look, we need to connect this Nation through commerce by an interstate
highway system. It is a different highway, but probably, more
important, it is an information highway, that without that connection
this gap between those who have access to information and those who do
not are going to be left behind.
So we need to put the best minds together to focus on the best means
of providing universal and ubiquitous service to our children and our
teachers, and our teachers are fundamental to this. At no point, first,
would anyone, especially the superintendent of school systems of all of
North Carolina, or a Congressman from New York or Oregon, recognize
fundamentally the role of parents. There is no greater teacher.
That is not at issue here, nor is what is at issue here the use of
technology to replace a teacher. What is at issue here is the use of
technology to enhance and augment the ability of teachers to get after
the goal that every teacher strives for, to individualize instruction
for their students, to bring out the very best, to be more diagnostic
in their approach to teaching, to open up universes where all of us in
this room have here before never traveled and to be able to be more
prescriptive in their remedy and, therefore, more accountable.
The accountability between teacher and student, and teacher and
parent, and parent and child is enhanced by this technology, and by no
means is it ever meant to replace, but augment and provide us with the
kind of tools that we are going to need to have the best educated
country in the world.
Mr. Speaker, that is what has allowed us to come to this point in
history as the preeminent economic and military force in the world.
Absent our attending to investment within our public school
infrastructure will only mean the slow decay of this Nation. It cannot
happen on our watch. We have got to make sure that we move forward on
this agenda, and we can do so by inviting our students as well.
There is concern all across this country about kids' involvement with
this technology and the Internet, but supervised by adults, caring
adults that put a civic tone and civic responsibility with appropriate
checks, we can unleash in this country a new civic force starting very
young but recognizing the importance not only of being served, but
providing service.
That is the goal of this education, of these proposals to retool, to
retrain and fundamentally rethink.
I recognize my dear friend and representative from Oregon for some
closing remarks so that we can give the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Etheridge) time to respond to his proposals as well.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to just underscore a couple of positive
programs that are occurring around the country and particularly in my
corner of the country because I think that we need a sense of hope, a
sense of what is going right, a sense of where we are going from here.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) mentioned Cisco and the
dinner last night. Cisco Corporation has an education foundation here
in Washington, D.C., and in my home State the largest employer is Intel
Corporation. Intel has made it a practice to donate motherboards to
schools. They make a lot of public school donations, and the quid pro
quo is that the school is then tasked to bring together the other
things that are needed to make an entire computer out of a motherboard;
and students and teachers learn together how to do that. It is a
complete process of education, and it starts with a motherboard
donation by Intel Corporation. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of
public-private partnership that I think we should be looking for.
Another public-private partnership that is occurring in Oregon is
something that is called Saturday Academy at the Oregon Graduate
Institute. Saturday Academy brings public school students to sites
around the metropolitan Portland area on a Saturday and permits them to
study topics in science, mathematics, and other things of their
interests, computer science perhaps. Earlier this year we were able to
show congressional leadership this program in action, and the question
that I faced after that was: Gee, how come this is not happening in my
community?
This started, that is, the Saturday Academy program started with a
small grant from the National Science Foundation; but it has been
leveraged by private donations and donations from the corporate
community. I think this is the kind of public-private leadership and
partnership that gets us to where we want to go.
There is one particular aspect of the Saturday Academy program which
addresses the divide which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson)
has been trying to address in this discussion. What we have witnessed
is a dropoff in math and science participation by girls in junior high
school and in high school so that by college the participation by young
women in science and mathematics just is not where it should be.
We are not training the number of engineers, mathematicians and
scientists, female mathematicians, engineers and scientists that we
should; and Saturday Academy has a special program focused on girls. It
is called AWSEM. Let me make sure I get this right: Advocates for Women
in Science,

[[Page 27127]]

Engineering and Mathematics. I attended an AWSEM banquet about 2 years
ago, and the level of enthusiasm of these junior high and high school
girls for math and science was absolutely striking. The AWSEM program,
I understand, Mr. Speaker, is going nationwide.
There are success stories out there like AWSEM, like Saturday
Academy, like the Intel donation program, and I think that we need to
focus both on what challenges lie ahead and what we are doing right
today. And with that I yield back.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon. I also
thank the gentleman from New York for their contributions this evening.
We hope to come back again with another special order to both detail
out the progress and at this time yield the floor to our esteemed
colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) who has important and
critical issues that impact education in his home State of North
Carolina to address.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I also thank him for the special order because I think what we have
been about this evening is so important, and also let me thank the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) also for his legislation. The
leadership he is bringing to that, there is no question that as he
talks about this information highway or the digital divide, not unlike
what our colleagues who were here in the 1950s talked about the
interstate highway, and he is absolutely correct in talking about that.
My friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), when he talked about
Intel, let me remind you that those business partnerships are
important.
In North Carolina we actually have students in a number of schools
actually getting the motherboard from Intel, putting them in and
bringing computers up to modern standards from computers that many
businesses will share with them. So, Mr. Speaker, there is tremendous
partnerships out there, and we have done it with IBM and a number of
our high-tech folks in the research triangle.
So there are a lot of great success stories, and I hope we can talk
about more of those at a future time, and this evening I appreciate you
yielding the last little bit to me so I can talk about some of the
schools in North Carolina, specifically in the eastern part of the
State, that have been hit so hard by Hurricane Floyd and then followed
up by Hurricane Irene that did even greater damage to our agricultural
areas.
But here is a photograph that some of you have seen earlier of towns
in eastern North Carolina flooded. The truth is when we talk about
that, folks do not realize how large the geographic area was. It is an
area that includes about 2.1 million people, and the geographic area is
larger than the State of Maryland. So it is a substantial area.
The devastation is substantial. When you look at these for
preliminary numbers, it really came out of the local paper early on.
They have been refined and are not quite that large, but if you look at
the town of Princeville, 100 percent flooded with 2,152 residents.
There is Tarboro, 40 percent, 4,300 residents. There is Rocky Mount, 40
percent flooded with a total of 22,900 residents. There is Goldsboro
with 24,000, and the number goes on.
The point I want to make tonight, that I call on my colleagues in
this Congress, before we go home and wrap up this year, we have to
appropriate the funds needed to make sure these people can get their
lives back together, they can get in homes, farmers can get their crops
in the ground and ready for next year. The devastation has been
tremendous. This has been the largest natural disaster in the history
of my State. It affected Virginia, it affected Maryland, it affected
New York and parts of South Carolina. Preliminary numbers I have here:
on November 19, over 30,000 individuals just in North Carolina had
registered with FEMA. The number of homes that are going to be
destroyed or displaced are now approaching 10,000, and there may be as
many as another 15 to 20,000, maybe higher than that, going to need
help. There are a lot of businesses in trouble. I talked with a
businessman in Wilson who lost everything that he had, his whole life's
work. He was in his 50s. His business was flooded. He had no flood
insurance because he never had any need for it. It was a 500-year flood
plain.
Last Sunday I was in Rocky Mount at the request of a constituent. He
wanted me to come down. I went to visit. I went to the homes of his
three daughters. One had been in a home 5 years, another one 7 years,
the other one a bit longer. She was on the other side of town. They
were nice brick homes. Unfortunately, none of the three had flood
insurance, and all three of them lost everything they had, and he said
to me:
``Congressman, we don't need any loans. If they get a loan, they
can't repay it. They owe loans on the house to have even the furniture
that was in it. And if we don't get some help, we will not recover.''
I only tell that story because it can be repeated thousands and
thousands of times in eastern North Carolina. We had up here today over
70 members of the North Carolina General Assembly House and Senate
saying please help us, help us before you go home; and I call on my
colleagues to do the same. We should not go home until we appropriate
money to help these people who pay their taxes, who live by the rules,
who have been subjected to a disaster today we were not expecting. We
need to help them. We help people around the world. It is time to help
people at home.

____________________

THE WESTERN STATES

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen),
my good friend, former Speaker of the House of the State of Utah, and I
will spend the next hour talking with you about issues that we think
are vitally important to the United States, but we think in a large
part are being ignored by many parts of the United States. What we are
going to talk to you about this evening is the West, the western
States, the Rocky Mountains, Federal land, land-use policies,
wilderness areas, water, land of many uses, Teddy Roosevelt. There are
a number of different subjects, Mr. Speaker, that I would wish that you
would think about as we talk because it is very important to the people
of the West in this country. Frankly, it is very important to the
people of the entire United States.

{time} 1900

Let me begin with a little history about the Western United States.
As you know from the history of our country, when the pioneers and the
settlements in this country took place, most of it was on the eastern
coast. Of course, I am stepping aside from the Native Americans. The
Native Americans were throughout the country. This is the history as
the United States as a country began to become formed.
On the eastern coast of the United States, the philosophy was to
acquire more land. Our forefathers had a vision of a great country, and
I think today that they would stand here, frankly, and take a look at
this country and say you have created a good country. You have a
country that is strong in its people. You have a country that is strong
in its land. You have a country that has a vision. You have a country
that has character.
But that is what they wanted to build, and, in doing that, they
wanted to enlarge the country. They did not want just 13 states, they
did not want 14 states, they wanted to enlarge the country. So they
began to acquire land, through for example the Louisiana Purchase and
some of the others, through treaties and so on.
Then they began to urge people to become pioneers. You remember the
old saying, ``Go west, young man; go west.'' Well, as people and the
pioneers began to go out west, they found wonderful, wonderful lands,
the Kansas farmlands, the Missouri lands, the Missouri River and the
Mississippi River. They got out there and they found on a

[[Page 27128]]

very small portion of land you could have a very healthy agricultural
response. In other words, it did not take a lot of land to support
families, and we had a lot of families going out for the purpose of
agriculture.
Now, when we read the history books, we see a lot about mineral
exploitation, about the gold, going to the mountains for the gold and
going for silver, but the long lasting impact for the West was from the
pioneers in agriculture.
Well, the difficulty that the administrations back in the East found
out was that in the West there were not a lot of people going to the
mountains, to the Colorado Rockies, to the Utah mountains, to the
Montana and Wyoming mountains. So what they did is they sat down and
said we need to figure out how do we get new settlers to go into these
mountains? How do we get new settlers to go out into the West?
Well, what happened is the government decided to figure this out and
go out there, and they sent some explorers out there, and you know the
early days of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and somewhere along the
line somebody discovered, you know something, when you get to the
mountains, or you get to the lands of Utah and the lands of Colorado
and Wyoming, of course, those were not states at the time, but when you
get out to those lands, it is very difficult to produce an agricultural
product on a small piece of property. In fact, what you need are
thousands of acres.
Well, the policy of the government was to give incentive and to get
people invigorated about going to the West. You let them homestead.
They could go out and stake their ground. What do I mean by staking
their ground? In the old days they could go out and literally place
stakes in the ground up to certain amounts, say 160 acres or 320 acres,
and they could homestead that ground. If they plotted that ground,
plowed that ground and took care of that ground for a certain period of
time, they got the land. The land was theirs to keep.
Well, when they got to the mountains and they got the reports about
the difficulty of having agriculture in the mountains and in the West,
they came back to the government and they said, Mr. President, Mr.
Administration, Mr. Congress, you cannot do it on 160 acres in the
mountains. You cannot do it on 320 acres. We do not know how we are
going to encourage people to go into those mountains unless you, the
administration and Congress, want to give them thousands of acres.
Well, they thought about that, and, of course, the response was
politically we cannot just give away thousands of acres of land to
individuals. With the system we would have to set up, we would very
quickly encompass large portions of land with few owners. What else can
we do?
Therein came the concept of what we call multiple use. What they
decided to do, colleagues, is instead of giving the land away through
homestead and so on, what they figured out was, well, what we will do
on the government lands is we will allow people to have many uses. We
will retain ownership, speaking of the government. We will retain
ownership of the lands, but we will allow our pioneers and our citizens
to go out into these lands and use the lands. That is the concept of
multiple use.
Well, you can see then as a result in the Western United States the
government primarily owns the land. They are the big landowners in the
Western United States, as a result of this multiple use policy.
In the East, that is not the picture at all. In fact, in the East the
majority of the land is under private ownership. In the Western United
States we face unique problems, unique as compared to the land in the
Eastern United States, and it is important for our colleagues, for my
colleagues and Mr. Hansen's and my colleagues from the East, to
understand the differences in land ownership and why we are so reliant
in the West on government lands.
To my left here is a map of the United States. The map, as you can
see, follow my red bead on the map, government lands. All of the colors
that you see on the map are owned by the Federal government. You have
got some big spots up here, you see down here in the Shenandoah Valley,
in the Everglades down there in Florida. But take a look at all of this
open land. That is private ownership. That is owned by the citizens of
this country individually.
As you can see, as you come down through Montana and Wyoming and
Colorado and New Mexico, look at those blocks of land. That land is all
Federal or government lands, state land in some cases, but primarily
Federal land.
Take a look at the state of Alaska, which I have the bead on down
there in the left-hand corner of my demonstration here. Look at Alaska.
I am not sure of the exact percentage, but I think it is 98 or 99
percent of the state of Alaska is owned by the government.
Well, that works okay under the concept of multiple use. But what we
see happening is a lot of special interest groups in the East have
decided it is time to take this land in the West that is owned by the
government and, for their own reasons, to push their own advocacy of
their special interest groups, they have decided in essence it is time
to kick people off of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres.
When I grew up in Colorado, and I am from Colorado, my district is in
Colorado, the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado, when I grew up,
we grew up under a sign, a theory called ``land of many uses.'' So, in
other words, when you would go into the Forest Service, you would come
up to a sign and it would say, watch, it would say ``Welcome to''--I
did not put the ``Welcome to'' on the top, ``Welcome to the Rocky
Mountain National Park.'' Then underneath hangs a separate sign that
says ``A land of many uses.''
Well, what is happening today, in my opinion, and this opinion is
shared by many people in the West, is an all-out assault to take away
this, and replace that, ``A land of many uses,'' with a sign that
simply says ``No trespassing.''
Now, there are a lot of issues that I want to talk to you about in a
little more detail, but I think at the beginning of my comments and my
colleague's comments it is important for all of us in here to realize
that in the West, the majority of land is owned by the government. We
have a different style of life in the West.
Now, we are all Americans. We all believe in the flag and motherhood
and apple pie. That is not the issue here. I am talking about the
geographic difficulties that we deal with in the West, and there are a
lot of distinguishing issues.
For example, water. In the East, again, back to my first chart,
follow my red dot, in the East back here your problem back here with
water is getting rid of it. Our problem here in the West where I show
you this, our problem is being able to store the water, to be able to
preserve the water.
In Colorado, for example, which is my state, and, by the way, my
district is where this red bead is, it is the 3rd Congressional
District of Colorado, geographically it is larger than the state of
Florida, and in that district in our particular state 80 percent of the
water is in the mountains, and 80 percent of the population is out
here.
Well, it is the same difficulty that we have over here. In Colorado,
for example, we are the only state in the union where all of our free-
flowing water goes out of the state. We do not have water that comes
into our State.
We have the headwaters for four major rivers, the Platte, the
Arkansas, the Rio Grande and the Colorado. My good colleague over here
in Utah, take a look at the Federal lands. Water preservation. We need
the Federal lands to help us store our water. We need the Federal lands
to help us protect our environment. We need the Federal lands to enjoy
recreation, like mountain biking, and I love mountain biking. I have
enjoyed it for years.
I have been on the Colorado River ever since I was a high school
student, river rafting. Many of you colleagues who come and visit in
the West, many have vacation homes in the West. You love river rafting.
You like the hiking. Many of my colleagues like the hunting. It is
hunting season. All of these

[[Page 27129]]

are a necessary part of the concept of multiple use. And if we allow
the concept of multiple use to begin to crumble, I will tell you what
will happen. You will lose the river rafting, you will lose the ski
resorts, and in my district those ski resorts provide 35,000 jobs off
the White River National Forest, just off that forest alone.
By the way, one-third of our forest out there is wilderness area,
one-third of it. We protect that for the environment. We want that
protected for the environment. I voted on that bill. But two-thirds of
it is predominantly recreation, all of these different things.
If we begin to let this concept of multiple use collapse, you will
see over a period of time the elimination of mining. Now, that, of
course, to a lot of people sounds good. But take a look at how many
products in our society depend on mining. That is the first thing that
will go. In my district it is pretty well gone. We have some mines up
near Meeker, Colorado, near Paonia, Colorado. For the most part,
mineral exploration is gone out of there.
The next thing they go after is grazing for our cattle ranchers and
farmers. In the East you have farming, it is important for you. We do
too in the West, but we have to do it on government lands, and we take
care of those government lands. Frankly, we in the West are pretty
proud of the job we have done. You see over here a lot of times about
pictures of abuse. Those are being put forward by special interest
groups that want to destroy this concept of multiple use.
But after ranching and farming, they are going to go after the ski
areas. No more expansion of ski areas. Restrict the ski areas. Downsize
the ski areas. Then what is next? Then you have got your mountain
biking and you have got your river rafting. Then you have got your
ability to store or transfer across Federal lands the water that we
need. It goes on and on and on.
So I am thrilled tonight to have the opportunity to work with my
colleague the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). I am going to turn the
podium over to Mr. Hansen so we can carry out for you this evening a
little further explanation of why we need your help, not your
resistance, we need your help, your help in going out there to preserve
this concept of multiple use, so that we in the West can protect our
water, so that we in the West can enjoy our recreation, so that we in
the West can have the kind of environment that you all dream of, that
you come out and vacation in.
That is our goal tonight, is to communicate with you the differences,
geographically, the differences with our water, the differences in the
descriptions of wilderness and so on, so you are not snookered, quite
frankly, by some of the national special interest groups that want to
convince you that the West is being trashed by the people of the West,
and that the only thing that is going to save the West is for the
special interest groups of the East to go in and tell the people of the
West what is best for them.
So, with that, let me thank my colleague Mr. Hansen for joining me
today. I appreciate very much this, and I would yield to the gentleman
from the State of Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman from Colorado. I think
he has done a magnificent job in explaining how the lands of America
were settled and who has control of them. If you are a history buff,
and I hope you are, you will find out a lot of people when they first
came to this country, it was on the eastern seaboard, and they
controlled that ground. A lot of it at that time probably belonged to
just anybody who wanted to go out and stake a claim for it. There were
no restrictions on it.
Then as we went through the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, things
such as that, that ground was pretty well filled out. I enjoy this
eastern part of the country. I have been here for 10 terms. I love
going out to the different areas and looking at it. But I do not see
much ground that is public ground. Maybe a park here and a park there,
but the vast, vast majority is owned by individuals.

{time} 1915

Different than the West, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis)
pointed out, most of it you can use it for something, you can plow it,
you can grow things on it, you can put cattle on it, you can own that
ground.
Now, when our early pioneers went out to the West, they have got
these huge Rocky Mountains. They have got all these various areas that
extend from Canada to Mexico. So you are really not going to use a lot
of that ground.
So after a while, about 100, almost 200 years ago, 100 something
years ago, they started the Forest Service. The Forest Service was put
there to take care of our beautiful green forests. They were told to
manage the forests.
As we go back to talking about how the Forest Service started, their
instructions was to manage the force for its many, many uses. A lot of
it was timber in those days. Most of the folks, they lived in the
valleys, and they farmed, they ranched in other areas.
That resolves this piece between what was private, what was forced,
and what is that in between. So later on, the government decided what
do we call that ground in between? The Bureau of Land Management
handles that area. That is the area between Forest Service and the
private people who own their ground.
Now, the gentleman from Colorado talked about multiple use.
Basically, what is multiple use? It is the sign that he put up there,
land of many uses. All of us who were raised in the West, we have seen
that all over the West. He talked about some of the uses, the idea that
you can go in there and you can do a certain amount of cutting.
Now, why is it that the Forest Service is under agriculture and BLM,
Park Service, Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife is under Interior. It was
put that way, if we go back and look at the history of how Congress
does things, because it is a resource like corn or wheat. It grows and
is taken out.
I get letters all the time, Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands that say, ``Let us
leave that forest just as we found it. I flew over it in a 757, I
looked down there, and there is this beautiful green carpet, and I want
it left just that way.'' Well, then, take a picture of it with your
camera, because it is not going to stay that way because things change
on a regular basis.
We had the whole part of the Uinta Mountains, the big east-west part,
and the only east-west mountain range in America, and a whole group of
environmentalists call up and say do not touch it. Leave it alone.
So we had a hearing on it a few years back. We brought in all these
people from land grant colleges and asked them to respond to it. These
people said, ``We do not want you in there clearing out the pine
beetle, because that is nature's way.''
Well, this man got up, and he said, ``Well, I will just tell you what
will happen.'' He said, ``If we go in and we do not kill out that pine
beetle, it will not be too long. Instead of that beautiful green carpet
that you want us to keep that way, it will be a whole bunch of dead
sticks, because they will kill that entire forest. But we could go in,
we could spray for them, we could cut out that area of high
infestation, and the healthy trees would make it.'' They said, ``No,
leave it alone.''
The next gentleman got up from Utah State University. He testified
and said, ``Let me explain to you what will happen.'' He said, ``I do
not have a dog in this fight.'' He said, ``Let me tell you what is
going to happen. What will happen is the whole entire north slope of
Uinta Mountains will be dead and anywhere else in the West if we do not
take care of that.'' He said, ``Then I will tell you what will happen.
You have got a 100 percent chance that you will have a fire.'' In other
words, it is guaranteed.
I may just deviate a minute and say that, because we have not managed
the forest for a long time, we have the highest fuel load we have in my
lifetime all through the West; and people wonder why we have forest
fires all over the place.

[[Page 27130]]

Anyway, after the fire, the next man said, ``And I will tell you what
will happen after the fire. I will give you 100 percent guarantee that
you have one of these flash floods that occurs in August, September,
these big summer cumulus nimbus referred to as thuderheads, and they
will pour water over that, and you will have a flood. And that topsoil
that has taken 100 years to build up will go down to the valleys, and
you will have a desolate area for all that time, because we are not
managing the forest for multiple use.''
Now, I thought about that for a long time. Then I found out down in
the Dixie Forest that is down around the southern part of Utah, a
beautiful area. I talked to some of the people there who had
photographs when the early pioneers went in there, the first ones they
called tin or some type of photograph. There was not a tree on those
grounds because there was not anything there. It was just rolling
sagebrush. They went in there and started planting trees. Out of that,
they came up with the beautiful Dixie Forest, reputed to be one of the
prettiest forests around.
About 1993, Hugh Thompson, the forest supervisor down there, he said,
``We have got an infestation of pine beetles up there by Brian Head.''
That is a big ski resort. So he went in there and said, ``I could cut
out 17,000 acres, harvest those trees; that timber could be used for
lumber.'' But, no, one of the large environmental groups filed an
injunction against him.
So at that time, I do not know if my colleagues can see this, Mr.
Speaker, but here is this beautiful green forest. That is what we had
at that time. A year later, it looked like this, because he could not
beat down that injunction in time. But those little pine beetles, they
just kept munching around. Now see how this turns kind of red. Well,
then, a year after that, what do we have? We have an entire dead
forest, and that is what it looks like.
Now I am getting letters all over the place saying why did we not
take care of the forest. I would like to put up a sign that says this
dead forest brought to you by the courtesy of some of the high
environmental groups.
So the other day, we had a hearing. One of the large environmental
groups was there. I asked this lady, I said, ``Why is it that you will
not let us manage the forest?'' She said, ``Well, let nature do her
thing. Let nature do it.''
Well, I do not know about my colleagues, and I do not mean to spout
scripture here, but as I read the Old Testament, it said, when the Lord
created the Earth, on one thing he said, I will give you the ground to
till and take care of this ground, and you are supposed to take care of
it.
I often believe that America has done it right. We have managed and
taken care of the ground that is owned by each of us. It is owned by
us.
But we can go back to this thing and say, oh, no, let, mama nature
take care of it. How does she do it in fire, wind, earthquake, flood,
and what have we got? So why do we go in there and we build culverts?
Why do we go in there and we take care of it?
So I have to go back to this idea of why is it we call Forest Service
under agriculture, because it is a renewable resource. Have we in the
past cut too much of places? Absolutely we have. Have we overgrazed the
forest sometimes? No question about it. But that does not mean we
cannot learn from our mistakes. That does not mean we cannot take care
of the forests and use it for the benefit and joy of all America. That
is one of the things that kind of bothers me.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) talked about how we got
into some of the history, and the history was interesting as he gave
it. At one time back in the turn of the century, we had a President by
the name of Theodore Roosevelt, a great conservationist and a great
guy. He could see that some things were being mutilated that we should
preserve, so he asked Congress to pass an act in 1906 called the
Antiquity law, the first law I think that was ever there, Mr. Speaker,
to take care of people like historic and archeological and scientific
sites.
Out of the Antiquity law came a lot of monuments; and out of some of
those monuments came some of our better parks, Zion, Bryce, Grand
Canyon, a few others.
But now that law is pretty well gone. In fact, I really question in
my own heart of hearts if it is constitutional, because the
Constitution basically gives the right of public ground to Congress,
not to the President. But I do not think it has ever been challenged in
court.
Well, since that time, we have had the 1915 Organic Act, called the
Park bill where all of our beautiful parks, which we now have 377
parks, come under. Our monuments basically are handled under that which
we have 73 at this time.
In 1964 came the Wilderness Act. In 1969 came the NEPA Act. In 1976
came the Federal Land Policy Management Act. The list goes on and on,
the Wild Rivers Act, the Horse and Burro Act, the Mormon Trail Act.
Boy, you name it, there is a dozen of them on there. So we have got
plenty of legislation that takes care of our area.
Now we find ourselves in an idea of the interpretation of these that
the gentleman from Colorado was referring to by some of our friends on
the extreme environmental side.
It is interesting, I have been in this place now 10 terms, and I have
talked to a lot of groups from all kinds. I like to go to a group and
ask the question, ``Can you give me the definition of wilderness under
the 1964 Wilderness Act?'' It is rare that anybody can ever do it.
They all talk about, well, hey, I love that area, and I want to take
care of it, and I want to leave it just as it is, and do not touch it
and all that kind of stuff. But it is untrammeled by man as if man was
never there, no sign of man.
Now, go over and listen to what Hubert Humphrey said, who carried
most of it in the Senate side. He said, ``The most you will ever see,
and I am stretching it to this, will be 30 million acres.'' We have
gone through 100 million acres and climbing. We had 100 million acres
right in Alaska. We have got ground like you cannot believe.
Do my colleagues know what, Mr. Speaker, the vast, vast, vast
majority of Americans do not know what that means. Let us throw out the
term. Let us call up somebody tonight and say, ``Mr. Posnowski, do you
want more or less wilderness in America?'' What will he say? He will
say, I want more, because wilderness is a romantic word. Look what it
conjures up in one's mind, these beautiful green forests, the smell of
how it is in the forest, and the Aspen trees, and the clear water, and
the fresh air.
Yet, on the other hand, if we said, ``Mr. Posnowski, do you want more
or less restricted area?'' What would he say? He would say, ``Heaven's
no. I want the right to use this.''
In 1980, I started working on a bill with Jake Garn, who was then a
Senator, and excuse me for referring to the other body, Mr. Speaker.
But in that particular area, we came up with one for Utah Forest
Service Wilderness. We put almost all of the Uinta Mountains in it. We
put almost a million acres in it.
We had a dedication ceremony up at those beautiful Uinta Mountains,
with the Forest Service, with the governor of the State, with the
environmental groups and others. Then we came back, and nobody liked
the bill, so it must have been a good bill. The environmentalists said
we did not go far away. The developers said we went way too far.
Anyway, take it as one may.
Our phone started ringing off the hook. The main thing we heard from
people went this way, they said, ``Boy, I am sure glad you and Jake did
that, because now we can take our four-wheelers, and get up in that
wilderness area and enjoy ourselves.''
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, what a lot of people do not know is the
definition of the 1964 Wilderness Act, ``untrammeled by man as if man
was never there. No sign of man.'' Now look at the dictum that fell out
of this thing, no sign of man. That means no structures. That means no
fences. That means no pop cans, nothing. One as in the first guy God
put on earth, and there it is, there is no sign that man

[[Page 27131]]

had ever been there. So our people have a misinterpretation.
So our good friends from the East, they get these solicitations in
the mail, and they say things like this, they say ``You will help
protect that land out in Colorado or Utah or Idaho or wherever it may
be. You send us $10, $20, $30, and boy, we are going to help it out
that these crazy nuts do not go in there and desecrate this ground.''
So they send them the money, yet, they really do not understand what
they are doing in that instance because, in effect, we are hurting the
ground by not managing it and using it for multiple use.
So, if I may point out, we see a lot of people, and if I may be a tad
critical of this administration, they have in my mind desecrated the
1906 Antiquity law, and they did it on September 16, 1996 in southern
Utah, and they put 1.7 million acres into a national monument called
the Grand Staircase Escalante. But they failed to follow the law. The
President did not even say in his petition what it was for.
Then on top of that, he put 1.7 million acres in, and the law says
one will State what it is. Is it a historic or archeological site. The
next sentence says, ``and he shall use the smallest of amount of
acreage to protect that site.''
He did not say what it was, and he gives us 1.7 million acres. This
is an end run. This is a sneaky way to take away from Congress their
right to take care of the ground as the Constitution gives it to them.
Now, I hope people who are listening at this time, Mr. Speaker,
realize what is a monument. It has got to be an archeological or it has
got to be a historic site.
Where the two trains came together when, that obviously is a historic
site. Go down to Glen Canyon recreation area and look at that beautiful
arch we call Rainbow Bridge. Obviously that is an archeological site.
So I start looking around at all of these proposals on monuments, and
I do not see anything that fits it other than here is a sneaky way to
grab up as much ground as we can.
Now, a couple weeks ago, what did we get? We got something that said
the President by executive order is saying we are going to put 40
million acres of ground, Forest Service ground, mind you, into a
roadless area.
So they sent me up this thing, and I got a call from them. It says,
here is all the usage one can do. They ask a question, and they give an
answer. However, they do not define it. The last one I found very
interesting. ``What does this rule do to access? Aren't you shutting
out the American people of their own forest?'' They say no.
The next one, ``How many roads will be closed as a result of this
proposal?'' They say none, none whatsoever.
So I asked one of the Secretaries down there, ``What is a road? Would
you folks mind defining a road?'' Because they have closed roads all
over. I will stipulate that two tracks put down by a deer hunter is not
a road. On the other side of the coin, it cannot be an interstate, so
to speak.
So my colleagues are going to see out of this, if I may respectfully
say so, places where the American public has been going up into the
mountains of Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, holding reunions, fishing,
hunting, camping, bird watching, enjoying themselves, just getting out,
just getting away from everybody, and standing there and looking over
this vast panorama and loving every minute of it. Those folks are going
to be without.
What are they going to find, and they have found it under this
administration for the last, since 1992, there will be a great big sign
there that says ``this road closed.''

{time} 1930

I have fished and hunted and camped all over the West. And I was
talking to the Forest Service today, because there is a road out in
Wyoming that I have been on since I was 10 years old. The other day I
was up there with my boys, doing some trout fishing on that stream, and
I came to that road and it said, ``Road closed by order of the Forest
Service.'' Why? So I called the forester up there and asked him about
it, and I am still waiting for a good response as to why he is closing
a road that has been used by sheepmen, by timber people, by elk
hunters, and by fishermen. A beautiful road, maintained very well,
closed. For no reason at all except some folks want us off that ground.
Now, I want to go back to my friend here from Colorado, but I would
like to say this. There sure seems to be a lot of folks, besides this
administration, that wants to, in effect, close up that ground, make it
a single purpose, and not many people to go there. This Uinta Mountains
I was talking about, I do not think there is a kid from the whole
Wasatch Front of Utah, when he was a Boy Scout, that did not go up to
the Uinta Mountains. We all did that with our scout master. And now
they are saying, oh no, we do not want you to do that. We do not want
any horses up there. Boy, that is a big country. We do not want any
horses, and we want groups of less than three. How do scout masters
take a scout group in that is composed of less than three?
They also do not want fishing up there. Some of the best fishing in
America. Trout fishing, fly fishing. Why can people not take their sons
and their neighbors and their uncles and aunts and go up there? They
also do not want any hunting. So, in other words, close it up. So there
are a lot of ways people are closing up the grounds that they should
not.
I say to my good friends from the East, which we have the greatest
respect for, you folks sit back here thinking of all those wonderful
things out west, and the chance of going there maybe once in your
lifetime, but we have to live there. We have to raise our families
there. We expect that our people can use this ground. And multiple use
has worked successfully for well over 100 years, and it can just bring
tears to your eyes thinking about changing an entire way of living that
is happening now because some people are not thinking.
They start putting money into these extreme groups who want to get
rid of all the things that the gentleman from Colorado is speaking
about. Take the motors off the rivers. Well, let us see someone run the
Grand Canyon without a 35 horsepower motor on the back. You will spend
2 weeks on it rather than 5 days. I remember a time when people came
and said, well, the roar of that motor will ruin our trip. Oh, give me
a break. You would have to have ears like a Doberman Pincer to even
hear that thing. You are going through those great big rapids. You can
hardly hear that little putt-putt on the back. But it holds you
straight and gets you through all right.
They want people not to land airplanes. As a pilot myself, I have put
down an airplane on back strips all of my life, and some in the
Speaker's area up there in the River of No Return, which is kind of
scary stuff. But, still, on the other hand, why take those out that we
cannot land in some of those areas and enjoy it? Why can we not take
some of these little ATVs in some areas? Why is it everything has to be
one way and there is no compromise?
It is very interesting that there is one organization called the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and I wish some of them were from
Utah. Most of them are from New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Hardly
anybody from Utah, but they want to tell us how we can run our ground.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, for letting my paranoia spill out a little
bit, but I am afraid I do get a little tired of that. With that, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and would like the opportunity
to speak again.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Utah
joining me.
One of the great people of our country that the gentleman talked
about was President Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. I will write it
again on my little chart over here what his philosophy was in regards
to the Federal lands. Now, remember, Theodore Roosevelt hunted in
Glenwood Springs, Colorado. If you have been to Glenwood Springs,
Colorado, it is a wonderful community, it is my home, it is where my
parents still live, and we have family there. We have a hotel called
the

[[Page 27132]]

Hotel Colorado. It used to be called the Western White House because
that is where Theodore Roosevelt used to hunt.
Theodore Roosevelt came out and he used the Federal lands, but he had
a philosophy about the lands, and his philosophy really is best
summarized with a very few short words. What President Roosevelt said,
and if my colleagues will look at my chart, in regards to these Federal
lands, first look at the left, again look at the quantity of Federal
lands in the western United States. And what President Roosevelt said
was, going to my white chart here, ``Use it, enjoy it, but don't abuse
it and don't destroy it.''
Why do my colleagues think that those lands look as good as they do?
Because, in my opinion, those of us who live out there, and a lot of us
live out there, my family has been there for generations, and my wife's
family has been there for generations, and we hope our families can
stay there for generations more, but one of the reasons we are there is
because it is so beautiful. But we have a right to make a living out
there, and we think that we have been able to maintain a balance that
is preserved, a lot of the beauty that you see.
For a lot of people, especially here in the East, who have never had
the good fortune to travel to the West into the mountains, into the
Rocky Mountain range, hear horror stories from some of the more radical
environmental groups and their image of what is going on out there is a
ski area every 2 miles, cabins being built every 50 feet, coal mines,
forests being clear-cut, highways everywhere. People would be amazed if
they came to the third district of Colorado, my district, that they
could fly, not drive but fly, for hours without seeing another human.
People going into those mountains know that we know how to take care
of those mountains. You can go into those mountains and walk 50 miles
in those mountains and not see one piece of trash. You cannot walk a
block from this capital here and not pick up a bagful of trash. We know
how to take care of those lands. It is a very precious resource for all
of us, for all of the people of the United States. But we have to
approach our guardianship of these lands in a very balanced fashion.
I have a couple of examples that I would like to go over with my
colleagues. One is the right way to approach this balance and the other
is the wrong way to approach this balance.
Let me start with the right way, the positive way, to approach it. We
just did it. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, my respected colleague
from the State of Colorado, the United States Senator, and I attended
an event last weekend, the dedication of the Black Canyon National
Park. National park. It was a national monument.
Senator Campbell's bill out of the Senate, my bill out of the House,
we made it a national monument. It was a great day. In fact, when I
went jogging that morning, at 4 in the morning in the Colorado
mountains, we had a full moon. And as I ran, looking at that moon, a
person cannot help but feel proud, number one, to be an American, but
also how lucky we are to live out there. And we feel a deep commitment
to preserve the area that we are in, but also to allow humans to enjoy
it.
At that dedication ceremony, by the way, I made the comment that the
beauty of the preservation of the Black Canyon National Park was that
we were able to work in a very cooperative fashion with the local
people, with the State people and the Federal people. And what we
preserved is not just the national park itself, but we preserved the
right for people to go up to the national park and enjoy it. That is
very important. Very important.
Now, how did the Black Canyon National Park, from a monument, come
about? It was not driven by Washington, D.C. In fact, it was not driven
by an elected or a political official at all. It was driven by the
local community. At the local level, people got together, in Montrose,
in Gunnison, Colorado, in Delta, Colorado, in Ouray, and they got
support from the media, like the Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction,
Colorado, the Montrose Daily Press, my good friend George R. Bannock,
other people like that in the press, helped support this concept of let
us work our conflict out at the local level. So we did not jam it down
from Washington, D.C. this thing came from the ground up.
And what is the Black Canyon National Park; what is the beauty of
this park? It preserves multiple use. It has many uses of the park.
Now, I am sure that there are many national environmental groups,
probably Earth First, for example, that would have one use for that
park and that would be an anti-human use. Get the people off it. Get
the recreation off it. If you are not an able-bodied hiker, which, in
general, is younger than I am, you are not going to come up here. That
is the radical viewpoint over here.
The radical viewpoint on this side of the spectrum there are the
people that say, well, we ought to be able to go up there and timber
wherever we want to timber, hunt wherever we want to hunt, mountain
bike wherever we want to mountain bike, graze wherever. No. No. The
local people sat down and said somewhere in between a position like the
National Earth First and just complete freedom to do whatever you want,
which of course leads to abuse and destruction in those forests,
somewhere in between we have a way to resolve this conflict. And what
they did was they resolved it. They resolved it. They preserved
multiple use. They preserved certain areas in that park as wilderness.
In the new national park designations we have wilderness designation.
They preserved the right for people to go down the river in a raft.
They preserved the right for some grazing on the national park. They
preserved the right for a paved road. We have a paved road right up to
the visitor's center where an individual can stand on the edge of
cliffs that drop 2,000 feet. Two thousand feet. And when the sun is at
the right angle, and you have a pair of binoculars, the water is so
clean you can see fish. If you have the binoculars, you can see the
fish in the stream.
We preserved the right for people to go up and enjoy that and we did
it at the local level. And the local people then brought it to the
State people, who then brought it to the United States Congress. And
thanks to people like the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and my good colleagues Mr. Allard
and Mr. Campbell on the other side in the Senate we were able to move
that from a national monument to a national park.
That is the right way to do things. We did not have people in the
East bashing it on us in the West. We had people in the East
cooperating with us. The people in the East said to the people in the
West, you have lived on that land, you care about that land, you know
about that land, so maybe we ought to listen to you about that land.
Instead of coming up with Washington knows better. That is the right
way to do things. Come up with that balance. Preserve those water
rights.
And by the way, in the Black Canyon, that project would have been
dead in the water, no pun intended, dead in the water if they would
have gone after those Colorado water rights. Our water rights in the
West, it has been written in our State capital in Denver, life in the
West is water. That is what it is about. Water is life in the West.
But the local groups got together and they said, here is how we can
preserve those water rights. Now, let me tell my colleagues there is a
huge threat to the West on water rights. For example, as my dear
colleague knows, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), down at Lake
Powell, and many of my colleagues, I am sure, have enjoyed Lake Powell,
It is one of the most wonderful lakes in the world. It is wonderful for
recreation; wonderful for families. If you want to see a good family
activity, or taking kids off the street or taking the kids from
somewhere and bringing them down to this lake, they get on these house
boats and it provides recreation and family time.
It also provides a huge amount of power. It helps us prevent the
flooding, and provides us huge quantities of water storage. But the
National Sierra Club, their number one goal is take out

[[Page 27133]]

the dam, destroy the dam and get rid of Lake Powell. That organization
is out of Washington, D.C. That is what they want to do.
We did not buy that with the national park in Black Canyon. We did
not buy the philosophy of Earth First. In other words, getting rid of
multiple use. We bought the philosophy in Washington, D.C. of the
people in Gunnison, in Montrose, in Ouray, and Delta, out there in
Colorado, the people who had their hands in the soil every day. My
father-in-law, David Smith is a rancher, and his family has been on the
same ranch since 1882, 1883, somewhere in there, and he told me one
time that an environmentalist is somebody who has had their hands in
the dirt, who understands the earth.
Well, that is the right way to do things, to let the people at the
local level help us all come together in a common fashion to help
preserve multiple use, where we have protection for the environment
through wilderness or special areas; where we have national parks and
national monuments; but where we preserve the right to go biking on a
mountain bike, where we preserve the right to canoe on the river or
ride a river raft, which is a thrill. Anybody that has been on it with
their family, their kids will remember it. They probably have pictures
of them hanging on a raft in their bedrooms. Where we preserve the
right to ski. If you do not ski in the mountains, it is pretty tough to
ski anywhere else. We have not figured out how to make that sport work
without the mountains.
We need to preserve those rights, and the rights of ranchers, like my
father-in-law, and my father who is in the business of supporting the
ranchers, the right for them to be able to operate their farms and
ranches in those mountains.

{time} 1945

Now let me talk about the wrong way, and then I want to turn it over
to my colleague. The wrong way. I want my colleague, when he takes back
the podium here in a couple of minutes, I hope he talks to you about
the wrong way and what happened in Utah with the Staircase over there
in Utah. But let me talk about what is about to happen in the State of
Colorado.
Anasazi Ruins. The Anasazi is down in the Four Corners. The Four
Corners is the only place in the United States where four States come
together. I will point it out with my light here on my map. The Four
Corners is right here. You have four States that come together in one
spot. Really kind of exciting. They have got a little spot, by the way
human access, you can walk up to it and you can literally be standing
in four States at once.
Every young person that has done that has remembered it. Well, there
is a lot of land around this. We preserve, of course, the monument. We
have a national park down there in the Four Corners. But over in this
area right here, the Secretary of the Interior, who spends most of his
time in Washington, D.C., who consults very little, in my opinion, with
those of us in the West, made recent trips down there. And he said, I
want to take this land and put it under some kind of executive order, I
want to put this land aside and put it as a monument. This is hundreds
of thousands of acres.
So now you have a perception what we are talking about. Think of the
acreage that you own with your home. Colleagues, your house is probably
on a half an acre. If you are very lucky, it is on an acre. But more
likely, you are on a quarter of an acre or less.
Well, the Secretary of Interior has talked about coming down into
this Four Corners area and taking hundreds of thousands of acres for a
monument. Do you know what kind of response he got at the local level?
Wait a minute, Mr. Secretary. Listen to us. What about the water
rights, Mr. Secretary? What about the access? What about the needs? We
do have to have power lines that come through there. What about our
ability to go up and hunt or camp or fish? What about our ability for
our cattle to graze? What about the local opinion on how best to
protect our environment, how to keep our waters clean as our water is
today? What about that, Mr. Secretary?
Do you know what the answer is from Washington? They show up and they
pretend like they are listening. But as far as they are concerned, the
decision has been made.
Now, that is a pretty strong statement. Where does the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) come to the conclusion that Bruce Babbitt in
Washington, D.C., who has come down to the Four Corners maybe twice or
three times, probably no more than that, in his lifetime, who wants to
take several hundred thousand acres of land and put it in a monument,
how does he know that Bruce Babbitt is going to go about doing this
regardless of what the local opinion is?
I will tell you what happened to me and the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen) last week. I had a constituent of mine come in, and she had
been down to a big luncheon for the Heritage, protection of Heritage
buildings and historical areas. It was here in Washington about a week
ago. Bruce Babbitt was the guest speaker. This is exactly what Bruce
Babbitt said. And I will summarize. This is exactly what went on. He
said, and this is as reported to me, he said, down in the Four Corners
of Colorado there is some beautiful land that we ought to put in a
monument.
Now, the local people do not buy into this. And the State delegation
of elected officials, they do not agree with me. And the Congressional
delegation does not agree with me that we should do this. But I, Bruce
Babbitt, I am going to do it. I am going to do it irrespective of what
the local people say.
The Federal Government, the people in the East, Washington, D.C.,
comes into our State and says, regardless of local input, I am going to
do it.
Do you know what that lady said to me? It is interesting. She said to
me, I was sitting in there wondering, wow, is this the country of which
Constitution I studied in high school? Is this what the Constitution
says? Are you guys really representatives of the people or are you
little dictators out there that are just going to decide we will take
this land, we will take that land. You know, it does not affect us.
If they go down there, frankly, Mr. Speaker, most of our colleagues
in this room will not even blink an eye. If they take 200,000 acres in
the Four Corners of Colorado, they will not even blink an eye. They
probably will not know what happened.
But what about those families? Oh, there are not a lot of them. In
the East you have these big cities. And we have some in the West, but
not like you do in the population in the East. It does not affect a lot
of people. But do you know what? Those people deserve to have the
opportunity to live and dream and enjoy the heritage they have in those
mountains and in those special places in the West as much as you do
here in the East.
And even if it is just a thousand families, even if it is 100
families, even if it is just 50 families, do the people in the East
have a right to come out and dictate the policies of the West without
at least local input?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen) coming down here. I hope that we are able to continue to kind
of have a series of discussions into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me point out, if I may, my colleague mentioned a lot between the
East and the West. Still, if I may say so, it is really kind of a
disaster and a sad time that the East does not have more public ground.
You know, they really should have.
We tried to get a bill through a couple years ago that was called the
Eastern Wilderness Bill. Basically what it would do, it would say to
the big States in the East, why do you not find some ground out there?
You maybe have to buy it. You maybe have to condemn it, or whatever,
but find some ground. Because people here, they do not have that. They
do not even know what it is like.
As my colleague pointed out earlier, everything is private ground.
And so,

[[Page 27134]]

in a way, they kind of tell the rest of us how to manage our ground
even though some have never even been to our areas. They, of course,
have that representation here, and many of them do it because they
become part of some of these groups that I would characterize as rather
radical.
Where do these groups come from? As a college student many years ago
at the University of Utah, I was struggling along selling suits for a
guy down at ZCMI, a big store, and trying to make ends meet and married
with two little kids and my wife was teaching school; and I used to
send $5 or so to the Sierra Club because I believed in what they were
doing. They were doing things like trying to keep things clean and
fresh and that type of thing. And I think the genesis was pure.
I have seen a lot of these change now. I have seen now they have
become big industries. I think it is typical of my many years on the
Committee on the Interior, 20 years now, or will be at the end of this
term, where we see these people, regardless of what we come up with,
they keep moving the goal post on us.
We talk about this thing of wilderness and some people say, take the
State of Utah, for example, we want three million acres. We will not
settle for any less than that. Then that three million acres then went
to 5.7 million acres. And now it is up to 9.1. And at the hearing we
had last week, some people want 14 million acres.
To come right down to it, if I may be brutally candid here, these
people in these industries have started an industry. So they get that.
Do they extinguish? Do they go away? Heavens no. They stay here
forever. And why is that? They started out with nothing. They just had
some people who believed in their heart of hearts they were doing
right. And now, as time went on, they have lawyers, they have
accountants, they have millions of dollars. They take out full-page ads
in New York papers and the Washington Post, it costs them $50,000 a
whack, to try to influence people on this floor to influence people out
West.
What is it to a lot of our colleagues, anyway? It is a throw-away
vote. What do they care? It does not mean anything out there in Idaho
or Colorado or Utah or Arizona. Big deal. So they put a lot of money in
these people on their campaigns and then they call them up.
I remember years ago, my 14 years on the Committee on Ethics, I had
some good friend from the other side of the aisle call me up and say,
Jim, why is this organization giving me five grand? I said, well, think
about it. And about 2 or 3 weeks later they said, it kind of dawned on
me a little bit because you got a bill about your State in Utah and
they want my vote. So these people know how to play the game but they
do not go away. It is kind of like the downwinders in Utah.
When I was first here in 1980, we got in the situation of how to
deploy the MX missile. President Carter came up with an idea of putting
it in Utah and Nevada and running in between them. Well, it did not
work. It was not a good idea.
I carried the amendment to kill it, in fact, back in those days. The
downwinders were totally dedicated to taking the MX out of Utah. The MX
is a good missile, but that was not the way to deploy it.
At the end of that, did they go away? Did they extinguish? No. They
ran up and said, well, there is an electronic battlefield going up
here. Let us see if we can kill that now.
Well, after that finally died because Dick Chaney said he could not
afford it, did they go away? No. It kept getting bigger. And then they
got an area we are trying to get rid of 43 percent of the obsolete
chemical weapons. And now we look at the Sierra Club. Did they go away?
Did SUA go away? Did Earth First go away? Did the Audubon Society? Did
the Wilderness Society? No.
Well, I am not saying they are not meritorious in some areas. They
probably are. But in many areas they have established an industry and
they would not settle these things if we wanted to.
I guess nobody in this House is more sensitive to it than me. Because
I have been on the Committee of Public Lands, Forests, and Parks for my
entire time and I have worked with these folks and they do not want to
settle because the industry would end.
Frankly, it disturbs me because we do not have that honest, pure
intent of let us get the job done that we should have done.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) talked about the Sierra
Club going to crack the dam, which is Lake Powell. I do not know if a
lot of people here listening understand about Lake Powell, but most of
them should. It is one of the biggest reservoirs in the United States.
It is 186 miles long. It has more shoreline than the entire West Coast.
And people love the area.
The gentleman adequately pointed out the idea that the whole
southwest part of America lives because of water. If we did not have
the Fontinell and Flaming Gorge, and Lake Mead, and Glen Canyon and
Parker and Davis, close up L.A., close up Phoenix and we are done. And
hundreds of kilowatt hours, or thousands, millions of kilowatt hours go
out of those dams. In fact, on Lake Powell it would take seven coal-
fire dams to replace what we would lose from hydropower. And everybody
knows that hydropower is the best we have got.
Some of these people do not seem to care. Let a river run through it.
Go back to these movie actors that have all these romantic ideas and no
knowledge and they do things by a burning in the bosom rather than by
science.
It comes down to the idea we need those dams. The gentleman
adequately pointed out, one of the greatest vacations anybody could
have is to go down to one of these dams. Get a houseboat. Take your ski
boat along. The kids will never forget it. When you come down to the
choice should you remodel the bathroom or should you take a trip to
Lake Powell, take Lake Powell. The kids will remember that much more
than they will ever remember remodeling the bathroom.
Well, the one thing, if I may end on this, Mr. Speaker, is I see all
these things, those money-raising schemes going out. Protect this land
before it is developed. One of the stupidest ones I have ever seen in
my life was put out by a movie actor in Provo, Utah, which had all of
those beautiful red monoliths of southern Utah and it had superimposed
on it condominiums.
Has not anyone heard of the FLPMA Act? Does not anyone understand
that BLM, Forest Service, Park Service has management plans? Do they
think they let people go out and do that?
What developer would be dumb enough to go out in the middle of some
God forsaken, in the minds of some folks, beautiful to a lot of us, and
say let us put a condominium on the top of it? That is ridiculous. Have
they ever heard of planning commissions? Have they ever heard of rules
and laws made by States and counties and cities? Apparently they have
not.
What do they sell to some of our good folks back East? They send them
back there and they get that and they get this beautiful calendar. In
fact, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance put out one of the
prettiest calendars I have ever seen in my life, and it was all about
this Utah BLM bill is how they said it, how they had to protect this
ground.
Well, of the 12 months out the year, there was only one, only one,
that was Utah BLM ground. As I recall, one was Forest Service and the
rest were parks, only one in the area. But, boy, that is nice if you
are a dentist out there in New York, as one of my pen-pals is, who
criticizes me about once a month. He has that hanging in there and as
he leans over there grinding teeth all day, or whatever you do, Mr.
Speaker, I know you would know more about that than I would, he can
envision the day he can go out and visit that beautiful country and
just enjoy it with his family.
We have a coal fire plant out there. And this one fellow said to me
one time, when I come to Utah, I do not want to see that smoke stack.
Well, that smoke stack is in a pretty remote area called Linden, Utah,
right out on the west desert. I doubt if he would see it. We have put
millions of dollars in putting scrubbers on it so it will not put any
pollutants in the air. In fact, it is so clean that we have that local

[[Page 27135]]

Grand Staircase, but I will not go into that. They had to throw sulphur
into it even to check the thing out, which is amazing. But he did not
want to see that thing. But out of that, millions and millions of
people have power. And that is kind of necessary too.
So, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) points out, there is
a moderation in there. It is not this side or that side. Somewhere we
can say there is moderation in all things. I do not know who came up
with the term, it ought to be scriptural because that is what makes
sense; and thinking people, people who can sit down and be reasonable
and think things out, can find that middle ground. We do not always
have to take these polarized, extreme positions.
I say to our many, many, many friends from the East who spend
millions of dollars on these organizations, think about it a little
bit. The rest of us have some rights, too. We just want to get along
with our Eastern friends.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to clause 12 of rule
I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the
Chair.
Accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 2037

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) at 8 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3064, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2000

Mr. ISTOOK submitted the following conference report and statement on
the bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in
part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes:

Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-419)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3064) ``making appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole
or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes'',
having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said
amendment, insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia, and for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes,
namely:

DIVISION A

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

For programs, projects, or activities in the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, provided as follows, to be
effective as if it had been enacted into law as the regular
appropriations Act:
An Act Making appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole
or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS

FEDERAL FUNDS

Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a
program to be administered by the Mayor for District of
Columbia resident tuition support, subject to the enactment
of authorizing legislation for such program by Congress,
$17,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds may be used on behalf of eligible District of
Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon the difference
between in-State and out-of-State tuition at public
institutions of higher education, usable at both public and
private institutions of higher education: Provided further,
That the awarding of such funds may be prioritized on the
basis of a resident's academic merit and such other factors
as may be authorized: Provided further, That if the
authorized program is a nationwide program, the Mayor may
expend up to $17,000,000: Provided further, That if the
authorized program is for a limited number of States, the
Mayor may expend up to $11,000,000: Provided further, That
the District of Columbia may expend funds other than the
funds provided under this heading, including local tax
revenues and contributions, to support such program.

Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create
incentives to promote the adoption of children in the
District of Columbia foster care system, $5,000,000:
Provided, That such funds shall remain available until
September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a
program established by the Mayor and the Council of the
District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate: Provided further, That funds provided under this
heading may be used to cover the costs to the District of
Columbia of providing tax credits to offset the costs
incurred by individuals in adopting children in the District
of Columbia foster care system and in providing for the
health care needs of such children, in accordance with
legislation enacted by the District of Columbia government.

Federal Payment to the Citizen Complaint Review Board

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for
administrative expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review
Board, $500,000, to remain available until September 30,
2001.

Federal Payment to the Department of Human Services

For a Federal payment to the Department of Human Services
for a mentoring program and for hotline services, $250,000.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations

For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee, $176,000,000 for the administration and
operation of correctional facilities and for the
administrative operating costs of the Office of the
Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712):
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated in this Act for the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee shall be apportioned quarterly by the
Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in
the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and
expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided further, That in
addition to the funds provided under this heading, the
District of Columbia Corrections Trustee may use a portion of
the interest earned on the Federal payment made to the
Trustee under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
1998, (not to exceed $4,600,000) to carry out the activities
funded under this heading.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia
Courts, $99,714,000 to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,209,000; for the
District of Columbia Superior Court, $68,351,000; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $16,154,000; and
$8,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001, for
capital improvements for District of Columbia courthouse
facilities: Provided, That of the amounts available for
operations of the District of Columbia Courts, not to exceed
$2,500,000 shall be for the design of an Integrated Justice
Information System and that such funds shall be used in
accordance with a plan and design developed by the courts and
approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under
this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of
Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same
manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of
other Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services
to be provided on a contractual basis with the General
Services Administration (GSA), said services to include the
preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which
shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives.

Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts

For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for
counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter
23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel
authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to
representation provided under the District of Columbia
Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of
Attorney Act of 1986), $33,336,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the funds provided in this Act under
the heading ``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia
Courts'' (other than the $8,000,000 provided under such
heading for capital improvements for District of Columbia
courthouse facilities) may also be used for payments under
this heading: Provided further, That in

[[Page 27136]]

addition to the funds provided under this heading, the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
Columbia may use a portion (not to exceed $1,200,000) of the
interest earned on the Federal payment made to the District
of Columbia courts under the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 1999, together with funds provided in
this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment to the District
of Columbia Courts'' (other than the $8,000,000 provided
under such heading for capital improvements for District of
Columbia courthouse facilities), to make payments described
under this heading for obligations incurred during fiscal
year 1999 if the Comptroller General certifies that the
amount of obligations lawfully incurred for such payments
during fiscal year 1999 exceeds the obligational authority
otherwise available for making such payments: Provided
further, That such funds shall be administered by the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
Columbia: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, this appropriation shall be apportioned
quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget and
obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for expenses of other Federal agencies, with
payroll and financial services to be provided on a
contractual basis with the General Services Administration
(GSA), said services to include the preparation of monthly
financial reports, copies of which shall be submitted
directly by GSA to the President and to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives,
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia

For salaries and expenses of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as
authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, (Public Law 105-33; 111
Stat. 712), $93,800,000, of which $58,600,000 shall be for
necessary expenses of Parole Revocation, Adult Probation,
Offender Supervision, and Sex Offender Registration, to
include expenses relating to supervision of adults subject to
protection orders or provision of services for or related to
such persons; $17,400,000 shall be available to the Public
Defender Service; and $17,800,000 shall be available to the
Pretrial Services Agency: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, all amounts under this heading shall
be apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and
Budget and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal
agencies: Provided further, That of the amounts made
available under this heading, $20,492,000 shall be used in
support of universal drug screening and testing for those
individuals on pretrial, probation, or parole supervision
with continued testing, intermediate sanctions, and treatment
for those identified in need, of which $7,000,000 shall be
for treatment services.

Children's National Medical Center

For a Federal contribution to the Children's National
Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $2,500,000 for
construction, renovation, and information technology
infrastructure costs associated with establishing community
pediatric health clinics for high risk children in medically
underserved areas of the District of Columbia.

Federal Payment for Metropolitan Police Department

For payment to the Metropolitan Police Department,
$1,000,000, for a program to eliminate open air drug
trafficking in the District of Columbia: Provided, That the
Chief of Police shall provide quarterly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives by the 15th calendar day after the end of
each quarter beginning December 31, 1999, on the status of
the project financed under this heading.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Division of Expenses

The following amounts are appropriated for the District of
Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund
of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically
provided.

Governmental Direction and Support

Governmental direction and support, $162,356,000 (including
$137,134,000 from local funds, $11,670,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,552,000 from other funds): Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the
City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That any program
fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available
for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of
the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues
from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations
or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood
Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission
to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues:
Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to
work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds
allocated to the Office of the Mayor: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law now or hereafter
enacted, no Member of the District of Columbia Council
eligible to earn a part-time salary of $92,520, exclusive of
the Council Chairman, shall be paid a salary of more than
$84,635 during fiscal year 2000.

Economic Development and Regulation

Economic development and regulation, $190,335,000
(including $52,911,000 from local funds, $84,751,000 from
Federal funds, and $52,673,000 from other funds), of which
$15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form
of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs
pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
(D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the
Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of
1997 (D.C. Law 12-23): Provided, That such funds are
available for acquiring services provided by the General
Services Administration: Provided further, That Business
Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by
the District of Columbia.

Public Safety and Justice

Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of
135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only,
including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, $778,770,000 (including $565,511,000
from local funds, $29,012,000 from Federal funds, and
$184,247,000 from other funds): Provided, That the
Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not
to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department
of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of
Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five
passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of
repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the
cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the
Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime:
Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
on efforts to increase efficiency and improve the
professionalism in the department: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order
86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police
Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be
$500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department
to submit to any other procurement review process, or to
obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any
official or employee of the District of Columbia government,
for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further,
That the Mayor shall reimburse the District of Columbia
National Guard for expenses incurred in connection with
services that are performed in emergencies by the National
Guard in a militia status and are requested by the Mayor, in
amounts that shall be jointly determined and certified as due
and payable for these services by the Mayor and the
Commanding General of the District of Columbia National
Guard: Provided further, That such sums as may be necessary
for reimbursement to the District of Columbia National Guard
under the preceding proviso shall be available from this
appropriation, and the availability of the sums shall be
deemed as constituting payment in advance for emergency
services involved: Provided further, That the Metropolitan
Police Department is authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn
officers, with leave for a 50 officer attrition: Provided
further, That no more than 15 members of the Metropolitan
Police Department shall be detailed or assigned to the
Executive Protection Unit, until the Chief of Police submits
a recommendation to the Council for its review: Provided
further, That $100,000 shall be available for inmates
released on medical and geriatric parole: Provided further,
That commencing on December 31, 1999, the Metropolitan Police
Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, quarterly
reports on the status of crime reduction in each of the 83
police service areas established throughout the District of
Columbia: Provided further, That up to $700,000 in local
funds shall be available for the operations of the Citizen
Complaint Review Board.

Public Education System

Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $867,411,000 (including
$721,847,000 from local funds, $120,951,000 from Federal
funds, and $24,613,000 from other funds), to be allocated as
follows: $713,197,000 (including $600,936,000 from local
funds, $106,213,000 from Federal funds, and $6,048,000 from
other funds), for the public schools of the District of
Columbia; $10,700,000 from local funds for the District of
Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $17,000,000 from local
funds, previously appropriated in this Act as a Federal
payment, for resident tuition support at public and private
institutions of higher learning for eligible District of
Columbia residents; $27,885,000 from local funds for public
charter schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this
allocation has not been provided as payments to any public
charter schools currently in operation through the per pupil
funding formula, the funds shall be available for new public
charter schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That
$480,000 of this amount shall be available to the District of
Columbia Public

[[Page 27137]]

Charter School Board for administrative costs; $72,347,000
(including $40,491,000 from local funds, $13,536,000 from
Federal funds, and $18,320,000 from other funds) for the
University of the District of Columbia; $24,171,000
(including $23,128,000 from local funds, $798,000 from
Federal funds, and $245,000 from other funds) for the Public
Library; $2,111,000 (including $1,707,000 from local funds
and $404,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on the
Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public
schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept
not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the
driver education program: Provided further, That not to
exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for
the President of the University of the District of Columbia,
and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from
this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further,
That none of the funds contained in this Act may be made
available to pay the salaries of any District of Columbia
Public School teacher, principal, administrator, official, or
employee who knowingly provides false enrollment or
attendance information under article II, section 5 of the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for compulsory school
attendance, for the taking of a school census in the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes'', approved February 4,
1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-401 et seq.): Provided further, That
this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the
education of any nonresident of the District of Columbia at
any District of Columbia public elementary and secondary
school during fiscal year 2000 unless the nonresident pays
tuition to the District of Columbia at a rate that covers 100
percent of the costs incurred by the District of Columbia
which are attributable to the education of the nonresident
(as established by the Superintendent of the District of
Columbia Public Schools): Provided further, That this
appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the
education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the
University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of
Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia
adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, a
tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate
for nonresident students at a level no lower than the
nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public
institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area:
Provided further, That the District of Columbia Public
Schools shall not spend less than $365,500,000 on local
schools through the Weighted Student Formula in fiscal year
2000: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Chief Financial Officer of the District
of Columbia shall apportion from the budget of the District
of Columbia Public Schools a sum totaling 5 percent of the
total budget to be set aside until the current student count
for Public and Charter schools has been completed, and that
this amount shall be apportioned between the Public and
Charter schools based on their respective student population
count: Provided further, That the District of Columbia Public
Schools may spend $500,000 to engage in a Schools Without
Violence program based on a model developed by the University
of North Carolina, located in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Human Support Services

Human support services, $1,526,361,000 (including
$635,373,000 from local funds, $875,814,000 from Federal
funds, and $15,174,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$25,150,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia
employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a
peer review committee shall be established to review medical
payments and the type of service received by a disability
compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall not provide free government services such as
water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities,
maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally
constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in
section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371),
providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the
District would not be qualified to receive reimbursement
pursuant to such Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42
U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).

Public Works

Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying
vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying
vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia
and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $271,395,000
(including $258,341,000 from local funds, $3,099,000 from
Federal funds, and $9,955,000 from other funds): Provided,
That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting
ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of
business.

Receivership Programs

For all agencies of the District of Columbia government
under court ordered receivership, $342,077,000 (including
$217,606,000 from local funds, $106,111,000 from Federal
funds, and $18,360,000 from other funds).

Workforce Investments

For workforce investments, $8,500,000 from local funds, to
be transferred by the Mayor of the District of Columbia
within the various appropriation headings in this Act for
which employees are properly payable.

Reserve

For a reserve to be established by the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia and the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority, $150,000,000.

District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority

For the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, established by section
101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 97; Public
Law 104-8), $3,140,000: Provided, That none of the funds
contained in this Act may be used to pay any compensation of
the Executive Director or General Counsel of the Authority at
a rate in excess of the maximum rate of compensation which
may be paid to such individual during fiscal year 2000 under
section 102 of such Act, as determined by the Comptroller
General (as described in GAO letter report B-279095.2).

Repayment of Loans and Interest

For payment of principal, interest and certain fees
directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia
to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized
by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973, as amended, and
that funds shall be allocated for expenses associated with
the Wilson Building, $328,417,000 from local funds: Provided,
That for equipment leases, the Mayor may finance $27,527,000
of equipment cost, plus cost of issuance not to exceed 2
percent of the par amount being financed on a lease purchase
basis with a maturity not to exceed 5 years: Provided
further, That $5,300,000 is allocated to the Metropolitan
Police Department, $3,200,000 for the Fire and Emergency
Medical Services Department, $350,000 for the Department of
Corrections, $15,949,000 for the Department of Public Works
and $2,728,000 for the Public Benefit Corporation.

Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general
fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990,
$38,286,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a)
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (105 Stat. 540;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-321(a)(1)).

Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $9,000,000
from local funds.

Certificates of Participation

For lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of
Participation involving the land site underlying the building
located at One Judiciary Square, $7,950,000 from local funds.

Optical and Dental Insurance Payments

For optical and dental insurance payments, $1,295,000 from
local funds.

Productivity Bank

The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia,
under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
shall finance projects totaling $20,000,000 in local funds
that result in cost savings or additional revenues, by an
amount equal to such financing: Provided, That the Mayor
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
by the 15th calendar day after the end of each quarter
beginning December 31, 1999, on the status of the projects
financed under this heading.

Productivity Bank Savings

The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia,
under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
shall make reductions totaling $20,000,000 in local funds.
The reductions are to be allocated to projects funded through
the Productivity Bank that produce cost savings or additional
revenues in an amount equal to the Productivity Bank
financing: Provided, That the Mayor shall provide quarterly
reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate by the 15th calendar day after
the end of each quarter beginning December 31, 1999, on the
status of the cost savings or additional revenues funded
under this heading.

Procurement and Management Savings

The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia,
under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
shall make reductions of $14,457,000 for general supply
schedule savings and $7,000,000 for management reform
savings, in local funds to one or more of the appropriation
headings in this Act: Provided, That the Mayor shall provide
quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate by the 15th calendar
day after the end of each quarter beginning December 31,
1999, on the status of the general supply schedule savings
and management reform savings projected under this heading.

ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS

Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority and the
Washington Aqueduct, $279,608,000 from other funds (including
$236,075,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and
$43,533,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $35,222,000
shall be apportioned and payable to the District's debt
service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for
capital improvement projects.

[[Page 27138]]

For construction projects, $197,169,000, as authorized by
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the laying of
watermains and service sewers in the District of Columbia,
the levying of assessments therefor, and for other purposes''
(33 Stat. 244; Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1512 et
seq.): Provided, That the requirements and restrictions that
are applicable to general fund capital improvements projects
and set forth in this Act under the Capital Outlay
appropriation title shall apply to projects approved under
this appropriation title.

Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund,
established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982 (95 Stat. 1174 and
1175; Public Law 97-91), for the purpose of implementing the
Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and
Raffles for Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia
(D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, sec. 2-2501 et seq. and sec. 22-
1516 et seq.), $234,400,000: Provided, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the source of funding for this
appropriation title from the District's own locally generated
revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from Federal
sources shall be used to support the operations or activities
of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.

Sports and Entertainment Commission

For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $10,846,000
from other funds for expenses incurred by the Armory Board in
the exercise of its powers granted by the Act entitled ``An
Act To Establish A District of Columbia Armory Board, and for
other purposes'' (62 Stat. 339; D.C. Code, sec. 2-301 et
seq.) and the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 (71
Stat. 619; Public Law 85-300; D.C. Code, sec. 2-321 et seq.):
Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a budget for the Armory
Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as required by section
442(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat.
824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301(b)).

District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation

For the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public
Benefit Corporation, established by D.C. Law 11-212; D.C.
Code, sec. 32-262.2, $133,443,000 of which $44,435,000 shall
be derived by transfer from the general fund and $89,008,000
from other funds.

District of Columbia Retirement Board

For the District of Columbia Retirement Board, established
by section 121 of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform
Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-711), $9,892,000
from the earnings of the applicable retirement funds to pay
legal, management, investment, and other fees and
administrative expenses of the District of Columbia
Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of Columbia
Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and to the
Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report of the
allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of all
funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to
the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized
accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time
for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such
funds in time for each annual audited financial report:
Provided further, That section 121(c)(1) of the District of
Columbia Retirement Reform Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-711(c)(1))
is amended by striking ``the total amount to which a member
may be entitled'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``the total amount to which a member may be
entitled under this subsection during a year (beginning with
1998) may not exceed $5,000, except that in the case of the
Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Investment
Committee of the Board, such amount may not exceed $7,500
(beginning with 2000).''.

Correctional Industries Fund

For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the
District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment
Act (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-622), $1,810,000 from other
funds.

Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund,
$50,226,000 from other funds.

Capital Outlay

(Including Rescissions)

For construction projects, $1,260,524,000 of which
$929,450,000 is from local funds, $54,050,000 is from the
highway trust fund, and $277,024,000 is from Federal funds,
and a rescission of $41,886,500 from local funds appropriated
under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a net amount of
$1,218,637,500 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds for use of each capital project implementing
agency shall be managed and controlled in accordance with all
procedures and limitations established under the Financial
Management System: Provided further, That all funds provided
by this appropriation title shall be available only for the
specific projects and purposes intended: Provided further,
That notwithstanding the foregoing, all authorizations for
capital outlay projects, except those projects covered by the
first sentence of section 23(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495; D.C. Code, sec.
7-134, note), for which funds are provided by this
appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 2001,
except authorizations for projects as to which funds have
been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30,
2001: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such
project authorization, the funds provided herein for the
project shall lapse.

General Provisions

Sec. 101. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service 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. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all
vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in
this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated
certifying official, and the vouchers as approved shall be
paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified
within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of
expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall
be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for
said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart
exclusively therefor.
Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available,
when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately
owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of
official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided,
That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates
for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property
Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for
expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of
organizations concerned with the work of the District of
Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided,
That in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia,
funds may be expended with the authorization of the chair of
the Council.
Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have
been entered against the District of Columbia government:
Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be
construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section
11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and
Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat. 78; Public Law 84-460;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
Sec. 107. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for
the payment of public assistance without reference to the
requirement of section 544 of the District of Columbia Public
Assistance Act of 1982 (D.C. Law 4-101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-
205.44), and for the payment of the non-Federal share of
funds necessary to qualify for grants under subtitle A of
title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994.
Sec. 108. 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. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
District of Columbia government for the operation of
educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or
for other educational purposes may be used to permit,
encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political
activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the
availability of school buildings for the use of any community
or partisan political group during non-school hours.
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the
District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade,
salary, past work experience, and salary history are not
available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform, the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia of the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council of the
District of Columbia, or their duly authorized
representative.
Sec. 111. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making payments authorized by the District of Columbia
Revenue Recovery Act of 1977 (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec.
47-421 et seq.).
Sec. 112. No part of this appropriation shall be used for
publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any
policy including boycott designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
Sec. 113. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall
develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for
capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable
time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report
to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress
the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with
projections.
Sec. 114. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital
projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from
the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution,
identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such
borrowings.
Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed
for capital projects for the operating expenses of the
District of Columbia government.
Sec. 116. None of the funds provided under this Act to the
agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District
government agencies, that

[[Page 27139]]

remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2000, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for an agency through a
reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or responsibility center; (3)
establishes or changes allocations specifically denied,
limited or increased by Congress in this Act; (4) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any program, project, or
responsibility center for which funds have been denied or
restricted; (5) reestablishes through reprogramming any
program or project previously deferred through reprogramming;
(6) augments existing programs, projects, or responsibility
centers through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or (7) increases
by 20 percent or more personnel assigned to a specific
program, project, or responsibility center; unless the
Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and House of
Representatives are notified in writing 30 days in advance of
any reprogramming as set forth in this section.
Sec. 117. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of the District of Columbia government.
Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger
automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act
of 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 96-425; 15 U.S.C.
2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection Agency estimated
miles per gallon average of less than 22 miles per gallon:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to security,
emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
Sec. 119. (a) City Administrator.--The last sentence of
section 422(7) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
(D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(7)) is amended by striking ``, not to
exceed'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
(b) Board of Directors of Redevelopment Land Agency.--
Section 1108(c)(2)(F) of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-
612.8(c)(2)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
``(F) Redevelopment Land Agency board members shall be paid
per diem compensation at a rate established by the Mayor,
except that such rate may not exceed the daily equivalent of
the annual rate of basic pay for level 15 of the District
Schedule for each day (including travel time) during which
they are engaged in the actual performance of their
duties.''.
Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139;
D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), enacted pursuant to section
422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat.
790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall
apply with respect to the compensation of District of
Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes,
employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be
subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 121. No later than 30 days after the end of the first
quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council
of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2000 revenue
estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year
2000. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. The officially
revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear
report.
Sec. 122. No sole source contract with the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or
extended without opening that contract to the competitive
bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District
of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85;
D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), except that the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may renew or extend
sole source contracts for which competition is not feasible
or practical: Provided, That the determination as to whether
to invoke the competitive bidding process has been made in
accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures and
said determination has been reviewed and approved by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority.
Sec. 123. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-
177), the term ``program, project, and activity'' shall be
synonymous with and refer specifically to each account
appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any
sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts
rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts:
Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to
any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration
by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 124. In the event a sequestration order is issued
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), after the
amounts appropriated to the District of Columbia for the
fiscal year involved have been paid to the District of
Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to
the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt
of a request therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury,
such amounts as are sequestered by the order: Provided, That
the sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be
applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation
accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from
sequestration by such Act.
Sec. 125. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia
government may accept and use a gift or donation during
fiscal year 2000 if--
(1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift
or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of
Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by
the Mayor; and
(2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its
authorized functions or duties.
(b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government
shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance
and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this
section, and shall make such records available for audit and
public inspection.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of
the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent
agency of the District of Columbia.
(d) This section shall not apply to the District of
Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws
and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use
gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the
Mayor.
Sec. 126. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for
salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the
offices of United States Senator or United States
Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C.
Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-113(d)).
Sec. 127. (a) The University of the District of Columbia
shall submit to the Mayor, the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and the
Council of the District of Columbia no later than 15 calendar
days after the end of each quarter a report that sets forth--
(1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis
of control center, responsibility center, and object class,
and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital
financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding
sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the
basis of control center and responsibility center, and
contract identifying codes used by the University of the
District of Columbia; payments made in the last quarter and
year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total
payments made for the contract and any modifications,
extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each
contract in the last month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been
made by the University of the District of Columbia within the
last quarter in compliance with applicable law; and
(5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational
structure of the University of the District of Columbia,
displaying previous and current control centers and
responsibility centers, the names of the organizational
entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member
supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the
structural change.
(b) The Mayor, the Authority, and the Council shall provide
the Congress by February 1, 2000, a summary, analysis, and
recommendations on the information provided in the quarterly
reports.
Sec. 128. Funds authorized or previously appropriated to
the government of the District of Columbia by this or any
other Act to procure the necessary hardware and installation
of new software, conversion, testing, and training to improve
or replace its financial management system are also available
for the acquisition of accounting and financial management
services and the leasing of necessary hardware, software or
any other related goods or services, as determined by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority.
Sec. 129. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be made available to pay the fees of an attorney who
represents a party who prevails in an action, including an
administrative proceeding, brought against the District of
Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) if--
(1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds
120 percent of the hourly rate of compensation under section
11-2604(a), District of Columbia Code; or
(2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney
exceeds 120 percent of the maximum amount of compensation
under section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code,
except that compensation and reimbursement in excess of such
maximum may be approved for extended or complex
representation in accordance with section 11-2604(c),
District of Columbia Code.
(b) Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, if the Mayor,
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority and the Superintendent of the District
of Columbia Public Schools concur in a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth a new rate and amount of
compensation, then such new rates shall apply in lieu of the
rates set forth in the preceding subsection.
Sec. 130. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of
the mother would

[[Page 27140]]

be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the
pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Sec. 131. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits
Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system
of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether
homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not
limited to registration for the purpose of extending
employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples
on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally
married couples.
Sec. 132. The Superintendent of the District of Columbia
Public Schools shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, and the Council of the District of
Columbia no later than 15 calendar days after the end of each
quarter a report that sets forth--
(1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget, broken out on the
basis of control center, responsibility center, agency
reporting code, and object class, and for all funds,
including capital financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting
code, and for all funding sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the
basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency
reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the
District of Columbia Public Schools; payments made in the
last quarter and year-to-date, the total amount of the
contract and total payments made for the contract and any
modifications, extensions, renewals; and specific
modifications made to each contract in the last month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are
required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of
Education; and
(5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational
structure of the District of Columbia Public Schools,
displaying previous and current control centers and
responsibility centers, the names of the organizational
entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member
supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the
structural change.
Sec. 133. (a) In General.--The Superintendent of the
District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the
District of Columbia shall annually compile an accurate and
verifiable report on the positions and employees in the
public school system and the university, respectively. The
annual report shall set forth--
(1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the
District of Columbia public schools and the University of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000,
and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a
compilation of all positions by control center,
responsibility center, funding source, position type,
position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
(2) a compilation of all employees in the District of
Columbia public schools and the University of the District of
Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its
accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee
actually performs, by control center, responsibility center,
agency reporting code, program (including funding source),
activity, location for accounting purposes, job title, grade
and classification, annual salary, and position control
number.
(b) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection
(a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the
Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus
Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of
each year.
Sec. 134. (a) No later than November 1, 1999, or within 30
calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs later, and each succeeding year, the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools and
the University of the District of Columbia shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees, the Mayor, the
District of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, a revised appropriated funds
operating budget for the public school system and the
University of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year
that is in the total amount of the approved appropriation and
that realigns budgeted data for personal services and other-
than-personal services, respectively, with anticipated actual
expenditures.
(b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this
section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that
the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools
and the University of the District of Columbia submit to the
Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the
Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of
Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
Sec. 135. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority, acting on behalf of the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) in formulating the
DCPS budget, the Board of Trustees of the University of the
District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the
Board of Governors of the University of the District of
Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve the
respective annual or revised budgets for such entities before
submission to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for
inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of
the District of Columbia in accordance with section 442 of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their
respective budgets directly to the Council.
Sec. 136. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating
expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000
under the heading ``Division of Expenses'' shall not exceed
the lesser of--
(A) the sum of the total revenues of the District of
Columbia for such fiscal year; or
(B) $5,515,379,000 (of which $152,753,000 shall be from
intra-District funds and $3,113,854,000 shall be from local
funds), which amount may be increased by the following:
(i) proceeds of one-time transactions, which are expended
for emergency or unanticipated operating or capital needs
approved by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority; or
(ii) after notification to the Council, additional
expenditures which the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia certifies will produce additional
revenues during such fiscal year at least equal to 200
percent of such additional expenditures, and that are
approved by the Authority.
(2) Enforcement.--The Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia and the Authority shall take such steps
as are necessary to assure that the District of Columbia
meets the requirements of this section, including the
apportioning by the Chief Financial Officer of the
appropriations and funds made available to the District
during fiscal year 2000, except that the Chief Financial
Officer may not reprogram for operating expenses any funds
derived from bonds, notes, or other obligations issued for
capital projects.
(b) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in Ceiling.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Mayor,
in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer, during a
control year, as defined in section 305(4) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8; 109 Stat. 152), may accept,
obligate, and expend Federal, private, and other grants
received by the District government that are not reflected in
the amounts appropriated in this Act.
(2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and
authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant
may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph
(1) until--
(A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed
information regarding such grant; and
(B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance,
obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with
review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions
of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995.
(3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or
receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the
general fund or other funds of the District government in
anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under
paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the
approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not
subject to such paragraph.
(4) Quarterly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report setting
forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private,
and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report
shall be submitted to the Council of the District of
Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15
days after the end of the quarter covered by the report.
(c) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar
days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1,
1999, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House, and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate providing
an itemized accounting of all non-appropriated funds
obligated or expended by the Authority for the quarter. The
report shall include information on the date, amount,
purpose, and vendor name, and a description of the services
or goods provided with respect to the expenditures of such
funds.
Sec. 137. If a department or agency of the government of
the District of Columbia is under the administration of a
court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official
during fiscal year 2000 or any succeeding fiscal year, the
receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor,
for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of
Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures
and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and
operation of the department or agency. All such estimates
shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council,

[[Page 27141]]

for its action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but
subject to the Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any
provision of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat.
774; Public Law 93-198) the Council may comment or make
recommendations concerning such annual estimates but shall
have no authority under such Act to revise such estimates.
Sec. 138. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia
public schools shall be--
(1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
(2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of
Education; and
(3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
(b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate
competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not
compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.
Sec. 139. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of the
funds made available by this Act or by any other Act may be
used to provide any officer or employee of the District of
Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or
employee uses the vehicle only in the performance of the
officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not include
travel between the officer's or employee's residence and
workplace (except: (1) in the case of an officer or employee
of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the
District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief
of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief,
an officer or employee of the District of Columbia Fire and
Emergency Medical Services Department who resides in the
District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia).
(b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 1999,
an inventory, as of September 30, 1999, of all vehicles
owned, leased or operated by the District of Columbia
government. The inventory shall include, but not be limited
to, the department to which the vehicle is assigned; the year
and make of the vehicle; the acquisition date and cost; the
general condition of the vehicle; annual operating and
maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether the vehicle
is allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee
and if so, the officer or employee's title and resident
location.
Sec. 140. (a) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed
Within Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of
funds expended by any entity within the District of Columbia
government during fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal
year, any expenditures of the District government
attributable to any officer or employee of the District
government who provides services which are within the
authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any
portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee
attributable to the time spent in providing such services)
shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's
budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is
assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or
employee of the entity.
(b) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--The
District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel
Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), is further
amended in section 2408(a) by striking ``1999'' and inserting
``2000''; in subsection (b), by striking ``1999'' and
inserting ``2000''; in subsection (i), by striking ``1999''
and inserting ``2000''; and in subsection (k), by striking
``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.
Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
later than 120 days after the date that a District of
Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) student is referred for
evaluation or assessment--
(1) the District of Columbia Board of Education, or its
successor, and DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who
may have a disability and who may require special education
services; and
(2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as
defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C.
1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS
shall place that student in an appropriate program of special
education services.
Sec. 142. (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 the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c).
(b) Sense of the 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 to the greatest extent practicable.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each agency of the Federal or District of
Columbia government 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. 143. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the
District of Columbia government (including the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority) for fiscal year 2000 unless--
(1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia pursuant to section 208(a)(4) of the
District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C.
Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
(2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
end results with the revenues submitted in the budget
document for such year and the appropriations enacted into
law for such year.
Sec. 144. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for
programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is
required but has not been approved by the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority. Appropriations made by this Act for such programs
or functions are conditioned only on the approval by the
Authority of the required reorganization plans.
Sec. 145. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule,
or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for
evaluating District of Columbia Public School employees shall
be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining purposes.
Sec. 146. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any
other officer or entity of the District government to provide
assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks
to require Congress to provide for voting representation in
Congress for the District of Columbia.
Sec. 147. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the
medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.
Sec. 148. (a) Section 202(i) of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-8), as added by section 155 of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, is amended to
read as follows:
``( j) Reserve.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the
plan or budget submitted pursuant to this Act shall contain
$150,000,000 for a reserve to be established by the Mayor,
Council of the District of Columbia, Chief Financial Officer
for the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
``(2) Conditions on use.--The reserve funds--
``(A) shall only be expended according to criteria
established by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by
the Mayor, Council of the District of Columbia, and District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, but, in no case may any of the reserve
funds be expended until any other surplus funds have been
used;
``(B) shall not be used to fund the agencies of the
District of Columbia government under court ordered
receivership; and
``(C) shall not be used to fund shortfalls in the projected
reductions budgeted in the budget proposed by the District of
Columbia government for general supply schedule savings and
management reform savings.
``(3) Report requirement.--The Authority shall notify the
Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and House of
Representatives in writing 30 days in advance of any
expenditure of the reserve funds.''.
(b) Section 202 of such Act (Public Law 104-8), as amended
by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(k) Positive Fund Balance.--
``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia shall maintain
at the end of a fiscal year an annual positive fund balance
in the general fund of not less than 4 percent of the
projected general fund expenditures for the following fiscal
year.
``(2) Excess funds.--Of funds remaining in excess of the
amounts required by paragraph (1)--
``(A) not more than 50 percent may be used for authorized
non-recurring expenses; and
``(B) not less than 50 percent shall be used to reduce the
debt of the District of Columbia.''.
Sec. 149. (a) No later than November 1, 1999, or within 30
calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs later, the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority a revised appropriated funds operating budget for
all agencies of the District of Columbia government for such
fiscal year that is in the total amount of the approved
appropriation and that realigns budgeted data for personal
services and other-than-

[[Page 27142]]

personal-services, respectively, with anticipated actual
expenditures.
(b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this
section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that
the District of Columbia government submitted pursuant to
section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public
Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
Sec. 150. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Sec. 151. (a) Restrictions on Leases.--Upon the expiration
of the 60-day period that begins on the date of the enactment
of this Act, none of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to make rental payments under a lease for the use of
real property by the District of Columbia government
(including any independent agency of the District) unless the
lease and an abstract of the lease have been filed (by the
District of Columbia or any other party to the lease) with
the central office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic
Development, in an indexed registry available for public
inspection.
(b) Additional Restrictions on Current Leases.--
(1) In general.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period
that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the
case of a lease described in paragraph (3), none of the funds
contained in this Act may be used to make rental payments
under the lease unless the lease is included in periodic
reports submitted by the Mayor and Council of the District of
Columbia to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate describing for each such lease the
following information:
(A) The location of the property involved, the name of the
owners of record according to the land records of the
District of Columbia, the name of the lessors according to
the lease, the rate of payment under the lease, the period of
time covered by the lease, and the conditions under which the
lease may be terminated.
(B) The extent to which the property is or is not occupied
by the District of Columbia government as of the end of the
reporting period involved.
(C) If the property is not occupied and utilized by the
District government as of the end of the reporting period
involved, a plan for occupying and utilizing the property
(including construction or renovation work) or a status
statement regarding any efforts by the District to terminate
or renegotiate the lease.
(2) Timing of reports.--The reports described in paragraph
(1) shall be submitted for each calendar quarter (beginning
with the quarter ending December 31, 1999) not later than 20
days after the end of the quarter involved, plus an initial
report submitted not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, which shall provide information as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Leases described.--A lease described in this paragraph
is a lease in effect as of the date of the enactment of this
Act for the use of real property by the District of Columbia
government (including any independent agency of the District)
which is not being occupied by the District government
(including any independent agency of the District) as of such
date or during the 60-day period which begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 152. (a) Management of Existing District Government
Property.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period that
begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, none of the
funds contained in this Act may be used to enter into a lease
(or to make rental payments under such a lease) for the use
of real property by the District of Columbia government
(including any independent agency of the District) or to
purchase real property for the use of the District of
Columbia government (including any independent agency of the
District) or to manage real property for the use of the
District of Columbia (including any independent agency of the
District) unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia
certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that existing real property
available to the District (whether leased or owned by the
District government) is not suitable for the purposes
intended.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, there is
made available for sale or lease all real property of the
District of Columbia that the Mayor from time-to-time
determines is surplus to the needs of the District of
Columbia, unless a majority of the members of the Council
override the Mayor's determination during the 30-day period
which begins on the date the determination is published.
(3) The Mayor and Council implement a program for the
periodic survey of all District property to determine if it
is surplus to the needs of the District.
(4) The Mayor and Council within 60 days of the date of the
enactment of this Act have filed with the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs
of the Senate a report which provides a comprehensive plan
for the management of District of Columbia real property
assets, and are proceeding with the implementation of the
plan.
(b) Termination of Provisions.--If the District of Columbia
enacts legislation to reform the practices and procedures
governing the entering into of leases for the use of real
property by the District of Columbia government and the
disposition of surplus real property of the District
government, the provisions of subsection (a) shall cease to
be effective upon the effective date of the legislation.
Sec. 153. Section 603(e)(2)(B) of the Student Loan
Marketing Association Reorganization Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-293) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and public charter'' after ``public'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Of such amounts
and proceeds, $5,000,000 shall be set aside for use as a
credit enhancement fund for public charter schools in the
District of Columbia, with the administration of the fund
(including the making of loans) to be carried out by the
Mayor through a committee consisting of three individuals
appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and two
individuals appointed by the Public Charter School Board
established under section 2214 of the District of Columbia
School Reform Act of 1995.''.
Sec. 154. The Mayor, District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and the
Superintendent of Schools shall implement a process to
dispose of excess public school real property within 90 days
of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 155. Section 2003 of the District of Columbia School
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. Code, sec. 31-
2851) is amended by striking ``during the period'' and ``and
ending 5 years after such date.''.
Sec. 156. Section 2206(c) of the District of Columbia
School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. Code,
sec. 31-2853.16(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``, except that a preference in admission may be
given to an applicant who is a sibling of a student already
attending or selected for admission to the public charter
school in which the applicant is seeking enrollment.''.
Sec. 157. (a) Transfer of Funds.--There is hereby
transferred from the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (hereafter
referred to as the ``Authority'') to the District of Columbia
the sum of $18,000,000 for severance payments to individuals
separated from employment during fiscal year 2000 (under such
terms and conditions as the Mayor considers appropriate),
expanded contracting authority of the Mayor, and the
implementation of a system of managed competition among
public and private providers of goods and services by and on
behalf of the District of Columbia: Provided, That such funds
shall be used only in accordance with a plan agreed to by the
Council and the Mayor and approved by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate: Provided further, That the Authority and the Mayor
shall coordinate the spending of funds for this program so
that continuous progress is made. The Authority shall release
said funds, on a quarterly basis, to reimburse such expenses,
so long as the Authority certifies that the expenses reduce
re-occurring future costs at an annual ratio of at least 2 to
1 relative to the funds provided, and that the program is in
accordance with the best practices of municipal government.
(b) Source of Funds.--The amount transferred under
subsection (a) shall be derived from interest earned on
accounts held by the Authority on behalf of the District of
Columbia.
Sec. 158. (a) In General.--The District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
(hereafter referred to as the ``Authority''), working with
the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Director of the National
Park Service, shall carry out a project to complete all
design requirements and all requirements for compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act for the construction of
expanded lane capacity for the Fourteenth Street Bridge.
(b) Source of Funds; Transfer.--For purposes of carrying
out the project under subsection (a), there is hereby
transferred to the Authority from the District of Columbia
dedicated highway fund established pursuant to section 3(a)
of the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act
(Public Law 104-21; D.C. Code, sec. 7-134.2(a)) an amount not
to exceed $5,000,000.
Sec. 159. (a) In General.--The Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall carry out through the Army Corps of Engineers,
an Anacostia River environmental cleanup program.
(b) Source of Funds.--There are hereby transferred to the
Mayor from the escrow account held by the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority pursuant to section 134 of division A of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
552), for infrastructure needs of the District of Columbia,
$5,000,000.
Sec. 160. (a) Prohibiting Payment of Administrative Costs
From Fund.--Section 16(e) of the Victims of Violent Crime
Compensation Act of 1996 (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435(e)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and administrative costs necessary to
carry out this chapter''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, and no monies in the Fund may be used for any
other purpose.''.
(b) Maintenance of Fund in Treasury of the United States.--
(1) In general.--Section 16(a) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec.
3-435(a)) is amended by striking the second sentence and
inserting the following: ``The Fund shall be maintained as a
separate fund in the Treasury of the United States. All
amounts deposited to the credit of the Fund are

[[Page 27143]]

appropriated without fiscal year limitation to make payments
as authorized under subsection (e).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 16 of such Act (D.C.
Code, sec. 3-435) is amended by striking subsection (d).
(c) Deposit of Other Fees and Receipts Into Fund.--Section
16(c) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435(c)) is amended by
inserting after ``1997,'' the second place it appears the
following: ``any other fines, fees, penalties, or assessments
that the Court determines necessary to carry out the purposes
of the Fund,''.
(d) Annual Transfer of Unobligated Balances to
Miscellaneous Receipts of Treasury.--Section 16 of such Act
(D.C. Code, sec. 3-435), as amended by subsection (b)(2), is
further amended by inserting after subsection (c) the
following new subsection:
``(d) Any unobligated balance existing in the Fund in
excess of $250,000 as of the end of each fiscal year
(beginning with fiscal year 2000) shall be transferred to
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury of the United States
not later than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year.''.
(e) Ratification of Payments and Deposits.--Any payments
made from or deposits made to the Crime Victims Compensation
Fund on or after April 9, 1997 are hereby ratified, to the
extent such payments and deposits are authorized under the
Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Act of 1996 (D.C. Code,
sec. 3-421 et seq.), as amended by this section.
Sec. 161. Certification.--None of the funds contained in
this Act may be used after the expiration of the 60-day
period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act
to pay the salary of any chief financial officer of any
office of the District of Columbia government (including any
independent agency of the District) who has not filed a
certification with the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer
of the District of Columbia that the officer understands the
duties and restrictions applicable to the officer and their
agency as a result of this Act.
Sec. 162. The proposed budget of the government of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2001 that is submitted
by the District to Congress shall specify potential
adjustments that might become necessary in the event that the
management savings achieved by the District during the year
do not meet the level of management savings projected by the
District under the proposed budget.
Sec. 163. In submitting any document showing the budget for
an office of the District of Columbia government (including
an independent agency of the District) that contains a
category of activities labeled as ``other'',
``miscellaneous'', or a similar general, nondescriptive term,
the document shall include a description of the types of
activities covered in the category and a detailed breakdown
of the amount allocated for each such activity.
Sec. 164. (a) Authorizing Corps of Engineers To Perform
Repairs and Improvements.--In using the funds made available
under this Act for carrying out improvements to the Southwest
Waterfront in the District of Columbia (including upgrading
marina dock pilings and paving and restoring walkways in the
marina and fish market areas) for the portions of Federal
property in the Southwest quadrant of the District of
Columbia within Lots 847 and 848, a portion of Lot 846, and
the unassessed Federal real property adjacent to Lot 848 in
Square 473, any entity of the District of Columbia government
(including the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority or its designee) may
place orders for engineering and construction and related
services with the Chief of Engineers of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. The Chief of Engineers may accept
such orders on a reimbursable basis and may provide any part
of such services by contract. In providing such services, the
Chief of Engineers shall follow the Federal Acquisition
Regulations and the implementing Department of Defense
regulations.
(b) Timing for Availability of Funds Under 1999 Act.--
(1) In general.--The District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-124) is amended
in the item relating to ``FEDERAL FUNDS--Federal Payment for
Waterfront Improvements''--
(A) by striking ``existing lessees'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``existing lessees of the Marina''; and
(B) by striking ``the existing lessees'' the second place
it appears and inserting ``such lessees''.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect as
if included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
1999.
(c) Additional Funding for Improvements Carried Out Through
Corps of Engineers.--
(1) In general.--There is hereby transferred from the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority to the Mayor the sum of $3,000,000 for
carrying out the improvements described in subsection (a)
through the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers.
(2) Source of funds.--The funds transferred under paragraph
(1) shall be derived from the escrow account held by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority pursuant to section 134 of division A of
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
552), for infrastructure needs of the District of Columbia.
(d) Quarterly Reports on Project.--The Mayor shall submit
reports to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate on the status of the improvements described in
subsection (a) for each calendar quarter occurring until the
improvements are completed.
Sec. 165. It is the sense of the Congress that the District
of Columbia should not impose or take into consideration any
height, square footage, set-back, or other construction or
zoning requirements in authorizing the issuance of industrial
revenue bonds for a project of the American National Red
Cross at 2025 E Street Northwest, Washington, D.C., in as
much as this project is subject to approval of the National
Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts
pursuant to section 11 of the joint resolution entitled
``Joint Resolution to grant authority for the erection of a
permanent building for the American National Red Cross,
District of Columbia Chapter, Washington, District of
Columbia'', approved July 1, 1947 (Public Law 100-637; 36
U.S.C. 300108 note).
Sec. 166. (a) Permitting Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency To Carry Out Sex Offender Registration.--
Section 11233(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 24-
1233(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Sex offender registration.--The Agency shall carry
out sex offender registration functions in the District of
Columbia, and shall have the authority to exercise all powers
and functions relating to sex offender registration that are
granted to the Agency under any District of Columbia law.''.
(b) Authority During Transition to Full Operation of
Agency.--
(1) Authority of pretrial services, parole, adult probation
and offender supervision trustee.--Notwithstanding section
11232(b)(1) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 24-
1232(b)(1)), the Pretrial Services, Parole, Adult Probation
and Offender Supervision Trustee appointed under section
11232(a) of such Act (hereafter referred to as the
``Trustee'') shall, in accordance with section 11232 of such
Act, exercise the powers and functions of the Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
(hereafter referred to as the ``Agency'') relating to sex
offender registration (as granted to the Agency under any
District of Columbia law) only upon the Trustee's
certification that the Trustee is able to assume such powers
and functions.
(2) Authority of metropolitan police department.--During
the period that begins on the date of the enactment of the
Sex Offender Registration Emergency Act of 1999 and ends on
the date the Trustee makes the certification described in
paragraph (1), the Metropolitan Police Department of the
District of Columbia shall have the authority to carry out
any powers and functions relating to sex offender
registration that are granted to the Agency or to the Trustee
under any District of Columbia law.
Sec. 167. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the
possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
(b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by
the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998,
shall not take effect.
Sec. 168. (a) In General.--There is hereby transferred from
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Authority'') to the District of Columbia the sum of
$5,000,000 for the Mayor, in consultation with the Council of
the District of Columbia, to provide offsets against local
taxes for a commercial revitalization program, such program
to be available in enterprise zones and low and moderate
income areas in the District of Columbia: Provided, That in
carrying out such a program, the Mayor shall use Federal
commercial revitalization proposals introduced in Congress as
a guideline.
(b) Source of Funds.--The amount transferred under
subsection (a) shall be derived from interest earned on
accounts held by the Authority on behalf of the District of
Columbia.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Mayor shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives on the progress made in carrying out the
commercial revitalization program.
Sec. 169. Section 456 of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act (section 47-231 et seq. of the D.C. Code, as added by the
Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
373)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority'' and inserting ``Mayor''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``Authority'' and
inserting ``Mayor''.
Sec. 170. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The District of Columbia has recently witnessed a spate
of senseless killings of innocent citizens caught in the
crossfire of shootings. A Justice Department crime
victimization survey found that while the city saw a decline
in the homicide rate between 1996 and 1997, the rate was the
highest among a dozen cities and more than double the second
highest city.
(2) The District of Columbia has not made adequate funding
available to fight drug abuse

[[Page 27144]]

in recent years, and the city has not deployed its resources
as effectively as possible. In fiscal year 1998, $20,900,000
was spent on publicly funded drug treatment in the District
compared to $29,000,000 in fiscal year 1993. The District's
Addiction and Prevention and Recovery Agency currently has
only 2,200 treatment slots, a 50 percent drop from 1994, with
more than 1,100 people on waiting lists.
(3) The District of Columbia has seen a rash of inmate
escapes from halfway houses. According to Department of
Corrections records, between October 21, 1998 and January 19,
1999, 376 of the 1,125 inmates assigned to halfway houses
walked away. Nearly 280 of the 376 escapees were awaiting
trial including two charged with murder.
(4) The District of Columbia public schools system faces
serious challenges in correcting chronic problems,
particularly long-standing deficiencies in providing special
education services to the 1 in 10 District students needing
program benefits, including backlogged assessments, and
repeated failure to meet a compliance agreement on special
education reached with the Department of Education.
(5) Deficiencies in the delivery of basic public services
from cleaning streets to waiting time at Department of Motor
Vehicles to a rat population estimated earlier this year to
exceed the human population have generated considerable
public frustration.
(6) Last year, the District of Columbia forfeited millions
of dollars in Federal grants after Federal auditors
determined that several agencies exceeded grant restrictions
and in other instances, failed to spend funds before the
grants expired.
(7) Findings of a 1999 report by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation that measured the well-being of children reflected
that, with one exception, the District ranked worst in the
United States in every category from infant mortality to the
rate of teenage births to statistics chronicling child
poverty.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that in considering the District of Columbia's fiscal year
2001 budget, the Congress will take into consideration
progress or lack of progress in addressing the following
issues:
(1) Crime, including the homicide rate, implementation of
community policing, the number of police officers on local
beats, and the closing down of open-air drug markets.
(2) Access to drug abuse treatment, including the number of
treatment slots, the number of people served, the number of
people on waiting lists, and the effectiveness of treatment
programs.
(3) Management of parolees and pretrial violent offenders,
including the number of halfway house escapes and steps taken
to improve monitoring and supervision of halfway house
residents to reduce the number of escapes.
(4) Education, including access to special education
services and student achievement.
(5) Improvement in basic city services, including rat
control and abatement.
(6) Application for and management of Federal grants.
(7) Indicators of child well-being.
Sec. 171. The Mayor, prior to using Federal Medicaid
payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals to serve a small
number of childless adults, should consider the
recommendations of the Health Care Development Commission
that has been appointed by the Council of the District of
Columbia to review this program, and consult and report to
Congress on the use of these funds.
Sec. 172. GAO Study of District of Columbia Criminal
Justice System. Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall--
(1) conduct a study of the law enforcement, court, prison,
probation, parole, and other components of the criminal
justice system of the District of Columbia, in order to
identify the components most in need of additional resources,
including financial, personnel, and management resources; and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the results of the study
under paragraph (1).
Sec. 173. Nothing in this Act bars the District of Columbia
Corporation Counsel from reviewing or commenting on briefs in
private lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the
District government regarding such lawsuits.
Sec. 174. Wireless Communications. (a) In General.--Not
later than 7 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the National Park Service, shall--
(1) implement the notice of decision approved by the
National Capital Regional Director, dated April 7, 1999,
including the provisions of the notice of decision concerning
the issuance of right-of-way permits at market rates; and
(2) expend such sums as are necessary to carry out
paragraph (1).
(b) Antenna Applications.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the receipt
of an application, a Federal agency that receives an
application submitted after the enactment of this Act to
locate a wireless communications antenna on Federal property
in the District of Columbia or surrounding area over which
the Federal agency exercises control shall take final action
on the application, including action on the issuance of
right-of-way permits at market rates.
(2) Existing law.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect the applicability of existing laws
regarding--
(A) judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code (the Administrative Procedure Act), and the
Communications Act of 1934;
(B) the National Environmental Policy Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act and other applicable Federal
statutes; and
(C) the authority of a State or local government or
instrumentality thereof, including the District of Columbia,
in the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities.
Sec. 175. (a)(1) The first paragraph under the heading
``Community Development Block Grants'' in title II of H.R.
2684 (Public Law 106-74) is amended by inserting after
``National American Indian Housing Council,'' the following:
``$4,000,000 shall be available as a grant for the Special
Olympics in Anchorage, Alaska to develop the Ben Boeke Arena
and Hilltop Ski Area,''; and
(2) The paragraph that includes the words ``Economic
Development Initiative (EDI)'' under the heading ``Community
Development Block Grants'' in title II of H.R. 2684 (Public
Law 106-74) is amended by striking ``$240,000,000'' and
inserting ``$243,500,000''.
(b) The statement of the managers of the committee of
conference accompanying H.R. 2684 is deemed to be amended
under the heading ``Community Development Block Grants'' to
include in the description of targeted economic development
initiatives the following:
``--$1,000,000 for the New Jersey Community Development
Corporation for the construction of the New Jersey Community
Development Corporation's Transportation Opportunity Center;
``--$750,000 for South Dakota State University in
Brookings, South Dakota for the development of a performing
arts center;
``--$925,000 for the Florida Association of Counties for a
Rural Capacity Building Pilot Project in Tallahassee,
Florida;
``--$500,000 for the Osceola County Agriculture Center for
construction of a new and expanded agriculture center in
Osceola County, Florida;
``--$1,000,000 for the University of Syracuse in Syracuse,
New York for electrical infrastructure improvements.''; and
the current descriptions are amended as follows:
``--$1,700,000 to the City of Miami, Florida for the
development of a Homeownership Zone to assist residents
displaced by the demolition of public housing in the Model
City area;'' is amended to read as follows:
``--$1,700,000 to Miami-Dade County, Florida for an
economic development project at the Opa-locka Neighborhood
Center;'';
``--$250,000 to the Arizona Science Center in Yuma, Arizona
for its after-school program for inner-city youth;'' is
amended to read as follows:
``--$250,000 to the Arizona Science Center in Phoenix,
Arizona for its after-school program for inner-city youth;'';
``--$200,000 to the Schuylkill County Fire Fighters
Association for a smoke-maze building on the grounds of the
firefighters facility in Morea, Pennsylvania;'' is amended to
read as follows:
``--$200,000 to the Schuylkill County Fire Fighters
Association for a smoke-maze building and other facilities
and improvements on the grounds of the firefighters facility
in Morea, Pennsylvania;''.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
$2,000,000 made available pursuant to Public Law 105-276 for
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to redevelop the Sun Co./LTV Steel
Site in Hazelwood, Pennsylvania is available to the
Department of Economic Development in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania for the development of a technology based
project in the county.
(d) Insert the following new sections at the end of the
administrative provisions in title II of H.R. 2684 (Public
Law 106-74):

``FHA MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT DEMONSTRATION

``Sec. 226. Section 542 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 is amended--
``(1) in subsection (b)(5) by striking `during fiscal year
1999' and inserting `in each of the fiscal years 1999 and
2000'; and
``(2) in the first sentence of subsection (c)(4) by
striking `during fiscal year 1999' and inserting `in each of
fiscal years 1999 and 2000'.

``DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM

``Sec. 227. (a) Section 5126(4) of the Public and Assisted
Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990 is amended--
``(1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after `1965;' the
following: `or';
``(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking `1937: or' and
inserting `1937.'; and
``(3) by striking subparagraph (D).
``(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be
construed to have taken effect on October 21, 1998.''.
This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2000''.

TITLE II--TAX REDUCTION

Sec. 201. Commending reduction of taxes by district of
columbia. The Congress commends the District of Columbia for
its action to reduce taxes, and ratifies D.C. Act 13-110
(commonly known as the Service Improvement and Fiscal Year
2000 Budget Support Act of 1999).
Sec. 202. Rule of construction. Nothing in this title may
be construed to limit the ability of the Council of the
District of Columbia to amend or repeal any provision of law
described in this title.

[[Page 27145]]

DIVISION B

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

For programs, projects, and activities in the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, provided as
follows, to be effective as if it had been enacted into law
as the regular appropriations Act:
An Act Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

training and employment services

For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act,
including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and
other facilities, and the purchase of real property for
training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment
Act; the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the
Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act;
the National Skill Standards Act of 1994; and the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act; $3,002,618,000 plus reimbursements,
of which $1,650,153,000 is available for obligation for the
period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001; of which
$1,250,965,000 is available for obligation for the period
April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001; of which $35,500,000 is
available for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003
including $34,000,000 for necessary expenses of construction,
rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps centers, and
$1,500,000 under authority of section 171(d) of the Workforce
Investment Act for use by the Organizing Committee for the
2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Alaska to promote
employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities
and other staffing needs; and of which $55,000,000 shall be
available from July 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001, for
carrying out activities of the School-to-Work Opportunities
Act: Provided, That $58,800,000 shall be for carrying out
section 166 of the Workforce Investment Act, including
$5,000,000 for carrying out section 166( j)(1) of the
Workforce Investment Act, including the provision of
assistance to American Samoans who reside in Hawaii for the
co-location of federally funded and State-funded workforce
investment activities, and $7,000,000 shall be for carrying
out the National Skills Standards Act of 1994: Provided
further, That no funds from any other appropriation shall be
used to provide meal services at or for Job Corps centers:
Provided further, That funds provided to carry out section
171(d) of such Act may be used for demonstration projects
that provide assistance to new entrants in the workforce and
incumbent workers: Provided further, That funding provided to
carry out projects under section 171 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 that are identified in the Conference
Agreement, shall not be subject to the requirements of
section 171(b)(2)(B) of such Act, the requirements of section
171(c)(4)(D) of such Act, or the joint funding requirements
of sections 171(b)(2)(A) and 171(c)(4)(A) of such Act:
Provided further, That funding appropriated herein for
Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities under
section 132(a)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
may be distributed for Dislocated Worker Projects under
section 171(d) of the Act without regard to the 10 percent
limitation contained in section 171(d) of the Act.
For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act,
including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and
other facilities, and the purchase of real property for
training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment
Act; $2,463,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which
$2,363,000,000 is available for obligation for the period
October 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001; and of which
$100,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2000
through June 30, 2003, for necessary expenses of
construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps
centers.

Community Service Employment for Older Americans

To carry out the activities for national grants or
contracts with public agencies and public or private
nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section
506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended, or to carry out older worker activities as
subsequently authorized, $343,356,000.
To carry out the activities for grants to States under
paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older
Americans Act of 1965, as amended, or to carry out older
worker activities as subsequently authorized, $96,844,000.

Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances

For payments during the current fiscal year of trade
adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I; and
for training, allowances for job search and relocation, and
related State administrative expenses under part II,
subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, $415,150,000, together with such amounts as
may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent
appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to
September 15 of the current year.

State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations

For authorized administrative expenses, $163,452,000,
together with not to exceed $3,090,288,000 (including not to
exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments
to States which had independent retirement plans in their
State employment service agencies prior to 1980), which may
be expended from the Employment Security Administration
account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of
administering section 1201 of the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser
Act, as amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the
Immigration Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended, and of which the sums available in the
allocation for activities authorized by title III of the
Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the
sums available in the allocation for necessary administrative
expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be
available for obligation by the States through December 31,
2000, except that funds used for automation acquisitions
shall be available for obligation by the States through
September 30, 2002; and of which $163,452,000, together with
not to exceed $738,283,000 of the amount which may be
expended from said trust fund, shall be available for
obligation for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001,
to fund activities under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended,
including the cost of penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C.
3202(a)(1)(E) made available to States in lieu of allotments
for such purpose, and of which $125,000,000 shall be
available only to the extent necessary for additional State
allocations to administer unemployment compensation laws to
finance increases in the number of unemployment insurance
claims filed and claims paid or changes in a State law:
Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured
Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2000 is projected by the
Department of Labor to exceed 2,638,000, an additional
$28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every
100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata
amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the
Employment Security Administration Account of the
Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds
appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a
national one-stop career center network may be obligated in
contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for
activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as
amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be
used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and
Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding
cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-87.

Advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds

For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as
authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to
the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of
title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal
unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain
available until September 30, 2001, $356,000,000.
In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after
September 15, 2000, for costs incurred by the Black Lung
Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums
as may be necessary.

program administration

For expenses of administering employment and training
programs, $100,944,000, including $6,431,000 to support up to
75 full-time equivalent staff, the majority of which will be
term Federal appointments lasting no more than 1 year, to
administer welfare-to-work grants, together with not to
exceed $45,056,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, $96,000,000.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to
make such expenditures, including financial assistance
authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits
of funds and borrowing authority available to such
Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such
contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government
Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may
be necessary in carrying out the program through September
30, 2000, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed
$11,155,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of
the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such
Corporation in connection with the termination of pension
plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and
investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration
services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses
for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above
limitation.

[[Page 27146]]

Employment Standards Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards
Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal,
and local agencies and their employees for inspection
services rendered, $333,260,000, together with $1,740,000
which may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance
with sections 39(c), 44(d) and 44( j) of the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That $2,000,000
shall be for the development of an alternative system for the
electronic submission of reports as required to be filed
under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended, and for a computer database of the
information for each submission by whatever means, that is
indexed and easily searchable by the public via the Internet:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized
to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in the name of
the Department of Labor, all sums of money ordered to be paid
to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the terms of
the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 91-0027 of the
United States District Court for the District of the Northern
Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided further, That the
Secretary of Labor is authorized to establish and, in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the
Treasury fees for processing applications and issuing
certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214)
and for processing applications and issuing registrations
under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

Special Benefits

(including transfer of funds)

For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses
(except administrative expenses) accruing during the current
or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of
the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided
for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the
Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the
Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944;
sections 4(c) and 5(f ) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50
U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional
compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended,
$79,000,000 together with such amounts as may be necessary to
be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the
payment of compensation and other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That
amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title
5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse
an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury,
for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled
beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of
reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 1999, shall
remain available until expended for the payment of
compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That
in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation
from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or
instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5,
United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of
the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary
determines to be the cost of administration for employees of
such fair share entities through September 30, 2000: Provided
further, That of those funds transferred to this account from
the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration,
$21,849,000 shall be made available to the Secretary as
follows: (1) for the operation of and enhancement to the
automated data processing systems, including document imaging
and medical bill review, in support of Federal Employees'
Compensation Act administration, $13,433,000; (2) for program
staff training to operate the new imaging system, $1,300,000;
(3) for the periodic roll review program, $7,116,000; and (4)
the remaining funds shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary
may require that any person filing a notice of injury or a
claim for benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States
Code, or 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such
notice and claim, such identifying information (including
Social Security account number) as such regulations may
prescribe.

black lung disability trust fund

(including transfer of funds)

For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund,
$1,013,633,000, of which $963,506,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2001, for payment of all benefits as
authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on
advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and
of which $28,676,000 shall be available for transfer to
Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses,
$20,783,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries
and Expenses, $312,000 for transfer to Departmental
Management, Office of Inspector General, and $356,000 for
payment into miscellaneous receipts for the expenses of the
Department of Treasury, for expenses of operation and
administration of the Black Lung Benefits program as
authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: Provided, That,
in addition, such amounts as may be necessary may be charged
to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of
compensation, interest, or other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, $370,000,000, including not to exceed
$81,000,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for
grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 50
percent of the costs of State occupational safety and health
programs required to be incurred under plans approved by the
Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal year of
training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized
by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for
occupational safety and health training and education grants:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary
of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, to collect and retain fees for services
provided to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and
may utilize such sums, in accordance with the provisions of
29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and international
laboratory recognition programs that ensure the safety of
equipment and products used by workers in the workplace:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe,
issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation,
or order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming
operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and
employs 10 or fewer employees: Provided further, That no
funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule,
regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer
employees who is included within a category having an
occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most
precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which
such data are published, less than the national average rate
as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance
with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
(1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation,
technical assistance, educational and training services, and
to conduct surveys and studies;
(2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response
to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations
found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for
violations which are not corrected within a reasonable
abatement period and for any willful violations found;
(3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to imminent dangers;
(4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to health hazards;
(5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one
or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two
or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such
investigation authorized by such Act; and
(6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to complaints of discrimination against employees for
exercising rights under such Act:

Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply
to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which
does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or
fewer employees.

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, $228,373,000, including purchase and bestowal
of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue
and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles;
including not to exceed $750,000 may be collected by the
National Mine Health and Safety Academy for room, board,
tuition, and the sale of training materials, otherwise
authorized by law to be collected, to be available for mine
safety and health education and training activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; 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, or private; the Mine Safety and Health
Administration is authorized to promote health and safety
education and training in the mining community through
cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety
associations; and any funds available to the department may
be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for
the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event
of a major disaster.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and
local agencies and their employees for services rendered,
$353,781,000, of which $6,986,000 shall be for expenses of
revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain available
until September 30, 2001, together with not to exceed
$55,663,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.

Departmental Management

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for Departmental Management,
including the hire of three sedans,

[[Page 27147]]

and including up to $7,250,000 for the President's Committee
on Employment of People With Disabilities, and including the
management or operation of Departmental bilateral and
multilateral foreign technical assistance, $210,478,000;
together with not to exceed $310,000, which may be expended
from the Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided, That no funds made
available by this Act may be used by the Solicitor of Labor
to participate in a review in any United States court of
appeals of any decision made by the Benefits Review Board
under section 21 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where such participation is
precluded by the decision of the United States Supreme Court
in Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v.
Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S. Ct. 1278 (1995),
notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Provided
further, That no funds made available by this Act may be used
by the Secretary of Labor to review a decision under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901
et seq.) that has been appealed and that has been pending
before the Benefits Review Board for more than 12 months:
Provided further, That any such decision pending a review by
the Benefits Review Board for more than 1 year shall be
considered affirmed by the Benefits Review Board on the 1-
year anniversary of the filing of the appeal, and shall be
considered the final order of the Board for purposes of
obtaining a review in the United States courts of appeals:
Provided further, That these provisions shall not be
applicable to the review or appeal of any decision issued
under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).

Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training

Not to exceed $184,341,000 may be derived from the
Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 4100-4110A, 4212, 4214, and 4321-4327, and Public Law
103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the
States through December 31, 2000.

Office of Inspector General

For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $48,095,000, together with
not to exceed $3,830,000, which may be expended from the
Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this
Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such
appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by
any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least
15 days in advance of any transfer.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor
Appropriations Act, 2000''.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources and Services

For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX,
and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of
the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V and
section 1820 of the Social Security Act, the Health Care
Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, and the Native
Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, $4,429,292,000,
of which $150,000 shall remain available until expended for
interest subsidies on loan guarantees made prior to fiscal
year 1981 under part B of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, and of which $104,052,000 shall be available for
the construction and renovation of health care and other
facilities, and of which $25,000,000 from general revenues,
notwithstanding section 1820( j) of the Social Security Act,
shall be available for carrying out the Medicare rural
hospital flexibility grants program under section 1820 of
such Act: Provided, That the Division of Federal Occupational
Health may utilize personal services contracting to employ
professional management/administrative and occupational
health professionals: Provided further, That of the funds
made available under this heading, $250,000 shall be
available until expended for facilities renovations at the
Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further,
That in addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the
Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be
collected for the full disclosure of information under the
Act sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the
National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available
until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That
no more than $5,000,000 is available for carrying out the
provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided further, That of
the funds made available under this heading, $214,932,000
shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health
Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning
projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said
projects under such title shall not be expended for
abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be
nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for
any activity (including the publication or distribution of
literature) that in any way tends to promote public support
or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for
public office: Provided further, That $518,000,000 shall be
for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section
2616 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act, not to exceed $108,742,000 is available for
carrying out special projects of regional and national
significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such Act:
Provided further, That of the amount provided under the
heading, $20,000,000 shall be available for children's
hospitals graduate medical education payments, subject to
authorization: Provided further, That of the amount provided
under this heading, $900,000 shall be for the American
Federation of Negro Affairs Education and Research Fund.

medical facilities guarantee and loan fund

federal interest subsidies for medical facilities

For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of
the Public Health Service Act, $1,000,000, together with any
amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans
and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health
Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation
for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal
year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees
shall be made.

health education assistance loans program

Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of
the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry
out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the
Public Health Service Act, $3,688,000.

vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims
associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect
to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant
to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That for
necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,000,000
shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disease Control, Research, and Training

To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX and
XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102,
103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of the
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance
of official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $2,798,886,000 of
which $60,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
equipment and construction and renovation of facilities, and
in addition, such sums as may be derived from authorized user
fees, which shall be credited to this account: Provided, That
in addition to amounts provided herein, up to $71,690,000
shall be available from amounts available under section 241
of the Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National
Center for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available for injury prevention and
control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control: Provided further,
That the Director may redirect the total amount made
available under authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3,
dated November 3, 1990, to activities the Director may so
designate: Provided further, That the Congress is to be
notified promptly of any such transfer: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
contract or related contracts for the development and
construction of the infectious disease laboratory through the
General Services Administration may be employed which
collectively include the full scope of the project: Provided
further, That the solicitation and contract shall contain the
clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18:
Provided further, That not to exceed $10,000,000 may be
available for making grants under section 1509 of the Public
Health Service Act to not more than 10 States: Provided
further, That of the amount provided under this heading,
$3,000,000 shall be for the Center for Environmental Medicine
and Toxicology at the University of Mississippi Medical
Center at Jackson and $1,000,000 shall be for the University
of South Alabama birth defects monitoring and prevention
activities.
In addition, $51,000,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40151
and 40261 of Public Law 103-322.

National Institutes of Health

national cancer institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $3,332,317,000.

national heart, lung, and blood institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and
blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,040,291,000.

[[Page 27148]]

national institute of dental and craniofacial research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to dental disease,
$270,253,000.

national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and
kidney disease, $1,147,588,000.

national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and
stroke, $1,034,886,000.

national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious
diseases, $1,803,063,000.

national institute of general medical sciences

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences,
$1,361,668,000.

national institute of child health and human development

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to child health and human
development, $862,884,000.

national eye institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual
disorders, $452,706,000.

national institute of environmental health sciences

For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health sciences, $444,817,000.

national institute on aging

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $690,156,000.

national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and
musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $351,840,000.

national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other
communication disorders, $265,185,000.

national institute of nursing research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$90,000,000.

national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, $293,935,000.

national institute on drug abuse

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $689,448,000.

national institute of mental health

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$978,360,000.

national human genome research institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to human genome research,
$337,322,000.

national center for research resources

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to research resources and
general research support grants, $680,176,000: Provided, That
none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the
general research support grants program any amount for
indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided
further, That $75,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities
construction grants.

john e. fogarty international center

For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $43,723,000.

national library of medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $215,214,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2000, the Library may
enter into personal services contracts for the provision of
services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.

national center for complementary and alternative medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to complementary and
alternative medicine, $68,753,000.

office of the director

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $283,509,000, of
which $44,953,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research:
Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of
not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1
percent of the total amount made available in this or any
other Act to all National Institutes of Health appropriations
to activities the Director may so designate: Provided
further, That no such appropriation shall be decreased by
more than 1 percent by any such transfers and that the
Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: Provided
further, That the National Institutes of Health is authorized
to collect third party payments for the cost of clinical
services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health
research facilities and that such payments shall be credited
to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund:
Provided further, That all funds credited to the National
Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain available
for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which they are
deposited: Provided further, That up to $500,000 shall be
available to carry out section 499 of the Public Health
Service Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section
499(k)(10) of the Public Health Service Act, funds from the
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health may be
transferred to the National Institutes of Health.

buildings and facilities

For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of
equipment for, facilities of or used by the National
Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real
property, $135,376,000, to remain available until expended.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

substance abuse and mental health services

For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to program management,
$2,549,728,000.

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research

Health Care Policy and Research

For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act, $111,424,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom
of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency
agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to
this appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section
926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$83,576,000.

Health Care Financing Administration

grants to states for medicaid

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $86,087,393,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 2000, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 2000 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or in the case of section
1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2001,
$30,589,003,000, to remain available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

payments to health care trust funds

For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social
Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social
Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to
section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $69,289,100,000.

Program Management

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII
and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed
$1,971,648,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital
Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social
Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance
with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and such
sums as may be collected from authorized user fees and the
sale of data, which shall remain available until expended,
and together with administrative fees collected relative to
Medicare overpayment recovery activities, which shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That all funds derived in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from organizations established
under title XIII of the Public Health Service Act shall be
credited to and available for carrying out the purposes of
this appropriation: Provided further, That $18,000,000
appropriated under this heading for the managed care system
redesign shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That $2,000,000 of the amount available for
research, demonstration, and evaluation activities shall be
available to continue carrying out demonstration projects on
Medicaid coverage of community-based attendant care services
for people with disabilities which ensures maximum control by
the consumer to select and manage their attendant care
services: Provided further, That $3,000,000 of the amount
available for research, demonstration, and evaluation
activities shall be awarded to an application from the
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, the University of
Louisville Sciences

[[Page 27149]]

Center, and St. Vincent's Hospital in Montana to conduct a
demonstration to reduce hospitalizations among high-risk
patients with congestive heart failure: Provided further,
That $2,000,000 of the amount available for research,
demonstration, and evaluation activities shall be awarded to
the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in Los Angeles: Provided
further, That $100,000 of the amount available for research,
demonstration, and evaluation activities shall be awarded to
Littleton Regional Hospital in New Hampshire, to assist in
the development of rural emergency medical services: Provided
further, That $250,000 of the amount available for research,
demonstration, and evaluation activities shall be awarded to
the University of Missouri-Kansas City to test behavorial
interventions of nursing home residents with moderate to
severe dementia: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Health and Human Services is directed to collect, in
aggregate, $95,000,000 in fees in fiscal year 2000 from
Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2)
of the Social Security Act and from eligible organizations
with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 of that Act
pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act.

health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of
the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the
Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under
title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available
without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding
obligations. During fiscal year 2000, no commitments for
direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

Administration for Children and Families

payments to states for child support enforcement and family support
programs

For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
for the first quarter of fiscal year 2001, $650,000,000.
For making payments to each State for carrying out the
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under
title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective
date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be
necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to
a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in
fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such
title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the
limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3
months of the current year for unanticipated costs, incurred
for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.

low income home energy assistance

For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,100,000,000, to be available
for obligation in the period October 1, 2000 through
September 30, 2001.
For making payments under title XXVI of such Act,
$300,000,000: Provided, That these funds 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: Provided further, That these
funds shall be made available only after submission to
Congress of a formal budget request by the President 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.
The $1,100,000,000 provided in the first paragraph under
this heading in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(f ) of division A of
Public Law 105-277) is hereby designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985: Provided, That such funds shall be available only if
the President submits to the Congress one official budget
request for $1,100,000,000 that includes designation of the
entire amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to such
section: Provided further, That such funds shall be
distributed in accordance with section 2604 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623), other
than subsection (e) of such section.

refugee and entrant assistance

For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance
activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $419,005,000:
Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 105-
78 for fiscal year 1998 and under Public Law 105-277 for
fiscal year 1999 shall be available for the costs of
assistance provided and other activities through September
30, 2001.
For carrying out section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), $7,500,000.
The $426,505,000 provided under this heading is hereby
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided, That such
funds shall be available only if the President submits to the
Congress one official budget request for $426,505,000 that
includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency
requirement pursuant to such section.

Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant

For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990), to become available on
October 1, 2000 and remain available through September 30,
2001, $1,182,672,000: Provided, That $19,120,000 shall be
available for child care resource and referral and school-
aged child care activities.

social services block grant

For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the
Social Security Act, $1,700,000,000: Provided, That: (1)
notwithstanding section 2003(c) of such Act, as amended, the
amount specified for allocation under such section for fiscal
year 2000 shall be $1,700,000,000; and (2) notwithstanding
subparagraph (B) of section 404(d)(2) of such Act, the
applicable percent specified under such subparagraph for a
State to carry out State programs pursuant to title XX of
such Act for fiscal year 2000 shall be 4.25 percent.

Children and Families Services Programs

(including rescissions)

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Native American
Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption
opportunities), the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-89), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of
1988, part B(1) of title IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and
1115 of the Social Security Act; for making payments under
the Community Services Block Grant Act, section 473A of the
Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285; and
for necessary administrative expenses to carry out said Acts
and titles I, IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social
Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980, section 5 of the Torture
Victims Relief Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), sections
40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public Law 103-322 and section 126
and titles IV and V of Public Law 100-485, $6,708,733,000, of
which $43,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2001, shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive
payments, as authorized by section 473A of title IV of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679); of which
$567,065,000 shall be for making payments under the Community
Services Block Grant Act; and of which $5,267,000,000 shall
be for making payments under the Head Start Act, of which
$1,400,000,000 shall become available October 1, 2000 and
remain available through September 30, 2001: Provided, That
to the extent Community Services Block Grant funds are
distributed as grant funds by a State to an eligible entity
as provided under the Act, and have not been expended by such
entity, they shall remain with such entity for carryover into
the next fiscal year for expenditure by such entity
consistent with program purposes: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall establish procedures regarding the
disposition of intangible property which permits grant funds,
or intangible assets acquired with funds authorized under
section 680 of the Community Services Block Grant Act, as
amended, to become the sole property of such grantees after a
period of not more than 12 years after the end of the grant
for purposes and uses consistent with the original grant.
In addition, $101,000,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund for carrying out sections 40155,
40211, and 40241 of Public Law 103-322.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2000 under section
429A(e), part B of title IV of the Social Security Act shall
be reduced by $6,000,000.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2000 under section
413(h)(1) of the Social Security Act shall be reduced by
$15,000,000.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families

For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act,
$295,000,000.

payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $4,307,300,000.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2001, $1,538,000,000.

Administration on Aging

Aging Services Programs

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 398 of
the Public Health Service Act, $930,225,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 308(b)(1) of the Older Americans Act
of 1965, as amended, the amounts available to each State for
administration of the State plan under title III of such Act
shall be reduced not more than 5 percent below the amount
that was available to such State for such purpose for fiscal
year 1995: Provided further, That in considering grant
applications for nutrition services for elder Indian
recipients, the Assistant Secretary shall provide maximum

[[Page 27150]]

flexibility to applicants who seek to take into account
subsistence, local customs, and other characteristics that
are appropriate to the unique cultural, regional, and
geographic needs of the American Indian, Alaska and Hawaiian
Native communities to be served.

Office of the Secretary

general departmental management

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public
Health Service Act, and the United States-Mexico Border
Health Commission Act, $209,701,000, of which $20,000,000
shall become available on October 1, 2000, and shall remain
available until September 30, 2001, together with $5,851,000,
to be transferred and expended as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance
Trust Fund: Provided, That $450,000 shall be for a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of
the proposed tuberculosis standard promulgated by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Provided
further, That said contract shall be awarded not later than
60 days after the enactment of this Act: Provided further,
That said study shall be submitted to the Congress not later
than 12 months after award of the contract: Provided further,
That of the funds made available under this heading for
carrying out title XX of the Public Health Service Act,
$10,569,000 shall be for activities specified under section
2003(b)(2), of which $9,131,000 shall be for prevention
service demonstration grants under section 510(b)(2) of title
V of the Social Security Act, as amended, without application
of the limitation of section 2010(c) of said title XX:
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be available to the
Office of the Surgeon General, within the Office of Public
Health and Science, to prepare and disseminate the findings
of the Surgeon General's report on youth violence, and to
coordinate with other agencies throughout the Federal
Government, through the establishment of a Federal
Coordinating Committee, activities to prevent youth violence:
Provided further, That the Secretary may transfer a portion
of such funds to other Federal entities for youth violence
prevention coordination activities.

Office of Inspector General

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $31,500,000.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$18,338,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be
transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1)
of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

policy research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security
Act, $17,000,000.

retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health
Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for
payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection
Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of
dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents'
Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments
pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the
current fiscal year.

Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

For expenses necessary to support activities related to
countering potential biological, disease and chemical threats
to civilian populations, $181,600,000: Provided, That this
amount is distributed as follows: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, $122,000,000, of which $30,000,000 shall be
for the Health Alert Network, $1,000,000 shall be for the
Carnegie Mellon Research Institute, $1,000,000 shall be for
the St. Louis University School of Public Health, $1,000,000
shall be for the University of Texas Medical Branch at
Galveston, and $1,000,000 shall be for the Johns Hopkins
University Center for Civilian Biodefense; Office of the
Secretary, $30,000,000, Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research, $5,000,000, and Office of Emergency Preparedness,
$24,600,000. In addition, for expenses necessary for the
portion of the Global Health Initiative conducted by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $69,000,000:
Provided further, That this amount is distributed as follows:
$35,000,000 shall be for international HIV/AIDS programs,
$9,000,000 shall be for malaria programs, $5,000,000 shall be
for global micronutrient malnutrition programs and
$20,000,000 shall be for carrying out polio eradication
activities. In addition, $150,000,000 for carrying out the
Department's Year 2000 computer conversion activities,
$5,000,000 for the environmental health laboratory at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $35,000,000 for
minority AIDS prevention and treatment activities,
$20,000,000 for the National Institutes of Health challenge
grant program, and $50,000,000 to support the Ricky Ray
Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1998: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to $10,000,000
of the amount provided for the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief
Fund Act may be available for administrative expenses:
Provided further, That the entire amount under this heading
is hereby designated by the Congress to be emergency
requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That the entire amount under this heading
shall be made available only after submission to the Congress
of a formal budget request by the President 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: Provided
further, That no funds shall be obligated until the
Department of Health and Human Services submits an operating
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception
and representation expenses when specifically approved by the
Secretary.
Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through
assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health
Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in
AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency
for International Development, the United Nations
International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health
Organization.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health
Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of
Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay
the salary of an individual, through a grant or other
extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level
II.
Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service
Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act,
or for other taps and assessments made by any office located
in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the
Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House
detailing the planned uses of such funds.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 206. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Health and
Human Services in this Act may be transferred between
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That
the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 207. The Director of the National Institutes of
Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS
Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes,
centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by
these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the
human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is
promptly notified of the transfer.
Sec. 208. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, the amount for research
related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly
determined by the Director of the National Institutes of
Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall
be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account.
The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer
from such account amounts necessary to carry out section
2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to any entity under title X of the Public
Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award
certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family
participation in the decision of minors to seek family
planning services and that it provides counseling to minors
on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in
sexual activities.
Sec. 210. (a) The final rule entitled ``Organ Procurement
and Transplantation Network'', promulgated by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services on April 2, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg.
16295 et seq.) (relating to part 121 of title 42, Code of
Federal Regulations), together with the amendments to such
rules promulgated on October 20, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 56649 et
seq.) shall not become effective before the expiration of the
90 day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a):
(1) Not later than 3 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall
publish in the Federal Register a notice providing that the
period within which comments on the final rule may be
submitted to the Secretary is 60 days after the date of such
publication of the notice.
(2) Not later than 21 days after the expiration of such 60-
day period, the Secretary shall complete the review of the
comments submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) and shall amend
the final rule with any revisions appropriate according to
the review by the Secretary of such comments. The final rule
may be in the form of amendments to the rule referred to in
subsection (a) that was promulgated on April 2, 1998, and in
the form of amendments to the rule referred to in such
subsection that was promulgated on October 20, 1999.

[[Page 27151]]

Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
(including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used
to carry out the Medicare+Choice program if the Secretary
denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible
entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because
the entity informs the Secretary that it will not provide,
pay for, provide coverage of, or provide referrals for
abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall make
appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment
to such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of
the expected costs of providing the service to such entity's
enrollees): Provided further, That nothing in this section
shall be construed to change the Medicare program's coverage
for such services and a Medicare+Choice organization
described in this section shall be responsible for informing
enrollees where to obtain information about all Medicare
covered services.
Sec. 212. (a) Mental Health.--Section 1918(b) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-7(b)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(b) Minimum Allotments for States.--With respect to
fiscal year 2000, the amount of the allotment of a State
under section 1911 shall not be less than the amount the
State received under section 1911 for fiscal year 1998.''.
(b) Substance Abuse.--Section 1933(b) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Minimum Allotments for States.--Each State's
allotment for fiscal year 2000 for programs under this
subpart shall be equal to such State's allotment for such
programs for fiscal year 1999, except that, if the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 is less than the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 1999, then the amount of a
State's allotment under section 1921 shall be equal to the
amount that the State received under section 1921 in fiscal
year 1999 decreased by the percentage by which the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 is less than the amount
appropriated for such section for fiscal year 1999.''.
Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
provider of services under title X of the Public Health
Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring
notification or the reporting of child abuse, child
molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
Sec. 214. Extension of Certain Adjudication Provisions.--
The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-167) is
amended--
(1) in section 599D (8 U.S.C. 1157 note)--
(A) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``1997, 1998, and
1999'' and inserting ``1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``October 1, 1999'' each
place it appears and inserting ``October 1, 2000''; and
(2) in section 599E (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) in subsection
(b)(2), by striking ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting
``September 30, 2000''.
Sec. 215. None of the funds provided in this Act or in any
other Act making appropriations for fiscal year 2000 may be
used to administer or implement in Arizona or in the Kansas
City, Missouri or in the Kansas City, Kansas area the
Medicare Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project (operated
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under authority
granted in section 4011 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-33)).
Sec. 216. Of the funds appropriated for the National
Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2000, $7,500,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until September 29,
2000. Of the funds appropriated for the Health Resources and
Services Administration for fiscal year 2000, $1,120,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until September 29,
2000. Of the funds appropriated for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for fiscal year 2000, $965,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until September 29,
2000. Of the funds appropriated for the Children and Families
Services Programs for fiscal year 2000, $400,000,000 shall
not be available for obligation until September 29, 2000. Of
the funds appropriated for the Social Services Block Grant
for fiscal year 2000, $425,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until September 29, 2000. Of the funds
appropriated for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration for fiscal year 2000, $450,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until September 29,
2000.
Sec. 217. Study and Report on the Geographic Adjustment
Factors Under the Medicare Program. (a) Study.--The Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall conduct a study on--
(1) the reasons why, and the appropriateness of the fact
that, the geographic adjustment factor (determined under
paragraph (2) of section 1848(e) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) used
in determining the amount of payment for physicians' services
under the Medicare program is less for physicians' services
provided in New Mexico than for physicians' services provided
in Arizona, Colorado, and Texas; and
(2) the effect that the level of the geographic cost-of-
practice adjustment factor (determined under paragraph (3) of
such section) has on the recruitment and retention of
physicians in small rural States, including New Mexico, Iowa,
Louisiana, and Arkansas.
(b) Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit a report to Congress on the study
conducted under subsection (a), together with any
recommendations for legislation that the Secretary determines
to be appropriate as a result of such study.
Sec. 218. Withholding of Substance Abuse Funds. (a) In
General.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to withhold substance abuse funding from a State
pursuant to section 1926 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300x-26) if such State certifies to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services that the State will commit
additional State funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to
ensure compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of
tobacco products to individuals under 18 years of age.
(b) Amount of State Funds.--The amount of funds to be
committed by a State under subsection (a) shall be equal to 1
percent of such State's substance abuse block grant
allocation for each percentage point by which the State
misses the retailer compliance rate goal established by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 1926 of
such Act, except that the Secretary may agree to a smaller
commitment of additional funds by the State.
(c) Supplement not Supplant.--Amounts expended by a State
pursuant to a certification under subsection (a) shall be
used to supplement and not supplant State funds used for
tobacco prevention programs and for compliance activities
described in such subsection in the fiscal year preceding the
fiscal year to which this section applies.
(d) Enforcement of State Expenditure.--The Secretary shall
exercise discretion in enforcing the timing of the State
expenditure required by the certification described in
subsection (a) as late as July 31, 2000.
Sec. 219. None of the funds made available under this title
may be used to carry out the transmittal of August 13, 1997
(relating to self-administered drugs) of the Deputy Director
of the Division of Acute Care of the Health Care Financing
Administration to regional offices of such Administration or
to promulgate any regulation or other transmittal or policy
directive that has the effect of imposing (or clarifying the
imposition of ) a restriction on the coverage of injectable
drugs under section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security Act
beyond the restrictions applied before the date of such
transmittal.
Sec. 220. In accordance with section 1557 of title 31,
United States Code, funds obligated and awarded in fiscal
years 1994 and 1995 under the heading ``National Cancer
Institute'' for the Cancer Therapy and Research Center in San
Antonio, Texas, grant numbers 1 C06 CA58690-01 and 3 C06
CA58690-01S1, shall be exempt from subchapter IV of chapter
15 of such title and the obligated unexpended dollars shall
remain available to the grantee for expenditure without
fiscal year limitation to fulfill the purpose of the award.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 2000''.

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Education Reform

For carrying out activities authorized by titles III and IV
of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act, and sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141,
parts B, C, and D of title III, and part I of title X of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
$1,586,560,000, of which $456,500,000 for the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act and $55,000,000 for the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act shall become available on July 1, 2000 and
remain available through September 30, 2001, and of which
$87,000,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That none of
the funds appropriated under this heading shall be obligated
or expended to carry out section 304(a)(2)(A) of the Goals
2000: Educate America Act, except that no more than
$1,500,000 may be used to carry out activities under section
314(a)(2) of that Act: Provided further, That section
315(a)(2) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act shall not
apply: Provided further, That up to one-half of 1 percent of
the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside
for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of
their relative need as determined by the Secretary in
accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided
further, That if any State educational agency does not apply
for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under
section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to
local educational agencies in that State that apply directly
to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions
published by the Secretary in the Federal Register: Provided
further, That of the funds made available to carry out
section 3136 and notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$500,000 shall be awarded to the Houston Independent School
District for technology infrastructure, $8,000,000 shall be
awarded to the I CAN LEARN program, $2,000,000 shall be
awarded to the Linking Education Technology and Educational
Reform (LINKS) project for educational technology, $1,000,000
shall be awarded to the Center for Advanced Research and
Technology (CART) for comprehensive secondary education
reform, $250,000 shall be awarded to the Vaughn Reno Starks
Community Center in Elizabethtown, Kentucky for a technology
program, $125,000 shall be awarded to the Wyandanch Compel
Youth Academy Educational Assistance Program in New York,
$3,000,000 shall be awarded to Hi-Technology High School in
San Bernardino County, California for technology enhancement,
$300,000 shall be awarded to the Long Island 21st Century
Technology and E-Commerce Alliance, $800,000 shall be awarded
to Montana State University for a distance learning
initiative,

[[Page 27152]]

$2,000,000 for the Tupelo School District in Tupelo,
Mississippi for technology innovation in education, $900,000
for the University of Alaska at Anchorage for distance
learning education, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the Seton
Hill College in Greensburg, Pennsylvania for a model
education technology training program, $500,000 shall be
awarded to the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, in Fairbanks,
Alaska for a teacher technology training program, $200,000
shall be awarded to the Alaska Department of Education for
the Alaska State Distance Education Technology Consortium,
$1,000,000 shall be awarded to the North East Vocational Area
Cooperative in Washington State for a multi-district
technology education center, $400,000 shall be awarded to the
University of Vermont for the Vermont Learning Gateway
Program, $2,500,000 shall be awarded to the State University
of New Jersey for the RUNet 2000 project at Rutgers for an
integrated voice-video-data network to link students, faculty
and administration via a high-speed, broad band fiber optic
network, $500,000 shall be awarded to the Iowa Area Education
Agency 13 for a public/private partnership to demonstrate the
effective use of technology in grades 1-3, $235,000 shall be
for the Louisville Deaf Oral School for technology
enhancements: Provided further, That in the State of Alabama
$50,000 shall be awarded to the Bibb County Board of
Education for technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be
awarded to the Calhoun County Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the
Chambers County Board of Education for technology
enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the Chilton County
Board of Education for technology enhancements, $50,000 shall
be awarded to the Clay County Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the
Cleburne County Board of Education for technology
enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the Coosa County
Board of Education for technology enhancements, $50,000 shall
be awarded to the Lee County Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the
Macon County Board of Education for technology enhancements,
$50,000 shall be awarded to the St. Clair County Board of
Education for technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be
awarded to the Talladega County Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the
Tallapoosa County Board of Education for technology
enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the Randolph County
Board of Education for technology enhancements, $50,000 shall
be awarded to the Russell County Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the
Alexander City Board of Education for technology
enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the Anniston City
Board of Education for technology enhancements, $50,000 shall
be awarded to the Lanett City Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the Pell
City Board of Education for technology enhancements, $50,000
shall be awarded to the Roanoke City Board of Education for
technology enhancements, $50,000 shall be awarded to the
Talledega City Board of Education for technology enhancements
and $500,000 shall be to continue a state-of-the-art
information technology system at Mansfield University,
Mansfield, Pennsylvania: Provided further, That of the funds
made available to carry out title III, part B of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $750,000 shall be
awarded to the Technology Literacy Center at the Museum of
Science and Industry, Chicago, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to
an on-line math and science training program at Oklahoma
State University, $4,000,000 shall be awarded to continue and
expand the Iowa Communications Network statewide fiber optic
demonstration project: Provided further, That of the funds
made available for title X, part I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $6,000 shall be awarded to the Study
Partners Program, Inc., in Louisville, Kentucky, $12,000
shall be awarded to the Shawnee Gardens Tenants Association
Inc., in Louisville, Kentucky for a tutorial program, $12,000
shall be awarded to the 100 Black Men of Louisville, Kentucky
for a mentoring and leadership training program, $500,000
shall be awarded to the Omaha, Nebraska Public Schools for
the OPS 21st Century Learning Grant, $25,000 shall be for the
Plymouth Renewal Center in Kentucky for a tutoring program,
$25,000 shall be for the Canaan Community Development
Corporation's Village Learning Center Program, $25,000 shall
be for the St. Stephen Life Center After School Program,
$25,000 shall be for the Louisville Central Community Centers
Youth Education Program, $15,000 shall be for the Trinity
Family Life Center tutoring program, $15,000 shall be for the
New Zion Community Development Foundation, Inc., after school
mentoring program, $20,000 shall be for the St. Joseph
Catholic Orphan Society program for abused and neglected
children, $25,000 shall be for the Portland Neighborhood
House after school program, and $25,000 shall be for the St.
Anthony Community Outreach Center, Inc., for the Education
PAYs program.

Education for the Disadvantaged

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, $8,547,986,000, of which
$2,317,823,000 shall become available on July 1, 2000, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2001, and of
which $6,204,763,000 shall become available on October 1,
2000 and shall remain available through September 30, 2001,
for academic year 2000-2001: Provided, That $6,649,000,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall
be available to the Secretary on October 1, 1999, to obtain
updated local-educational-agency-level census poverty data
from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That
$1,158,397,000 shall be available for concentration grants
under section 1124A: Provided further, That $8,900,000 shall
be available for evaluations under section 1501 and not more
than $8,500,000 shall be reserved for section 1308, of which
not more than $3,000,000 shall be reserved for section
1308(d): Provided further, That grant awards under sections
1124 and 1124A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 shall be made to each State and local
educational agency at no less than 100 percent of the amount
such State or local educational agency received under this
authority for fiscal year 1999: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, grant awards
under section 1124A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be made to those local
educational agencies that received a Concentration Grant
under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1998,
but are not eligible to receive such a grant for fiscal year
2000: Provided further, That each such local educational
agency shall receive an amount equal to the Concentration
Grant the agency received in fiscal year 1998, ratably
reduced, if necessary, to ensure that these local educational
agencies receive no greater share of their hold-harmless
amounts than other local educational agencies: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall not take into account the
hold harmless provisions in this section in determining State
allocations under any other program administered by the
Secretary in any fiscal year: Provided further, That
$160,000,000 shall be available under section 1002(g)(2) to
demonstrate effective approaches to comprehensive school
reform to be allocated and expended in accordance with the
instructions relating to this activity in the statement of
the managers on the conference report accompanying Public Law
105-78 and in the statement of the managers on the conference
report accompanying Public Law 105-277: Provided further,
That in carrying out this initiative, the Secretary and the
States shall support only approaches that show the most
promise of enabling children served by title I to meet
challenging State content standards and challenging State
student performance standards based on reliable research and
effective practices, and include an emphasis on basic
academics and parental involvement.

Impact Aid

For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $910,500,000,
of which $737,200,000 shall be for basic support payments
under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be for payments for
children with disabilities under section 8003(d),
$76,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
payments under section 8003(f ), $10,300,000 shall be for
construction under section 8007, $32,000,000 shall be for
Federal property payments under section 8002 and $5,000,000
to remain available until expended shall be for facilities
maintenance under section 8008: Provided, That of the funds
available for section 8007 and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $500,000 shall be awarded to the Fort Sam
Houston Independent School District, Texas, $800,000 shall be
awarded to the Hays Lodgepole School District, Montana, and
$2,000,000 shall be awarded to the North Chicago Community
Unit SD 187: Provided further, That these funds shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Education shall treat as timely filed, and shall
process for payment, an application for a fiscal year 1999
payment from the local educational agency for Brookeland,
Texas under section 8002 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 if the Secretary has received that
application not later than 30 days after the enactment of
this Act: Provided further, That section 8002(f ) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by
adding a new paragraph ``(3)'' at the end to read as follows:
``(3) For each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2000,
the Secretary shall treat the Central Union, California;
Island, California; Hill City, South Dakota; and Wall, South
Dakota local educational agencies as meeting the eligibility
requirements of subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section.'':
Provided further, That the Secretary of Education shall
consider all payments received by the educational agency for
Hatboro-Horsham and Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania for fiscal
year 1995 under section 8002(a) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(a)), and all
payments under section 8002(h)(2)(A) for subsequent years
through fiscal year 1999, to be correct: Provided further,
That section 8002(f ) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof
a new paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) For the purposes of payments under this section for
each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2000, the
Secretary shall treat the Hot Springs, South Dakota local
educational agency

[[Page 27153]]

as if it had filed a timely application under section 8002 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for fiscal
year 1994 if the Secretary has received the fiscal year 1994
application, as well as Exhibits A and B not later than
December 1, 1999.'':
Provided further, That section 8002(f ) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the
end thereof a new paragraph (5) to read as follows:
``(5) For purposes of payments under this section for each
fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2000, the Secretary
shall treat the Hueneme, California local educational agency
as if it had filed a timely application under section 8002 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 if the
Secretary has received the fiscal year 1995 application not
later than December 1, 1999.'':
Provided further, That the Secretary of Education shall treat
as timely filed, and shall process for payment, an
application for a fiscal year 1998 payment from the local
educational agency for Hydaburg, Alaska, under section 8003
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 if the
Secretary has received that application not later than 30
days after the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Education shall treat as timely, and process
for payment, an application for fiscal years 1996 and 1997
payment from the local education agency for Fallbrook Unified
High School District, California, under section 8002 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, if the
Secretary has received that application not later than 30
days after the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
for the purpose of computing the amount of a payment for a
local educational agency for children identified under
section 8003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, children residing in housing initially acquired or
constructed under section 801 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-115) (``Build to
Lease'' program) shall be considered as children described
under section 8003(a)(1)(B) if the property described is
within the fenced security perimeter of the military facility
upon which such housing is situated: Provided further, That
if such property is not owned by the Federal Government, is
subject to taxation by a State or political subdivision of a
State, and thereby generates revenues for a local educational
agency which received a payment from the Secretary under
section 8003, the Secretary shall: (1) require such local
educational agency to provide certification from an
appropriate official of the Department of Defense that such
property is being used to provide military housing; and (2)
reduce the amount of such payment by an amount equal to the
amount of revenue from such taxation received in the second
preceding fiscal year by such local educational agency,
unless the amount of such revenue was taken into account by
the State for such second preceding fiscal year and already
resulted in a reduction in the amount of State aid paid to
such local educational agency.

School Improvement Programs

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles II, IV, V-A and B, VI, IX, X, and XIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'');
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and part B of title VIII of the
Higher Education Act of 1965; $2,926,134,000, of which
$875,300,000 shall become available on July 1, 2000, and
remain available through September 30, 2001, and of which
$1,530,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2000 and
shall remain available through September 30, 2001 for
academic year 2000-2001: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated, $335,000,000 shall be for Eisenhower
professional development State grants under title II-B and
$380,000,000 shall be for title VI and up to $750,000 shall
be for an evaluation of comprehensive regional assistance
centers under title XIII of ESEA: Provided further, That
$1,200,000,000 is for a class size/teacher assistance
initiative to be distributed as described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of section 307(b)(1) of the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 1999. School districts may use
the funds for class size reduction activities as described in
section 307(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1999: Provided further, That, if the
local educational agency determines that it wishes to use the
funds for purposes other than class size reduction as part of
a local strategy for improving academic achievement, funds
may be used for professional development activities, teacher
training or any other local need that is designed to improve
student performance: Provided further, That each such agency
shall use funds under this section only to supplement, and
not to supplant, State and local funds, that in absence of
such funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under
this section.

READING EXCELLENCE

For necessary expenses to carry out the Reading Excellence
Act, $65,000,000, which shall become available on July 1,
2000 and shall remain available through September 30, 2001
and $195,000,000 which shall become available on October 1,
2000 and remain available through September 30, 2001.

indian education

For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $77,000,000.

Bilingual and Immigrant Education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education
activities authorized by parts A and C and section 7203 of
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, without regard to section 7103(b), $387,000,000:
Provided, That State educational agencies may use all, or any
part of, their part C allocation for competitive grants to
local educational agencies.

Special Education

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $6,036,646,000, of which $2,047,885,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 2000, and shall
remain available through September 30, 2001, and of which
$3,742,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2000 and
shall remain available through September 30, 2001, for
academic year 2000-2001: Provided, That $1,500,000 shall be
for the recipient of funds provided by Public Law 105-78
under section 687(b)(2)(G) of the Act to provide information
on diagnosis, intervention, and teaching strategies for
children with disabilities: Provided further, That $1,500,000
shall be awarded to the Organizing Committee for the 2001
Special Olympics World Winter Games in Alaska and $1,000,000
shall be awarded to the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee
for the VIII Paralympic Winter Games: Provided further, That
$1,000,000 shall be for the Early Childhood Development
Project of the National Easter Seal Society for the
Mississippi Delta Region, which funds shall be used to
provide training, technical support, services and equipment
to address personnel and other needs: Provided further, That
$1,000,000 shall be awarded to the Center for Literacy and
Assessment at the University of Southern Mississippi for
research dissemination and teacher and parent training.

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of
1998, and the Helen Keller National Center Act,
$2,701,772,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
105(b)(1) of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (``the AT
Act''), each State shall be provided $50,000 for activities
under section 102 of the AT Act: Provided further, That of
the funds available for section 303 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 and notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$750,000 shall be awarded to the Krasnow Institute at George
Mason University for a Receptive Language Disorders research
center, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the University of
Central Florida for a virtual reality-based education and
training program for the deaf, $2,000,000 shall be awarded to
the Seattle Lighthouse for the Blind for interpreter,
orientation, mobility, and education services for deaf, blind
and other visually impaired adults, $1,000,000 shall be
awarded to the Professional Development and Research
Institute on Blindness in Louisiana for the training of
professionals in the field of education and rehabilitation of
blind adults and children, and $600,000 shall be awarded to
the Alaska Center for Independent Living in Anchorage, Alaska
to develop capacity to implement a self-directed model for
personal assistance services, including training of self-
employed personal assistants and their clients: Provided
further, That of the funds available for section 305 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the
California State University at Northridge for a Western
Center for Adaptive Therapy.

Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities

american printing house for the blind

For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $10,100,000.

national technical institute for the deaf

For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $48,151,000, of which $2,651,000 shall
be for construction and shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the
Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.

gallaudet university

For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$85,980,000, of which $2,500,000 shall be for construction
and shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
from the total amount available, the University may at its
discretion use funds for the endowment program as authorized
under section 207.

Vocational and Adult Education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, the
Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and title VIII-D of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and Public Law
102-73, $1,656,750,000, of which $3,500,000 shall remain
available until expended, and of which $833,150,000 shall
become available on July 1, 2000 and shall remain available
through September 30, 2001 and of which $791,000,000 shall
become available on October 1, 2000 and shall remain
available through September 30, 2001: Provided, That of the
amounts made available for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Technical Education Act, $4,600,000 shall be for tribally
controlled vocational institutions under section 117:
Provided further, That $9,000,000 shall be for carrying out
section 118 of such act for all activities conducted by

[[Page 27154]]

and through the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee: Provided further, That of the amounts
made available for the Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act, $14,000,000 shall be for national leadership activities
under section 243 and $6,000,000 shall be for the National
Institute for Literacy under section 242: Provided further,
That $19,000,000 shall be for Youth Offender Grants, of which
$5,000,000, which shall become available on July 1, 2000, and
remain available through September 30, 2001, shall be used in
accordance with section 601 of Public Law 102-73 as that
section was in effect prior to the enactment of Public Law
105-220.

Student Financial Assistance

For carrying out subparts 1, 3 and 4 of part A, part C and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $9,435,000,000, which shall remain available through
September 30, 2001.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 2000-2001 shall be $3,300:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if
the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment
schedule for such award year, that the amount included within
this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year,
and any funds available from the fiscal year 1999
appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to
satisfy fully all such awards for which students are
eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the
amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a
fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as
determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions
established by the Secretary for this purpose.
For an additional amount for ``student financial
assistance'' for payment of allocations to institutions of
higher education for Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants for award years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001,
made under title IV, part A, subpart 3, of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $10,000,000: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or
regulatory provision applicable to the Federal Supplemental
Educational Opportunity Grant program and the determination
of need for such grants, that the Secretary deems necessary
to assist individuals who suffered financial harm resulting
from the hurricanes, and the flooding associated with the
hurricanes, that struck the eastern United States in August
and September 1999, and who, at the time of the disaster were
residing, attending an institution of higher education, or
employed within an area affected by such a disaster on the
date which the President declared the existence of a major
disaster (or, in the case of an individual who is a dependent
student, whose parent or stepparent suffered financial harm
from such disaster, and who resided, or was employed in such
an area at that time): Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act (20
U.S.C. 1232) and section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
the Secretary shall, by notice in the Federal Register,
exercise this authority, through publication of waivers or
modifications of statutory and regulatory provisions, as the
Secretary deems necessary to assist such individuals:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 413D of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, allocations from such
additional amount shall not be taken into account in
determining institutional allocations under such section in
future years: Provided further, That the entire amount made
available under this paragraph is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, and that the entire amount shall be available only to
the extent an official budget request for the entire amount,
that includes designation of the entire amount as an
emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress.

federal family education loan program account

For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $48,000,000.

Higher Education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961;
$1,466,826,000, of which $12,000,000 for interest subsidies
authorized by section 121 of the Higher Education Act of
1965, shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
of the funds available for part A, subpart 2 of title VII of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, $10,000,000 shall be
available to fund awards for academic year 2000-2001, and
$10,000,000 to remain available through September 30, 2001,
shall be available to fund awards for academic year 2001-
2002, for fellowships under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of
said Act, under the terms and conditions of part A, subpart
1: Provided further, That section 852(b)(1) of the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998 is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``14'' and inserting ``16'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(3) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) one member shall be appointed by the Chairperson of
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate from among members of the Senate; and
``(H) one member shall be appointed by the Chairperson of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives from among members of the House of
Representatives.'':
Provided further, That the matter preceding paragraph (1) of
section 853(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 is
amended by striking ``6 months'' and inserting ``12 months'':
Provided further, That the amounts provided under this
heading in division A, section 101(f ) of Public Law 105-277
for the Web-Based Education Commission, authorized by part J
of title VIII of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998,
shall remain available through September 30, 2000: Provided
further, That $3,000,000 is for data collection and
evaluation activities for programs under the Higher Education
Act of 1965, including such activities needed to comply with
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Provided
further, That of the funds available for title IV, part A,
subpart 8 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $3,000,000 shall
be awarded to the University of South Florida for a distance
learning program, $190,000 shall be awarded to the New York
Global Communication Center in West Islip, New York for a
distance learning program, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the
Alliance for Technology, Learning and Society (ATLAS) at the
University of Colorado for technology-enhanced learning,
$2,500,000 shall be awarded to the Illinois Community College
Board to develop a systemwide, on-line virtual degree program
for the community college system in Illinois, and $1,250,000
shall be made available to the University of Idaho
Interactive Learning Environments to develop and improve
Internet-based delivery of education programs.

howard university

For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $219,444,000, of which not less than $3,530,000 shall
be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard
University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain
available until expended.

college housing and academic facilities loans program

For Federal administrative expenses authorized under
section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $737,000 to
carry out activities related to existing facility loans
entered into under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program
Account

The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 344
of title III, part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965
shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such
bonds shall not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $207,000.

Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement

For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994, including sections 411 and 412; section 2102 of
title II, and parts A, B, and K and section 10102 and section
10601 of title X, and part C of title XIII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and title VI
of Public Law 103-227, $492,679,000: Provided, That
$25,000,000 shall be available to demonstrate effective
approaches to comprehensive school reform, to be allocated
and expended in accordance with the instructions relating to
this activity in the statement of managers on the conference
report accompanying Public Law 105-78 and in the statement of
the managers on the conference report accompanying Public Law
105-277: Provided further, That the funds made available for
comprehensive school reform shall become available on July 1,
2000, and remain available through September 30, 2001, and in
carrying out this initiative, the Secretary and the States
shall support only approaches that show the most promise of
enabling children to meet challenging State content standards
and challenging State student performance standards based on
reliable research and effective practices, and include an
emphasis on basic academics and parental involvement:
Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds provided for
the national education research institutes shall be allocated
notwithstanding subparagrphs (B) and (C) of section 931(c)(2)
of Public Law 103-227: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under section 10601 of title X of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $1,500,000
shall be used to conduct a violence prevention demonstration
program: Provided further, That of the funds available for
part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, $10,000,000 shall be awarded to the National
Constitution Center, established by Public Law 100-433, for
exhibition design, program planning and operation of the
center, $10,000,000 shall be provided to continue a
demonstration of public school facilities to the Iowa
Department of Education, $1,000,000 shall be made available
to the New Mexico Department of Education for school
performance improvement and drop-out prevention, $300,000
shall be

[[Page 27155]]

made available to Semos Unlimited, Inc., in New Mexico to
support bilingual education and literacy programs, $700,000
shall be awarded to Loyola University Chicago for recruitment
and preparation of new teacher candidates for employment in
rural and inner-city schools, $500,000 shall be awarded to
Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science education/exposure
programs for local elementary school students, $3,000,000
shall be awarded to Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America to
expand school-based mentoring, $2,500,000 shall be awarded to
the Chicago Public School System to support a substance abuse
pilot program in conjunction with Elgin and East Aurora
School Systems, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the University
of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies for the Youth
Leadership Initiative, $800,000 shall be awarded to the
Institute for Student Achievement at Holmes Middle School and
Annandale High School in Virginia for academic enrichment
programs, $100,000 shall be awarded to the Mountain Arts
Center for educational programming, $1,500,000 shall be
awarded to the University of Louisville for research in the
area of academic readiness, $500,000 shall be awarded to the
West Ed Regional Educational Laboratory for the 24 Challenge
and Jumping Levels Math Demonstration Project, $1,000,000
shall be awarded to Central Michigan University for a charter
schools development and performance institute, $950,000 shall
be awarded to the Living Science Interactive Learning Model
partnership in Indian River, Florida for a science education
program, $825,000 shall be awarded to the North Babylon
Community Youth Services for an educational program,
$1,000,000 shall be awarded to the Los Angeles County Office
of Education/Educational Telecommunications and Technology
for a pilot program for teachers, $650,000 shall be awarded
to the University of Northern Iowa for an institute of
technology for inclusive education, $500,000 shall be awarded
to Youth Crime Watch of America to expand a program to
prevent crime, drugs and violence in schools, $892,000 shall
be awarded to Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania for an
environmental science program, $560,000 shall be awarded to
the Western Suffolk St. Johns-LaSalle Academy Science and
Technology Mentoring Program, $4,000,000 shall be awarded to
the National Teaching Academy of Chicago for a model teacher
recruitment, preparation and professional development
program, $2,000,000 shall be awarded to the University of
West Florida for a teacher enhancement program, $1,000,000
shall be awarded to Delta State University in Mississippi for
innovative teacher training, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to
the Alaska Humanities Forum, Inc., in Anchorage, Alaska,
$250,000 shall be awarded to An Achievable Dream in Newport
News, Virginia to improve academic performance of at-risk
youths, $250,000 shall be awarded to the Rock School of
Ballet in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to expand its
community-outreach programs for inner-city children and
underprivileged youth in Camden, New Jersey and southern New
Jersey, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the University of
Maryland Center for Quality and Productivity to provide a
link for the Blue Ribbon Schools, $1,000,000 shall be awarded
to the Continuing Education Center and Teachers' Institute in
South Boston, Virginia to promote participation among youth
in the United States democratic process, $1,000,000 shall be
for the National Museum of Women in the Arts to expand its
``Discovering Art'' program to elementary and secondary
schools and other educational organizations, $400,000 shall
be awarded to the Alaska Department of Education's summer
reading program, $400,000 shall be awarded to the Partners in
Education, Inc., to foster successful business-school
partnerships, $250,000 shall be for the Kodiak Island Borough
School District for development of an environmental education
program, $2,000,000 shall be for the Reach Out and Read
Program to expand literacy and health awareness for at-risk
families, $1,000,000 shall be for the Virginia Living Museum
in Newport News, Virginia for an educational program,
$450,000 shall be for the Challenger Learning Center in
Hardin County, Kentucky for technology assistance and teacher
training, $250,000 shall be for the Crawford County School
System in Georgia for technology and curriculum support,
$500,000 shall be for the Berrien County School System in
Georgia for technology development, $35,000 shall be for the
Louisville Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club Diversion
Enhancement Program, $100,000 shall be awarded to the
Philadelphia Orchestra's Philly Pops to operate the Jazz in
the Schools program in the Philadelphia school district,
$500,000 for the Mississippi Delta Education for a teacher
incentive program initiative, $500,000 shall be for enhanced
teacher training in reading in the District of Columbia, and
$100,000 shall be awarded to the Project 2000 D.C. mentoring
project: Provided further, That of the funds available for
section 10601 of title X of such Act, $2,000,000 shall be
awarded to the Center for Educational Technologies for
production and distribution of an effective CD-ROM product
that would complement the ``We the People: The Citizen and
the Constitution'' curriculum: Provided further, That, in
addition to the funds for title VI of Public Law 103-227 and
notwithstanding the provisions of section 601(c)(1)(C) of
that Act, $1,000,000 shall be available to the Center for
Civic Education to conduct a civic education program with
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and, consistent
with the civics and Government activities authorized in
section 601(c)(3) of Public Law 103-227, to provide civic
education assistance to democracies in developing countries.
The term ``developing countries'' shall have the same meaning
as the term ``developing country'' in the Education for the
Deaf Act.

Departmental Management

program administration

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $370,184,000.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $71,200,000.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General,
as authorized by section 212 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $34,000,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred
between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be
increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer:
Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses
of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any
transfer.
Sec. 305. (a) From the funds appropriated for payments to
local educational agencies under section 8003(f ) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'') for
fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of Education shall distribute
supplemental payments for certain local educational agencies,
as follows:
(1) First, from the amount of $74,000,000, the Secretary
shall make supplemental payments to the following agencies
under section 8003(f ) of ESEA:
(A) Local educational agencies that received assistance
under section 8003(f ) for fiscal year 1999--
(i) in fiscal year 1997 had at least 40 percent federally
connected children described in section 8003(a)(1) in average
daily attendance; and in fiscal year 1997 had a tax rate for
general fund purposes which was at least 95 percent of the
State average tax rate for general fund purposes; or
(ii) whose boundary is coterminous with the boundary of a
Federal military installation.
(B) Local educational agencies that received assistance
under section 8003(f ) for fiscal year 1999; and in fiscal
year 1997 had at least 30 percent federally connected
children described in section 8003(a)(1) in average daily
attendance; and in fiscal year 1997 had a tax rate for
general fund purposes which was at least 125 percent of the
State average tax rate for general fund purposes.
(C) Any eligible local educational agency that in fiscal
year 1997, which had at least 25,000 children in average
daily attendance, at least 50 percent federally connected
children described in section 8003(a)(1) in average daily
attendance, and at least 6,000 children described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 8003(a)(1) in average
daily attendance.
(2) From the remaining $2,000,000 and any amounts available
after making payments under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall then make supplemental payments to local educational
agencies that are not described in paragraph (1) of this
subsection, but that meet the requirements of paragraphs (2)
and (4) of section 8003(f ) of ESEA for fiscal year 2000.
(3) After making payments to all eligible local educational
agencies described in paragraph (2) of subsection (a), the
Secretary shall use any remaining funds from paragraph (2)
for making payments to the eligible local educational
agencies described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) if the
amount available under paragraph (1) is insufficient to fully
fund all eligible local educational agencies.
(4) After making payments to all eligible local educational
agencies as described in paragraphs 1 through 3, the
Secretary shall use any remaining funds to increase basic
support payments under section 8003(b) for fiscal year 2000
for all eligible applicants.

[[Page 27156]]

(b) In calculating the amounts of supplemental payments for
agencies described in subparagraphs (1)(A) and (B) and
paragraph (2) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the
formula contained in section 8003(b)(1)(C) of ESEA, except
that--
(1) eligible local educational agencies may count all
children described in section 8003(a)(1) in computing the
amount of those payments;
(2) maximum payments for any of those agencies that use
local contribution rates identified in section 8003(b)(1)(C)
(i) or (ii) shall be computed by using four-fifths instead of
one-half of those rates;
(3) the learning opportunity threshold percentage of all
such agencies under section 8003(b)(2)(B) shall be deemed to
be 100;
(4) for an eligible local educational agency with 35
percent or more of its children in average daily attendance
described in either subparagraph (D) or (E) of section
8003(a)(1) in fiscal year 1997, the weighted student unit
figure from its regular basic support payment shall be
recomputed by using a factor of 0.55 for such children;
(5) for an eligible local educational agency with fewer
than 100 children in average daily attendance in fiscal year
1997, the weighted student unit figure from its regular basic
support payment shall be recomputed by multiplying the total
number of children described in section 8003(a)(1) by a
factor of 1.75; and
(6) for an eligible local educational agency whose total
number of children in average daily attendance in fiscal year
1997 was at least 100, but fewer than 750, the weighted
student unit figure from its regular basic support payment
shall be recomputed by multiplying the total number of
children described in section 8003(a)(1) by a factor of 1.25.
(c) For a local educational agency described in subsection
(a)(1)(C) above, the Secretary shall use the formula
contained in section 8003(b)(1)(C) of ESEA, except that the
weighted student unit total from its regular basic support
payment shall be recomputed by using a factor of 1.35 for
children described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
8003(a)(1) and its learning opportunity threshold percentage
shall be deemed to be 100.
(d) For each eligible local educational agency, the
calculated supplemental section 8003(f ) payment shall be
reduced by subtracting the agency's fiscal year 2000 section
8003(b) basic support payment.
(e) If the sums described in subsections (a)(1) and (2)
above are insufficient to pay in full the calculated
supplemental payments for the local educational agencies
identified in those subsections, the Secretary shall ratably
reduce the supplemental section 8003(f ) payment to each
local educational agency.
Sec. 306. (a) Section 1204(b)(1)(A) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6364(b)(1)(a)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by striking clause (v) and adding the following:
``(v) 50 percent in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth
such years; and
``(vi) 35 percent in any subsequent such year.''.
(b) Section 1208(b) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant funds
to continue a program under this part after the first year,
the State educational agency shall review the progress of
each eligible entity in meeting the goals of the program
referred to in section 1207(c)(1)(A) and shall evaluate the
program based on the indicators of program quality developed
by the State under section 1210.''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking the last sentence.
Sec. 307. (a) Notwithstanding sections 401( j) and
435(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070a( j) and 1085(a)(2)) and subject to the requirements of
subsection (b), the Secretary of Education shall--
(1) recalculate the official fiscal year 1996 cohort
default rate for Jacksonville College of Jacksonville, Texas,
on the basis of data corrections confirmed by the Texas
Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation; and
(2) restore the eligibility of Jacksonville College to
participate in the Federal Pell Grant Program for the 1999-
2000 award year and succeeding award years.
(b) Jacksonville College shall implement a default
management plan that is satisfactory to the Secretary of
Education.
(c) For purposes of determining its Federal Pell Grant
Program eligibility, Jacksonville College shall be deemed to
have withdrawn from the Federal Family Education Loan program
as of October 6, 1998.
Sec. 308. An amount of $14,500,000 from the balances of
returned reserve funds, formerly held by the Higher Education
Assistance Foundation, that are currently held in Higher
Education Assistance Foundation Claims Reserves, Treasury
account number 91X6192, and $12,000,000 from funds formerly
held by the Higher Education Assistance Foundation, that are
currently held in trust, shall be deposited in the general
fund of the Treasury.
Sec. 309. Of the funds provided in title III of this Act,
under the heading ``Higher Education'', for title VII, part B
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $250,000 shall be
awarded to the Snelling Center for Government at the
University of Vermont for a model school program, $750,000
shall be awarded to Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, for
operation of the Early Childhood Development Center,
$1,000,000 shall be awarded to Southeast Missouri State
University for equipment and curriculum development
associated with the University's Polytechnic Institute,
$800,000 shall be awarded to the Washington Virtual Classroom
Consortium to develop, equip and implement an ecosystem
curriculum, $500,000 shall be provided to the Puget Sound
Center for Technology for faculty development activities for
the use of technology in the classroom, $500,000 shall be
awarded to the Center for the Advancement of Distance
Education in Rural America, $3,000,000, to be available until
expended, shall be awarded to the University Center of Lake
County, Illinois and $1,000,000, to be available until
expended, shall be awarded to the Oregon University System
for activities authorized under title III, part A, section
311(c)(2), of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
$500,000 shall be awarded to Columbia College Illinois for a
freshman retention program, $1,500,000 shall be awarded to
the University of Hawaii at Manoa for a Globalization
Research Center, $2,000,000 shall be awarded to the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for technology
infrastructure, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the I Have a
Dream Foundation, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to a
demonstration program for activities authorized under part G
of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $1,500,000 shall be awarded to the Daniel J. Evans
School of Public Policy at the University of Washington,
$200,000 shall be awarded to North Dakota State University
for the Career Program for Dislocated Farmers and Ranchers,
$350,000 shall be awarded to North Dakota State University
for the Tech-based Industry Traineeship Program, $1,500,000
shall be awarded to Washington State University for the
Thomas S. Foley Institute to support programs in
congressional studies, public policy, voter education, and to
ensure community access and outreach, $200,000 shall be
awarded to Minot State University for the Rural
Communications Disabilities Program, $300,000 shall be
awarded to Bryant College for the Linking International Trade
Education Program (LITE), $1,000,000 shall be awarded to
Concord College, West Virginia for a technology center to
further enhance the technical skills of West Virginia
teachers and students, $200,000 shall be awarded to Peirce
College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for education and
training programs, $250,000 shall be awarded to the
Philadelphia Zoo for educational programs, $800,000 shall be
awarded to Spelman College in Georgia for educational
operations, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the Philadelphia
University Education Center for technology education,
$725,000 shall be awarded to Lock Haven University for
technology innovations, $250,000 for Middle Georgia College
for an advanced distributed learning center demonstration
program, $1,000,000 for the University of the Incarnate Word
in San Antonio, Texas, to improve teacher capabilities in
technology, $1,000,000 for Elmira College in New York for a
technology enhancement initiative, $1,000,000 shall be
awarded to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium on Higher
Education for education programs, $400,000 shall be awarded
to Lehigh University Iacocca Institute for educational
training, $250,000 shall be awarded to Lafayette College for
arts education, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to Lewis and
Clark College for the Crime Victims Law Institute, $1,650,000
for Rust College in Mississippi for technology
infrastructure, $500,000 for the University of Notre Dame for
a teacher quality initiative, and $2,000,000 shall be awarded
to the Western Governors University for a distance learning
initiative.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2000''.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

Armed Forces Retirement Home

For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $68,295,000, of which $12,696,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
contract or related contracts for development and
construction, to include construction of a long-term care
facility at the United States Naval Home, may be employed
which collectively include the full scope of the project:
Provided further, That the solicitation and contract shall
contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR
52.232-18 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government
Obligations.

Corporation for National and Community Service

Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $295,645,000:
Provided, That none of the funds made available to the
Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act
for activities authorized by part E of title II of the
Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 shall be used to
provide stipends to volunteers or volunteer leaders whose
incomes exceed the income guidelines established for payment
of stipends under the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion
programs: Provided further, That the foregoing

[[Page 27157]]

proviso shall not apply to the Seniors for Schools program.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 2002, $350,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex: Provided further, That in addition
to the amounts provided above, $10,000,000 shall be for
digitalization, only if specifically authorized by subsequent
legislation enacted by September 30, 2000.

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation
Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for
the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the
Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch.
71), $36,834,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2001, for activities authorized by the
Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a):
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged,
up to full-cost recovery, for special training activities and
other conflict resolution services and technical assistance,
including those provided to foreign governments and
international organizations, and for arbitration services
shall be credited to and merged with this account, and shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That fees
for arbitration services shall be available only for
education, training, and professional development of the
agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the
Service is authorized to accept and use on behalf of the
United States gifts of services and real, personal, or other
property in the aid of any projects or functions within the
Director's jurisdiction.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,159,000.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Office of Library Services: Grants and Administration

For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library
Services Act, $163,250,000, of which $19,356,000 shall be
awarded to national leadership projects, notwithstanding
section 221(a)(1)(B): Provided, That of the amount provided,
$700,000 shall be awarded to the Library and Archives of New
Hampshire's Political Tradition at the New Hampshire State
Library, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the Vermont
Department of Libraries in Montpelier, Vermont, $750,000
shall be awarded to consolidation and preservation of
archives and special collections at the University of Miami
Library in Coral Gables, Florida, $1,900,000 shall be awarded
to exhibits and library improvements for the Mississippi
River Museum and Discovery Center in Dubuque, Iowa, $750,000
shall be awarded to the Alaska Native Heritage Center in
Anchorage, Alaska, $750,000 shall be awarded to the Peabody-
Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts, $750,000 shall be
awarded to the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, $200,000 shall be
awarded to Oceanside Public Library in California for a local
cultural heritage project, $1,000,000 shall be awarded to the
Urban Children's Museum Collaborative to develop and
implement pilot programs dedicated to serving at-risk
children and their families, $150,000 shall be awarded to the
Troy State University Dothan in Alabama for archival of a
special collection, $450,000 shall be awarded to Chadron
State College in Nebraska for the Mari Sandoz Center, and
$350,000 shall be awarded to the Alabama A&M University
Alabama State Black Archives Research Center and Museum.

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the
Social Security Act, $7,015,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $1,300,000.

National Council on Disability

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $2,400,000.

National Education Goals Panel

For expenses necessary for the National Education Goals
Panel, as authorized by title II, part A of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, $2,250,000.

National Labor Relations Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $199,500,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f ) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95
percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes.

National Mediation Board

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $9,100,000:
Provided, That unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year
2000 not needed for emergency boards shall remain available
for other statutory purposes through September 30, 2001.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $8,500,000.

Railroad Retirement Board

dual benefits payments account

For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $174,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 2000 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$174,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.

Federal Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts

For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2001, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.

Limitation on Administration

For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $91,000,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.

Limitation on the Office of Inspector General

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $5,400,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other
paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used
to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office
space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities
or services, maintenance services, or administrative services
for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for
any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating
expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for
any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

Social Security Administration

Payments to Social Security Trust Funds

For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,764,000.

special benefits for disabled coal miners

For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $383,638,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2001, $124,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

Supplemental Security Income Program

For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant

[[Page 27158]]

to section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act,
$21,503,085,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That any portion of the funds provided to a State
in the current fiscal year and not obligated by the State
during that year shall be returned to the Treasury.
From funds provided under the previous paragraph, not less
than $100,000,000 shall be available for payment to the
Social Security trust funds for administrative expenses for
conducting continuing disability reviews.
In addition, $200,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2001, for payment to the Social Security trust
funds for administrative expenses for continuing disability
reviews as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121
and section 10203 of Public Law 105-33. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act, as amended.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2001,
$9,890,000,000, to remain available until expended.

limitation on administrative expenses

For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $10,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$6,093,871,000 may be expended, as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of
the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less
than $1,800,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory
Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances at the end
of fiscal year 2000 not needed for fiscal year 2000 shall
remain available until expended to invest in the Social
Security Administration computing network, including related
equipment and non-payroll administrative expenses associated
solely with this network: Provided further, That
reimbursement to the trust funds under this heading for
expenditures for official time for employees of the Social
Security Administration pursuant to section 7131 of title 5,
United States Code, and for facilities or support services
for labor organizations pursuant to policies, regulations, or
procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of such title shall
be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from
amounts in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, as
soon as possible after such expenditures are made.
From funds provided under the previous paragraph,
notwithstanding the provision under this heading in Public
Law 105-277 regarding unobligated balances at the end of
fiscal year 1999 not needed for such fiscal year, an amount
not to exceed $50,000,000 from such unobligated balances
shall, in addition to funding already available under this
heading for fiscal year 2000, be available for necessary
expenses.
From funds provided under the first paragraph, not less
than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting
continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$405,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001,
for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section
103 of Public Law 104-121 and section 10203 of Public Law
105-33. The term ``continuing disability reviews'' means
reviews and redeterminations as defined under section
201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, as amended.
In addition, $80,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 2000 exceed $80,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 2001 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
From amounts previously made available under this heading
for a state-of-the-art computing network, not to exceed
$100,000,000 shall be available for necessary expenses under
this heading, subject to the same terms and conditions.
From funds provided under the first paragraph, the
Commissioner of Social Security may direct up to $3,000,000,
in addition to funds previously appropriated for this
purpose, to continue Federal-State partnerships which will
evaluate means to promote Medicare buy-in programs targeted
to elderly and disabled individuals under titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act.

Office of Inspector General

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $15,000,000, together with not to exceed
$51,000,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and purposes for which this account is
available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be
transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and Senate.

United States Institute of Peace

Operating Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $13,000,000.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. 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. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are
authorized to make available not to exceed $20,000 and
$15,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and
expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official
reception and representation expenses; the Director of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from the funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board
is authorized to make available for official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds
available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation
Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Sec. 506. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) 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. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state: (1) the percentage of the total costs of
the program or project which will be financed with Federal
money; (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project
or program; and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total
costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-
governmental sources.
Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this
Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds
are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any
abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none
of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are
appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical

[[Page 27159]]

condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself,
that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in
danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching
funds).
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider from
offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or
locality to contract separately with such a provider for such
coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's
contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 511. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of
Legalization of Controlled Substances.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used for any activity that
promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance
included in schedule I of the schedules of controlled
substances established by section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply when there is significant medical evidence of a
therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other
substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are
being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity if--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Sec. 513. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
unobligated balances remaining available at the end of fiscal
year 2000 from appropriations made available for salaries and
expenses for fiscal year 2000 in this Act, shall remain
available through December 31, 2000, for each such account
for the purposes authorized: Provided, That the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations shall be notified at
least 15 days prior to the obligation of such funds.
Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under
section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a
unique health identifier for an individual (except in an
individual's capacity as an employer or a health care
provider), until legislation is enacted specifically
approving the standard.
Sec. 515. Section 520(c)(2)(D) of the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, as amended, is further
amended by striking ``December 31, 1997'' and inserting
``December 31, 1999''.
Sec. 516. The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission
Act (22 U.S.C. 290n et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking section 2 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION.

``Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this section, the President shall appoint the United States
members of the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission,
and shall attempt to conclude an agreement with Mexico
providing for the establishment of such Commission.''; and
(2) in section 3--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking the semicolon and
inserting ``; and'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).
Sec. 517. The applicable time limitations with respect to
the giving of notice of injury and the filing of a claim for
compensation for disability or death by an individual under
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended, for
injuries sustained as a result of the person's exposure to a
nitrogen or sulfur mustard agent in the performance of
official duties as an employee at the Department of the
Army's Edgewood Arsenal before March 20, 1944, shall not
begin to run until the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 518. Section 169(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 105-220, the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, is amended by striking ``or
Alaska Native villages or Native groups (as such terms are
defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)).'' and inserting ``or Alaska
Natives.''.
Sec. 519. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act for salaries and expenses for fiscal
year 2000, $121,000,000, to be allocated by the Office of
Management and Budget, are permanently canceled: Provided,
That, within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit
a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate showing the allocation of the
$121,000,000.

TITLE VI--EARLY DETECTION, DIAGNOSIS, AND INTERVENTIONS FOR NEWBORNS
AND INFANTS WITH HEARING LOSS

Sec. 601. (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this
section only, the following terms in this section are defined
as follows:
(1) Hearing screening.--Newborn and infant hearing
screening consists of objective physiologic procedures to
detect possible hearing loss and to identify newborns and
infants who, after rescreening, require further audiologic
and medical evaluations.
(2) Audiologic evaluation.--Audiologic evaluation consists
of procedures to assess the status of the auditory system; to
establish the site of the auditory disorder; the type and
degree of hearing loss, and the potential effects of hearing
loss on communication; and to identify appropriate treatment
and referral options. Referral options should include linkage
to State IDEA part C coordinating agencies or other
appropriate agencies, medical evaluation, hearing aid/sensory
aid assessment, audiologic rehabilitation treatment, national
and local consumer, self-help, parent, and education
organizations, and other family-centered services.
(3) Medical evaluation.--Medical evaluation by a physician
consists of key components including history, examination,
and medical decision making focused on symptomatic and
related body systems for the purpose of diagnosing the
etiology of hearing loss and related physical conditions, and
for identifying appropriate treatment and referral options.
(4) Medical intervention.--Medical intervention is the
process by which a physician provides medical diagnosis and
direction for medical and/or surgical treatment options of
hearing loss and/or related medical disorder associated with
hearing loss.
(5) Audiologic rehabilitation.--Audiologic rehabilitation
(intervention) consists of procedures, techniques, and
technologies to facilitate the receptive and expressive
communication abilities of a child with hearing loss.
(6) Early intervention.--Early intervention (e.g.,
nonmedical) means providing appropriate services for the
child with hearing loss and ensuring that families of the
child are provided comprehensive, consumer-oriented
information about the full range of family support, training,
information services, communication options and are given the
opportunity to consider the full range of educational and
program placements and options for their child.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to clarify
the authority within the Public Health Service Act to
authorize statewide newborn and infant hearing screening,
evaluation and intervention programs and systems, technical
assistance, a national applied research program, and
interagency and private sector collaboration for policy
development, in order to assist the States in making progress
toward the following goals:
(1) All babies born in hospitals in the United States and
its territories should have a hearing screening before
leaving the birthing facility. Babies born in other countries
and residing in the United States via immigration or adoption
should have a hearing screening as early as possible.
(2) All babies who are not born in hospitals in the United
States and its territories should have a hearing screening
within the first 3 months of life.
(3) Appropriate audiologic and medical evaluations should
be conducted by 3 months for all newborns and infants
suspected of having hearing loss to allow appropriate
referral and provisions for audiologic rehabilitation,
medical and early intervention before the age of 6 months.
(4) All newborn and infant hearing screening programs and
systems should include a component for audiologic
rehabilitation, medical and early intervention options that
ensures linkage to any new and existing statewide systems of
intervention and rehabilitative services for newborns and
infants with hearing loss.
(5) Public policy in regard to newborn and infant hearing
screening and intervention should be based on applied
research and the recognition that newborns, infants,
toddlers, and children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have
unique language, learning, and communication needs, and
should be the result of consultation with pertinent public
and private sectors.
(c) Statewide Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening,
Evaluation and Intervention Programs and Systems.--Under the
existing authority of the Public Health Service Act, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section
referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, shall make awards of grants or cooperative
agreements to develop statewide newborn and infant hearing
screening, evaluation and intervention programs and systems
for the following purposes:
(1) To develop and monitor the efficacy of statewide
newborn and infant hearing screening, evaluation and
intervention programs and

[[Page 27160]]

systems. Early intervention includes referral to schools and
agencies, including community, consumer, and parent-based
agencies and organizations and other programs mandated by
part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
which offer programs specifically designed to meet the unique
language and communication needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing
newborns, infants, toddlers, and children.
(2) To collect data on statewide newborn and infant hearing
screening, evaluation and intervention programs and systems
that can be used for applied research, program evaluation and
policy development.
(d) Technical Assistance, Data Management, and Applied
Research.--
(1) Centers for disease control and prevention.--Under the
existing authority of the Public Health Service Act, the
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, shall make awards of grants
or cooperative agreements to provide technical assistance to
State agencies to complement an intramural program and to
conduct applied research related to newborn and infant
hearing screening, evaluation and intervention programs and
systems. The program shall develop standardized procedures
for data management and program effectiveness and costs, such
as--
(A) to ensure quality monitoring of newborn and infant
hearing loss screening, evaluation, and intervention programs
and systems;
(B) to provide technical assistance on data collection and
management;
(C) to study the costs and effectiveness of newborn and
infant hearing screening, evaluation and intervention
programs and systems conducted by State-based programs in
order to answer issues of importance to State and national
policymakers;
(D) to identify the causes and risk factors for congenital
hearing loss;
(E) to study the effectiveness of newborn and infant
hearing screening, audiologic and medical evaluations and
intervention programs and systems by assessing the health,
intellectual and social developmental, cognitive, and
language status of these children at school age; and
(F) to promote the sharing of data regarding early hearing
loss with State-based birth defects and developmental
disabilities monitoring programs for the purpose of
identifying previously unknown causes of hearing loss.
(2) National institutes of health.--Under the existing
authority of the Public Health Service Act, the Director of
the National Institutes of Health, acting through the
Director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders, shall for purposes of this section,
continue a program of research and development on the
efficacy of new screening techniques and technology,
including clinical studies of screening methods, studies on
efficacy of intervention, and related research.
(e) Coordination and Collaboration.--
(1) In general.--Under the existing authority of the Public
Health Service Act, in carrying out programs under this
section, the Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and the Director of the
National Institutes of Health shall collaborate and consult
with other Federal agencies; State and local agencies,
including those responsible for early intervention services
pursuant to title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid
Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment
Program); title XXI of the Social Security Act (State
Children's Health Insurance Program); title V of the Social
Security Act (Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program);
and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act; consumer groups of and that serve individuals who are
deaf and hard-of-hearing and their families; appropriate
national medical and other health and education specialty
organizations; persons who are deaf and hard-of-hearing and
their families; other qualified professional personnel who
are proficient in deaf or hard-of-hearing children's language
and who possess the specialized knowledge, skills, and
attributes needed to serve deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns,
infants, toddlers, children, and their families; third-party
payers and managed care organizations; and related commercial
industries.
(2) Policy development.--Under the existing authority of
the Public Health Service Act, the Administrator of the
Health Resources and Services Administration, the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the
Director of the National Institutes of Health shall
coordinate and collaborate on recommendations for policy
development at the Federal and State levels and with the
private sector, including consumer, medical and other health
and education professional-based organizations, with respect
to newborn and infant hearing screening, evaluation and
intervention programs and systems.
(3) State early detection, diagnosis, and intervention
programs and systems; data collection.--Under the existing
authority of the Public Health Service Act, the Administrator
of the Health Resources and Services Administration and the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
shall coordinate and collaborate in assisting States to
establish newborn and infant hearing screening, evaluation
and intervention programs and systems under subsection (c)
and to develop a data collection system under subsection (d).
(f ) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to preempt any State law.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Statewide newborn and infant hearing screening,
evaluation and intervention programs and systems.--For the
purpose of carrying out subsection (c) under the existing
authority of the Public Health Service Act, there are
authorized to the Health Resources and Services
Administration appropriations in the amount of $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000, $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002.
(2) Technical assistance, data management, and applied
research; centers for disease control and prevention.--For
the purpose of carrying out subsection (d)(1) under the
existing authority of the Public Health Service Act, there
are authorized to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, appropriations in the amount of $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002.
(3) Technical assistance, data management, and applied
research; national institute on deafness and other
communication disorders.--For the purpose of carrying out
subsection (d)(2) under the existing authority of the Public
Health Service Act, there are authorized to the National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
appropriations for such sums as may be necessary for each of
the fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000''.

DIVISION C

RESCISSIONS AND OFFSETS

Sec. 1001. (a) Across-the-Board Rescissions.--There is
hereby rescinded an amount equal to 0.97 percent of--
(1) the budget authority provided (or obligation limitation
established) for fiscal year 2000 for any discretionary
account in any fiscal year 2000 appropriation law;
(2) the budget authority provided (or obligation limitation
established) in any advance appropriation for fiscal year
2000 for any discretionary account in any prior fiscal year
appropriation law; and
(3) the budget authority provided in any fiscal year 2000
appropriation law that would have been estimated as
increasing direct spending for fiscal year 2000 under section
252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 were it included in a law other than an appropriation
law and not designated as an emergency requirement.
(b) Proportionate Application.--Any rescission made by
subsection (a) shall be applied proportionately--
(1) to each discretionary account and each item of budget
authority described in subsection (a)(3); and
(2) within each such account and item, to each program,
project, and activity (with programs, projects, and
activities as delineated in the appropriation Act or
accompanying report for the relevant fiscal year covering
such account or item, or for accounts and items not included
in appropriation Acts, as delineated in the most recently
submitted President's budget).
(c) Subsequent Appropriation Laws.--In the case of any
fiscal year 2000 appropriation law enacted after the
enactment of this section, any rescission required by
subsection (a) shall take effect immediately after the
enactment of such law.
(d) OMB Reports.--Within 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this section (or, if later, 30 days after the
date of the enactment of any fiscal year 2000 appropriation
law), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the
amount of each rescission made pursuant to this section.
(e) Same Percentage Reduction Applicable to Pay for Members
of Congress.--
(1) In general.--In determining rates of pay for service
performed in any fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1999, the rate of pay for a Member of Congress shall be
determined as if the fiscal year 2000 pay adjustment (taking
effect in January 2000) had resulted in a rate equal to--
(A) the rate of pay that would otherwise have taken effect
for the position involved beginning in January 2000 (if this
section had not been enacted), reduced by
(B) the same percentage as specified in subsection (a).
(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``Member of Congress'' refers to any position
under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 601(a)(1) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C.
31(1)(A)-(C)); and
(B) the term ``fiscal year 2000 pay adjustment'' means the
adjustment in rates of pay scheduled to take effect in fiscal
year 2000 under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)).
Sec. 1002. (a) Section 453( j) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 653( j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Information comparisons and disclosure for
enforcement of obligations on higher education act loans and
grants.--
``(A) Furnishing of information by the secretary of
education.--The Secretary of Education shall furnish to the
Secretary, on a quarterly basis or at such less frequent
intervals as may be determined by the Secretary of Education,
information in the custody of the Secretary of Education for
comparison with information in the National Directory of New
Hires,

[[Page 27161]]

in order to obtain the information in such directory with
respect to individuals who--
``(i) are borrowers of loans made under title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 that are in default; or
``(ii) owe an obligation to refund an overpayment of a
grant awarded under such title.
``(B) Requirement to seek minimum information necessary.--
The Secretary of Education shall seek information pursuant to
this section only to the extent essential to improving
collection of the debt described in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Duties of the secretary.--
``(i) Information comparison; disclosure to the secretary
of education.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Education, shall compare information in the
National Directory of New Hires with information in the
custody of the Secretary of Education, and disclose
information in that Directory to the Secretary of Education,
in accordance with this paragraph, for the purposes specified
in this paragraph.
``(ii) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make
disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to the extent
that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not
interfere with the effective operation of the program under
this part. Support collection under section 466(b) shall be
given priority over collection of any defaulted student loan
or grant overpayment against the same income.
``(D) Use of information by the secretary of education.--
The Secretary of Education may use information resulting from
a data match pursuant to this paragraph only--
``(i) for the purpose of collection of the debt described
in subparagraph (A) owed by an individual whose annualized
wage level (determined by taking into consideration
information from the National Directory of New Hires) exceeds
$16,000; and
``(ii) after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct
analyses of student loan defaults.
``(E) Disclosure of information by the secretary of
education.--
``(i) Disclosures permitted.--The Secretary of Education
may disclose information resulting from a data match pursuant
to this paragraph only to--

``(I) a guaranty agency holding a loan made under part B of
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 on which the
individual is obligated;
``(II) a contractor or agent of the guaranty agency
described in subclause (I);
``(III) a contractor or agent of the Secretary; and
``(IV) the Attorney General.

``(ii) Purpose of disclosure.--The Secretary of Education
may make a disclosure under clause (i) only for the purpose
of collection of the debts owed on defaulted student loans,
or overpayments of grants, made under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
``(iii) Restriction on redisclosure.--An entity to which
information is disclosed under clause (i) may use or disclose
such information only as needed for the purpose of collecting
on defaulted student loans, or overpayments of grants, made
under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
``(F) Reimbursement of hhs costs.--The Secretary of
Education shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance with
subsection (k)(3), for the additional costs incurred by the
Secretary in furnishing the information requested under this
subparagraph.''.
(b) Penalties for Misuse of Information.--Section 402(a) of
the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (112
Stat. 669) is amended in the matter added by paragraph (2) by
inserting ``or any other person'' after ``officer or employee
of the United States''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall become effective October 1, 1999.
Sec. 1003. Section 110 of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) After making any calculation necessary to implement
this section for fiscal year 2001, the amount available under
paragraph (a)(1) shall be increased by $328,655,000. The
amounts added under this subsection shall not apply to any
calculation in any other fiscal year.
``(f) For fiscal year 2001, prior to making any
distribution under this section, $56,231,000 of the
allocation under paragraph (a)(1) shall be available only for
each program authorized under chapter 53 of title 49, United
States Code, and title III of Public Law 105-178, in
proportion to each such program's share of the total
authorizations in section 5338 (other than 5338(h)) of such
title and sections 3037 and 3038 of such Public Law, under
the terms and conditions of chapter 53 of such title.
``(g) For fiscal year 2001, prior to making any
distribution under this section, $1,019,000 of the allocation
under paragraph (a)(1) shall be available only for motor
carrier safety programs under sections 31104 and 31107 of
title 49, United States Code; $698,000 for NHTSA operations
and research under section 403 of title 23, United States
Code; and $2,008,000 for NHTSA highway traffic safety grants
under chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code.''.

Amend the title so as to read ``An Act making
appropriations for the District of Columbia, and for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.''.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.,
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Jo Ann Emerson,
John E. Sununu,
Bill Young,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Ted Stevens,
Pete Domenici,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The managers on the part of the House and Senate on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole
or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes,
submit the following joint statement to the House and the
Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon
by the mangers and recommended in the accompanying conference
report.
The composition of this conference agreement includes more
than the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2000. While the House version of H.R. 3064 and the
Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute dealt only
with District of Columbia appropriations, the conference
report was expanded to include Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education and related agencies
appropriations. Appropriations for the District of Columbia
are included in Division A. Appropriations for the Department
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies are included in Division B.
Since the conference agreement is expanded to include the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies, the title of the bill is
amended to reflect this.

DIVISION A

District of Columbia Appropriations

The conferees on H.R. 3064 agree with the matter inserted
in this division of this conference agreement and the
following description of this matter. This matter was
developed through the negotiations on the differences in the
House and Senate versions of H.R. 3064, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, by members of the
appropriations subcommittee of both the House and Senate with
jurisdiction over H.R. 3064.
The Division A portion of this joint explanatory statement
includes more than a description of the resolution of the
differences between the House and Senate versions of H.R.
3064. It also provides a more full description of the matter
not in disagreement between the two Houses. Since H.R. 2587,
the initial District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000,
was vetoed, the conferees have expanded this statement to
provide an explanation of the additional matter that was not
changed in H.R. 3064 as guidance in implementing this
conference agreement.
A description of the resolution of the differences between
the House and Senate on H.R. 3064 follows next.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

Government Direction and Support

The conference action inserts a proviso as proposed by the
Senate concerning the salary of members of the Council of the
District of Columbia.

Public Education System

The conferees are aware of the Values First program that is
designed to bring character education to the District's
public elementary schools. The conferees are aware that ten
schools now have such a program. The conferees encourage the
public school system to continue to expand the Values First
program and expend the funds necessary to implement this
program on a broader basis.

General Provisions

The conference action inserts a new subsection (b) in
section 129 as proposed by the Senate that allows an increase
in payments to attorneys representing special education
students if the Mayor, control board, and Superintendent of
Public Schools concur in a Memorandum of Understanding
setting forth the increase.
The conference action continues the prohibition in section
150 on using Federal or local funds to support needle
exchange programs, but without the restriction on privately-
funded programs.
The conference action revises section 151 concerning the
monitoring of real property leases entered into by the
District government.
The conference action revises section 152 concerning new
leases and purchases of real property by the District
government.
The conference action inserts a new section 173 as proposed
by the Senate that allows the DC Corporation Counsel to
review and comment on briefs in private lawsuits and to
consult with officials of the District government regarding
such lawsuits.
The conference action inserts a new section 174 as proposed
by the Senate concerning wireless communication and antenna
applications. The language recommended by the conferees
requires the National Park

[[Page 27162]]

Service to implement the notice of decision approved by the
National Capital Regional Director, dated April 7, 1999,
including the issuance of right-of-way permits, within 7 days
of the enactment of this Act. Concerning future applications
for siting on Federal land, the responsible Federal agency is
directed to take final action to approve or deny each
application, including action on the issuance of right-of-way
permits at market rates, within 120 days of the receipt of
such application. This 120-day directive does not change or
eliminate the obligation that the responsible Federal agency
must comply with existing laws.
The conference action inserts a new section 175 that amends
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
2000 (Public Law 106-74), by making certain technical
corrections and adding language reflecting the intent of the
conferees on that Act.
What follows next is a description of the resolution of
selected differences between the House and Senate on the
initial District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, H.R.
2587, that was vetoed. Even though there were differences
between the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2587, the
resolution of these selected differences was incorporated as
identical text in both versions of H.R. 3064. A description
of the resolution of these selected differences is included
in this conference agreement on H.R. 3064 because an
understanding of them is important to the overall
implementation of this Act.
The conference agreement on H.R. 3064 incorporates some of
the provisions of both the House and Senate versions of H.R.
2587. The language and allocations set forth in House Report
106-249 and Senate Report 106-88 are to be complied with
unless specifically addressed in the accompanying bill and
statement of the managers to the contrary. The agreement
herein, while repeating some report language for emphasis,
does not negate the language referenced above unless
expressly provided. General provisions which were identical
in the House and Senate passed versions of H.R. 2587 and not
changed in H.R. 3064 and that are unchanged by this
conference agreement are approved unless provided to the
contrary herein.

TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS

FEDERAL FUNDS

Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support

Appropriates $17,000,000 as proposed by the House and the
Senate and makes modifications specifying that the entire
$17,000,000 will be available if the authorized program is a
nationwide program and $11,000,000 will be available if the
program is for a limited number of States. The language also
allows the District to use local tax revenues for this
program.

Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children

Appropriates $5,000,000 instead of $8,500,000 as proposed
by the House and includes language allowing the funds to be
used for local tax credits to offset costs incurred by
individuals in adopting children in the District's foster
care system and for health care needs of the children in
accordance with legislation to be enacted by the District
government.

Federal Payment to the Citizen Complaint Review Board

Appropriates $500,000 instead of $1,200,000 as proposed by
the House. This amount together with $700,000 in local funds
will provide a total of $1,200,000 for the Board's operations
in fiscal year 2000. The conferees recognize the importance
of an independent review body to act as a forum for the
review and resolution of complaints against officers of the
Metropolitan Police Department and special officers employed
by the District of Columbia. The conferees also request that
the Mayor's office provide a comprehensive plan for the use
of the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The plan/report
should contain information about the problems of the previous
review board and what will be done to avoid these problems
with the new board.

Federal Payment to the Department of Human Services

Appropriates $250,000 for a mentoring program and for
hotline services as proposed by the House.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations

Appropriates $176,000,000 as proposed by the Senate instead
of $183,000,000 as proposed by the House and includes
language allowing the Corrections Trustee to use interest
earnings of up to $4,600,000 to assist the Trustee with the
sharp, rather unexpected increase in the overall inmate
population.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

Appropriates $99,714,000 instead of $100,714,000 as
proposed by the House and $136,440,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The reduction below the House allowance reflects the
$1,000,000 in the capital program as proposed by the Senate.
Courts' budget.--The conferees request that budget
information submitted by the Courts with their FY 2001 and
future budgets include grants and reimbursements from all
other sources so that information on total resources
available to the courts will be available.

Defender Services in the District of Columbia Courts

Appropriates $33,336,000 as proposed by the House and
includes language proposed by the Senate requiring monthly
financial reports. The conferees have included language
allowing the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration to
use interest earnings of up to $1,200,000 to make payments
for obligations incurred during fiscal year 1999 for services
provided by attorneys for indigents. The availability of this
additional amount is contingent on a certification by the
Comptroller General. The Courts have reported that they
anticipate a shortfall of ``approximately $1,000,000'' in
fiscal year 1999 for the Criminal Justice Act program.

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia

Appropriates $93,800,000 instead of $105,500,000 as
proposed by the House and $80,300,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The increase above the Senate allowance includes
$7,000,000 for increased drug testing and treatment and
$6,500,000 for additional parole and probation officers
instead of $13,200,000 and $10,000,000, respectively, as
proposed by the House.

Children's National Medical Center

Appropriates $2,500,000 for Children's National Medical
Center instead of $3,500,000 as proposed by the House.

Federal Payment for Metropolitan Police Department

Appropriates $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan Police as
proposed by the Senate. The conferees recognize the
devastating problems caused by illegal drug use and fully
support this program to eliminate open air drug trafficking
in all four quadrants of the District of Columbia. The
conferees have included language requiring quarterly reports
to the Congress on all four quadrants. The reports should
include, at a minimum, the amounts expended, the number of
personnel involved, and the overall results and effectiveness
of the open air drug program in eliminating the drug
trafficking problem.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

Governmental Direction and Support

office of the chief technology officer

The conferees are concerned that the District's child
support system is not Y2K compliant. The conferees have been
advised that the Office of Corporation Counsel is responsible
for developing, operating, and maintaining this system which
is used by the District's courts to collect child support
payments from absentee parents, disburse payments to
custodial parents, and account for these activities. The
conferees urge the District's Chief Technology Officer to
provide the Office of Corporation Counsel with the necessary
support to ensure that: (1) The system is promptly remediated
and tested, and (2) a business continuity and contingency
plan that includes a Courts' child support functions is in
place. The conferees request a report on this matter by
November 1, 1999.

public safety and justice

Appropriates $778,770,000 including $565,511,000 from local
funds and $184,247,000 from other funds instead of
$785,670,000 including $565,411,000 from local funds and
$191,247,000 from other funds as proposed by the House and
$778,470,000 including $565,211,000 from local funds and
$184,247,000 from other funds as proposed by the Senate. The
increase of $300,000 above the Senate allowance will provide
a total of $1,200,000 for the Citizen Complaint Review Board
consisting of $500,000 in Federal funds and $700,000 in local
funds instead of a total of $900,000 in local funds as
proposed by the Senate.
The conference action retains the proviso that caps the
number of police officers assigned to the Mayor's security
detail at 15 as proposed by the House.
The conference action includes a proviso that allows up to
$700,000 in local funds for the Citizen Complaint Review
Board instead of $900,000 in local funds as proposed by the
Senate.

fire department

The conferees recommend that the Fire and Emergency Medical
Services Department conduct a study about the need for
placement of automated external defibrillators in Federal
buildings.

public education system

The conference action includes the proviso proposed by the
Senate concerning the Weighted Student Formula and the
setting aside of five percent of the total budget which is to
be apportioned when the current student count for public and
charter schools has been completed. The conference action
also includes a proviso proposed by the Senate allowing
$500,000 for a Schools Without Violence program.

human support services

Appropriates $1,526,361,000 including $635,373,000 from
local funds as proposed by the House instead of
$1,526,111,000 including $635,123,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

public works

The conference action deletes the proviso earmarking funds
as proposed by the Senate.

[[Page 27163]]

receivership programs

Appropriates $342,077,000 including $217,606,000 from local
funds instead of $345,577,000 including $221,106,000 from
local funds as proposed by the House and $337,077,000
including $212,606,000 from local funds as proposed by the
Senate.

reserve

The conference action deletes the proviso concerning
expenditure criteria as proposed by the Senate.

district of columbia financial responsibility and management assistance
authority

The conference action retains the proviso concerning the
cap on the salary levels of the Executive Director and the
General Counsel as proposed by the House.

productivity bank

The conference action retains the proviso requiring
quarterly reports as proposed by the House.

productivity bank savings

The conference action retains the proviso requiring
quarterly reports as proposed by the House.

procurement and management savings

The conference action restores the proviso requiring
quarterly reports as proposed by the House and deletes the
proviso requiring Council approval of a resolution
authorizing management reform savings proposed by the Senate.

d.c. retirement board

The conference action amends the cap on the compensation of
the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Investment
Committee of the Board to $7,500 instead of $10,000 as
proposed by the House.

Capital Outlay

The conference action revises the first paragraph for
clarity as proposed by the House.

Summary Table of Conference Recommendations by Agency and FY 2000
Financial Plan

A summary table showing the Federal appropriations by
account and the allocation of District funds by agency or
office under each appropriation heading for fiscal year 1999,
the fiscal year 2000 request, the House and Senate
recommendations, and the conference allowance, and the fiscal
year 2000 Financial Plan which is the starting point for the
independent auditor's comparison with actual year-end results
as required by section 143 of the bill follow:

[[Page 27164]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.001

[[Page 27165]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.002

[[Page 27166]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.003

[[Page 27167]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.004

[[Page 27168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.005

[[Page 27169]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.006

[[Page 27170]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.007

[[Page 27171]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.008

[[Page 27172]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.009

[[Page 27173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.010

[[Page 27174]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.011

[[Page 27175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.012

[[Page 27176]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.013

[[Page 27177]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.014

[[Page 27178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.015

[[Page 27179]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.016

[[Page 27180]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.017

[[Page 27181]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.018

[[Page 27182]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.019

[[Page 27183]]

General Provisions

The conference action changes several section numbers for
sequential purposes and makes technical revisions in certain
citations.
The conference action restores section 117 of the House
bill prohibiting the use of Federal funds for a personal
cook, chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of the District of Columbia government.
The conference action approves section 119 of the House
bill in lieu of section 118 of the Senate bill concerning the
cap on the salary of the City Administrator and the per diem
compensation to the directors of the Redevelopment Land
Agency.
The conference action approves section 127 of the Senate
bill (new section 128) concerning financial management
services.
The conference action revises the ceiling on operating
expenses in section 135 (new section 136) to $5,515,379,000
including $3,113,854,000 from local funds instead of
$5,522,779,000 including $3,117,254,000 as proposed by the
House and $5,486,829,000 including $3,108,304,000 as proposed
by the Senate.
The conference action deletes subsection (d) of section 135
of the House bill concerning the application of excess
revenues as proposed by the Senate.
The conference action deletes section 137 of the House bill
concerning a report on public school openings as proposed by
the Senate.
The conference action requires the inventory of motor
vehicles required by section 139 of the House bill and 138 of
the Senate bill (new section 139) to be submitted by the
Chief Financial Officer as proposed by the House instead of
by the Mayor as proposed by the Senate.
The conference action restores section 142 of the House
bill concerning the Compliance with Buy American Act.
the conference action deletes section 141 of the Senate
bill concerning certain real property in the District of
Columbia. The language was made permanent in Public Law 105-
277.
The conference action deletes the date referenced in
section 146 of the Senate bill concerning the correctional
facility in Youngstown, Ohio as proposed by the Senate (new
section 147).
The conference action approves section 148 of the Senate
bill concerning a reserve and positive fund balance for the
District of Columbia. The conferees believe that the reserve
fund will now serve as a true ``rainy day'' fund. Further,
the conferees have now required the District to maintain a
budget surplus of not less than 4 percent. Any funds in
excess of this level could be used for debt reduction and
non-recurring expenses. The conferees believe that this
combination of reforms will provide the District with a
stable financial situation that will in time reduce the
District's debt and lead to an improved bond rating.
The conference action deletes section 151 of the House bill
which prohibits the use of Federal funds for legalizing
marijuana or reducing penalties. Section 168 of the House
bill (new section 167) prohibits Federal and local funds for
legalizing marijuana or reducing penalties.
The conference action restores section 154 of the House
bill (new section 153) concerning public charter school
construction and repair funds and amends the language to
provide $5,000,000 for a credit enhancement fund.
The conference action restores section 156 of the House
bill (new section 155) concerning the authorization period
for public charter schools.
The conference action restores section 157 of the House
bill (new section 156) concerning sibling preference at
public charter schools.
The conference action restores section 158 of the House
bill (new section 157) concerning buyouts and management
reforms and provides $18,000,000 instead of $20,000,000 as
proposed by the House. The conference action also inserts a
proviso concerning the spending and release of the funds.
The conference action restores section 159 of the House
bill (new section 158) concerning the 14th Street Bridge and
provides $5,000,000 instead of $7,500,000 as proposed by the
House. The conference action also changes the source of funds
from the infrastructure fund to the District's highway trust
fund. The conferees direct that responsibility for this
project along with these funds be transferred to the Federal
Highway Administration for execution.
The conference action restores section 160 of the House
bill (new section 159) concerning the Anacostia River
environmental cleanup.
The conference action restores section 161 of the House
bill (new section 160) concerning the Crime Victims
Compensation Fund and amends the language so that funds are
retained each year to pay crime victims at the beginning of
the next year. The conference action also inserts language
that ratifies payments and deposits to conform with the
Revitalization Act (Public Law 105-33).
The conference action restores section 162 of the House
bill (new section 161) requiring the chief financial officers
of the District of Columbia government to certify that they
understand the duties and restrictions required by this Act.
The conference action restores section 163 of the House
bill (new section 162) requiring the fiscal year 2001 budget
to specify potential adjustments that might be necessary if
the proposed management savings are not achieved.
The conference action restores section 164 of the House
bill (new section 163) requiring descriptions of certain
budget categories.
The conference action restores section 165 of the House
bill (new section 164) concerning improvements to the
Southwest Waterfront in the District and modifies the
language to provide flexibility for the Mayor in executing
new 30-year leases with the existing lessee or their
successors at the Municipal Fish Wharf and the Washington
Marina.
The conference action restores section 166 of the House
bill (new section 165) expressing the sense of Congress
concerning the American National Red Cross project at 2025 E
Street Northwest.
The conference action restores section 167 of the House
bill (new section 166) concerning sex offender registration.
The conference action restores section 168 of the House
bill (new section 167) prohibiting the use of funds to
legalize marijuana or reduce penalties.
The conference action retains and amends section 149 of the
Senate bill (new section 168) providing $5,000,000 to offset
local taxes for a commercial revitalization program in
enterprise zones and low and moderate income areas in the
District of Columbia. The conferees believe that the
Commercial Revitalization program will be an important tool
for the city to improve blighted neighborhoods in the
District of Columbia. The conferees believe it is important
to bring new commercial enterprises into neglected areas of
the city. The conferees direct the District to review
Congressional proposals on this issue in order to use the
funds effectively.
The conference action inserts section 151 of the Senate
bill (new section 170) concerning quality-of-life issues and
changes the findings from a sense of the Senate to a sense of
the Congress.
The conference action inserts section 152 of the Senate
bill (new section 171) concerning the use of Federal Medicaid
payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals.
The conference action inserts section 153 of the Senate
bill (new section 172) concerning a study by the General
Accounting Office of the District's criminal justice system.
The conferees request that this be a comprehensive study of
all components of the criminal justice system including law
enforcement, courts, corrections, probation, and parole. The
report should include recommendations for improving the
performance of the overall system as well as the individual
agencies and programs.
The conference action deletes section 154 of the Senate
bill concerning termination of parole for illegal drug use.

TITLE II--TAX REDUCTION

The conference action restores Title II--Tax Reduction
commending the District of Columbia for its action to reduce
taxes and ratifying the District's Service Improvement and
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Support Act of 1999 as proposed by
the House.

Conference Total--With Comparisons

The total new budget (obligational) authority for the
fiscal year 2000 recommended by the Committee of Conference,
with comparisons to the fiscal year 1999 amount, the 2000
budget estimates, and the House and Senate bills for 2000
follow:

Federal Funds:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1999...683,639,000
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal393,740,000
House bill, fiscal year 2000............................429,100,000
Senate bill, fiscal year 2000...........................429,100,000
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2000..................429,100,000
Conference agreement compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 19-254,539,000
Budget estimates of new (obligations) authority, fiscal
year 2000............................................35,360,000
House bill, fiscal year 2000...............................
Senate bill, fiscal year 2000..............................
District of Columbia funds:
New Budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1999.6,790,168,737
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fisc6,745,278,500
House bill, fiscal year 2000..........................6,778,432,500
Senate bill, fiscal year 2000.........................6,778,432,500
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2000................6,778,432,500
Conference agreement compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 199-11,736,237

[[Page 27184]]

Budget estimates of new (obligations) authority, fiscal
year 2000............................................33,154,000
House bill, fiscal year 2000...............................
Senate bill, fiscal year 2000..............................

DIVISION B

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations

The conferees on H.R. 3064 agree with the matter inserted
in this division of this conference agreement and the
following description of this matter. This matter was
developed through negotiations on the differences in the
House reported version of H.R. 3037 and the Senate version of
S. 1650, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2000,
by members of the subcommittee of both the House and Senate
with jurisdiction over H.R. 3037 and S. 1650.
In implementing this agreement, the Departments and
agencies should comply with the language and instructions set
forth in House Report 106-370 and Senate Report 106-166.
In the case where the language and instructions
specifically address the allocation of funds, the Departments
and agencies are to follow the funding levels specified in
the Congressional budget justifications accompanying the
fiscal year 2000 budget or the underlying authorizing statute
and should give full consideration to all items, including
items allocating specific funding included in the House and
Senate reports. With respect to the provisions in the House
and Senate reports that specifically allocate funds, each has
been reviewed and those which are jointly concurred in have
been included in this joint statement.
The provisions of the House Report (105-205) are endorsed
that direct ``. . . the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education and the Social Security
Administration and the Railroad Retirement Board to submit
operating plans with respect to discretionary appropriations
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These
plans, which are to be submitted within 30 days of the final
passage of the bill, must be signed by the respective
Departmental Secretaries, the Social Security Commissioner
and the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board.''
The Departments and agencies covered by this directive are
expected to meet with the House and Senate Committees as soon
as possible after enactment of the bill to develop a
methodology to assure adequate and timely information on the
allocation of funds within accounts within this conference
report while minimizing the need for unnecessary and
duplicative submissions.
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000,
put in place by this bill, incorporates the following
agreements of the managers:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Training and Employment Services

The conference agreement appropriates $5,465,618,000,
instead of $4,572,058,000 as proposed by the House and
$5,472,560,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of the amount
appropriated, $2,463,000,000 becomes available on October 1,
2000, instead of $2,607,300,000 as proposed by the House and
$2,720,315,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The agreement includes language authorizing the use of
funds under the dislocated workers program for projects that
provide assistance to new entrants in the workforce and
incumbent workers as proposed by the Senate. It also includes
language proposed by the Senate modified to waive a 10
percent limitation in the Workforce Investment Act with
respect to the use of discretionary funds to carry out
demonstration and pilot projects, multiservice projects and
multistate projects with regard to dislocated workers and to
waive certain other provisions in that Act. The House bill
had no similar provisions.
The Department is expected to make every effort to be
flexible in the use of worker training funds for reactivated
shipyards, such as those referenced in the Senate Report. The
conference agreement encourages the Department to use
national emergency grants under the dislocated workers
program to supplement available resources for (1) worker
training needs at reactivated shipyards that have experienced
large-scale worker dislocation, (2) continuing training to
utilize the workplace as site for learning, (3) supporting
training for American workers at state-of-the-art foreign
shipyards, and (4) continuing upgrading of workers skills to
increase employability and job retention.
The agreement includes a citation to the Women in
Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act as proposed
by the House. The Senate bill did not cite this Act.
The conference agreement includes $5,000,000 under Job
Corps for the purpose of constructing or rehabilitating
facilities on some Job Corps campuses to co-locate Head Start
programs to serve Job Corps students and their children as
proposed in the House Report.
The Labor Department is encouraged to continue and provide
technical assistance to the Role Models America Academy
Demonstration Program.
The Ways to Work family loan program is an innovative
micro-loan program which provides small loans to low-income
families who are attempting to make the transition from
public assistance to the workforce or retain employment. This
program allows families who often lack access to loans from
mainstream sources because of their weak credit histories to
receive the necessary financial resources to meet emergency
expenses. The Department is urged to consider making
available up to $1 million for this program to demonstrate
its effectiveness in assisting low-income parents in
obtaining and retaining jobs.
The conference agreement includes the following amounts for
the following projects and activities:
Dislocated workers
--$1,000,000 for the York Skill Center, York, PA
--$2,000,000 for development of a new model for high-tech
workforce development at San Diego State University
--$1,000,000 for the Central Indiana Technology Training
Center at Ball State University
--$1,000,000 for Clayton College and State University in
Georgia for a virtual education and training project to
improve military-to-civilian employment transition
--$1,500,000 for a dislocated farmer retraining project at
the University of Idaho
--$1,000,000 for the Chipola Junior College in Florida to
retrain dislocated workers.
--$500,000 for the State of New Mexico for rural employment
in telecommunications
--$500,000 for the Puget Sound Center for Technology to
help alleviate the shortage of information technology workers
in the Puget Sound Region
--$400,000 for the Philadelphia Area Accelerated
Manufacturing Education, Inc.
--$1,500,000 for the Pennsylvania training consortium
--$600,000 for the Lehigh University integrated product
development
--$2,500,000 to train foreign workers, including Russians
in oil field management in Alaska
Pilots and demonstrations
--$800,000 for the Center for Workforce Preparation at the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
--$1,000,000 for Green Thumb for replication in rural areas
of a project to train disadvantaged individuals for jobs in
the information technology industry
--$1,000,000 for Focus:HOPE in Detroit for information
technology training
--$300,000 for the Bowling Green, KY Housing Authority for
workforce preparation and training for low-income youth and
adults
--$400,000 for the Collegiate Consortium for Workforce and
Economic Development
--$2,000,000 for the Springfield Workforce Development
Center in Springfield, Vermont for a model regional workforce
development
--$200,000 to Northlands Job Corps Center in Vergennes,
Vermont for a center child care project
--$170,000 for the Greater Burlington Industrial
Corporation in Burlington, Vermont for a model pre-employment
counseling program
--$100,000 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department
of Labor and Industry, to study the financial impact of
professional employer arrangements on the Unemployment
Compensation Fund
--$1,000,000 for the Lorain County Community College for a
workforce development project
--$800,000 for Jobs for America's Graduates
--$2,500,000 for Alaska Works in Fairbanks, Alaska for
construction job training
--$2,500,000 for Hutchinson Career Center in Fairbanks,
Alaska to upgrade equipment to provide vocational training
--$1,500,000 to train Alaska Native and local low income
youth as cultural tour guides and in museum operations for
the Alaska Native Heritage Center, Bishop Museum in Hawaii,
and Peabody-Essex Museum in Massachusetts
--$1,500,000 for the University of Missouri-St. Louis for
the design and implementation of the Regional Center for
Education and Work
--$400,000 for the Vermont Technical College for a
Technology Training Initiative
--$150,000 to the Nebraska Urban League for a welfare-to-
work pilot project
--$1,000,000 to the Des Moines Community College for SMART
Partners, a public-private partnership which guarantees full-
time employment to students who meet the competencies and
skill standards required in modern advanced high performance
manufacturing
--$500,000 to the American Indian Science and Engineering
Society for the Native American Rural Computer Utilization
Training Program
--$500,000 to the Maui Economic Development Board for the
Rural Computer Utilization Training Program
--$250,000 to the Job Corps of North Dakota for the
Fellowship Executive Training Program
--$250,000 for the University of Colorado Health Sciences
Center to provide training and assistance through the
University's telehealth/telemedicine distance learning.

[[Page 27185]]

The conference agreement also provides funds to continue in
FY 2000 those projects and activities which were awarded
under the dislocated workers program and under pilots and
demonstrations in FY 1999 as described in the Senate Report,
subject to project performance, demand for activities and
services, and utilization of prior year funding.
The conference agreement includes $15,000,000 to continue
and expand the Youth Offender grant program serving youth who
are or have been under criminal justice system supervision.
There is awareness of the job training activities of the
South Dakota Intertribal Bison Cooperative. The Department is
urged to consider funding of a proposal for a vocational
training program which will provide employment-related skills
for native tribes in bison herd management, meat processing,
animal husbandry, hide tanning and leather work.

federal unemployment benefits and allowances

The conference agreement appropriates $415,150,000 as
proposed by the Senate instead of $314,400,000 as proposed by
the House.

state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

The conference agreement appropriates $3,253,740,000,
instead of $3,141,740,000 as proposed by the House and
$3,358,073,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The agreement includes $41,300,000 for the alien labor
certification program as proposed by the Senate instead of
$36,300,000 as proposed by the House. For administration of
the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax
credit, the agreement includes $22,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate instead of $20,000,000 as proposed by the House. For
one-stop centers/labor market information, the agreement
includes $140,000,000 instead of $100,000,000 as proposed by
the House and $146,500,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Included in the amount of $140,000,000 is $20,000,000 for
work incentives grants. The Senate proposed to fund this as a
separate line item. The House did not propose to fund it.
Funds are included for a ``talking'' America's Job Bank for
the blind.
The agreement does not include a citation to section 461 of
the Job Training Partnership Act proposed by the Senate. The
House bill did not include this citation.

Program Administration

The conference agreement appropriates $146,000,000, instead
of $138,126,000 as proposed by the House and $149,340,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement also includes language
proposed by the House requiring that the majority of the
welfare-to-work program staff shall be term appointments
lasting no more than one year. The Senate bill contained no
such language.
The Department is expected to conduct an analysis of the
case backlog in the alien labor certification program and
report its findings to the Appropriations Committees by
February 1, 2000. Further, it is expected that the Department
will submit at the same time its proposed schedule for
eliminating this backlog.
There is a proposal by the City of Salinas, CA to transfer
a DOL building to the local government for use as a child
care facility. The Department of Labor is urged to work with
the City of Salinas to resolve this matter in a timely
manner.

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement appropriates $96,000,000, instead
of $90,000,000 as proposed by the House and $99,831,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

pension benefit guaranty corporation

The conference agreement provides $11,155,000 for the
administrative expense limitation, instead of $10,958,000 as
proposed by the House and $11,352,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

Employment Standards Administration

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement appropriates $335,000,000, instead
of $314,000,000 as proposed by the House and $342,787,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
There is concern about the December 3, 1997 Opinion Letter
issued by the Employment Standards Administration regarding
section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Within the
constraints of not preempting the Department's discussions
with industry or the courts' impartial consideration of the
merits of this issue, the Department is urged to clarify this
letter with regard to retroactivity and to existing
collective bargaining agreements or private litigation.

black lung disability trust fund

The conference agreement appropriates $49,771,000 for
salaries and expenses from the Trust Fund, instead of
$49,404,000 as proposed by the House and $50,138,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement includes a definite
annual appropriation for black lung benefit payments and
interest payments on advances made to the Trust Fund as
proposed by the House instead of an indefinite permanent
appropriation as proposed by the Senate.
There is concern about the structural deficit in the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund. The Administration is directed to
provide its recommended solution for the problem of the
increasing indebtedness of the Trust Fund to the Congress as
part of its fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement appropriates $370,000,000, instead
of $337,408,000 as proposed by the House and $388,142,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement does not include
language proposed by the Senate that would have earmarked
one-half of the increase over the FY 1999 appropriation for
State consultation grants and one-half for enforcement and
all other purposes. The House bill had no similar provision.
The detailed table at the end of this joint statement
reflects the activity distribution agreed upon.
The Department is urged to consider allowing the use of all
FDA-approved devices which reduce the risk of needlestick
injury, whether or not such safety feature is integrated into
the needle or other sharp medical object, if the non-
integrated device is at least as safe and effective as other
FDA-approved devices.
Without any intent to delay pending regulations, the
conference agreement includes $450,000 elsewhere in this bill
for a National Academy of Sciences study of the proposed
standard on tuberculosis.
Concerns have been expressed about recommendations of the
Metalworking Fluids Standards Advisory Committee, established
by the Department, with respect to metalworking fluids
exposure levels. The Department is expected to carefully
consider peer-reviewed scientific research and examine the
technical feasibility and economic consequences of its
recommendations. An economic analysis to the three-digit SIC
code and a risk assessment should be completed on the impact
of reduced exposure levels.

Mine Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement appropriates $228,373,000, instead
of $211,165,000 as proposed by the House and $230,873,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement includes $2,500,000
over the budget request for physical improvements at the
National Mine Safety and Health Academy.
The agreement does not include language proposed by the
House that would have prohibited the use of funds to carry
out the miner training provisions of the Mine Safety and
Health Act with respect to certain industries, including sand
and gravel and surface stone, until June 1, 2000. The Senate
bill did not include a similar provision.
The agreement also does not include language proposed by
the Senate that would have allowed MSHA to retain and spend
up to $1,000,000 in fees collected for the approval and
certification of mine equipment and materials. The House bill
did not include a similar provision.
Concerns have been expressed about the possible
ramifications of a rulemaking on the use of conveyor belts in
underground coal mines, including concerns about the validity
of the testing on which the rule is based. MSHA is urged to
carefully examine the record and to conduct additional
research that may be required to address any significant
concerns that have been raised.
MSHA is urged to examine the ongoing NCI/NIOSH study of
Lung Cancer and Diesel Exhaust among Non-Metal Miners in
connection with the promulgation of a proposed rule on diesel
exhaust.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement appropriates $409,444,000 as
proposed by the Senate instead of $394,697,000 as proposed by
the House.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement appropriates $210,788,000, instead
of $191,131,000 as proposed by the House and $247,311,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement includes language
proposed by the Senate that authorizes the expenditure of
funds for the management or operation of Departmental
bilateral and multilateral foreign technical assistance. The
House bill included no such language. The agreement does not
include language proposed by the Senate that would have
authorized the use of up to $10,000 of DOL salaries and
expenses funds in this Act for receiving and hosting
officials of foreign states and official foreign delegations.
The House bill included no such language. Instead, the
agreement authorizes the Secretary to use up to $20,000 from
funds available for salaries and expenses for official
reception and representation expenses in a general provision
in title V of the bill (Sec. 504), instead of $15,000 as
proposed in both the House and Senate bills.
International child labor activities are funded at the
level requested in the President's budget.
The agreement does not include statutory language proposed
by the Senate requiring a report to Congress containing
options to promote a legal domestic workforce in the
agricultural sector, provide for improved compensation and
benefits, improved living conditions and better
transportation between jobs and address other issues related
to agricultural labor that the Secretary determines

[[Page 27186]]

to be necessary. However, the Department is instructed to
prepare such a report and submit it to Congress as soon as
possible.

Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training

The conference agreement appropriates $184,341,000, instead
of $182,719,000 as proposed by the House and $185,613,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

Office of Inspector General

The conference agreement appropriates $51,925,000 as
proposed by the Senate instead of $47,500,000 as proposed by
the House.

General Provisions

job corps pay cap

The conference agreement includes language proposed by the
House adjusting the salary cap for employees of Job Corps
contractors from Federal Executive Level III to Executive
Level II. The Senate bill left the cap at the current level
of Executive Level III.

davis-bacon helper regulations

The conference agreement does not include language proposed
by the House that would have prohibited the use of funds in
the bill to implement the proposed Davis-Bacon helper
regulations issued by the Wage and Hour Division on April 9,
1999. The Senate bill contained no such provision.

health claims regulations

The conference agreement does not include language proposed
by the House that would have prohibited the use of funds in
the bill to implement the proposed regulations issued by the
Labor Department on September 9, 1998 concerning changes in
ERISA health claims processing requirements. The Senate bill
contained no such provision.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

health resources and services

The conference agreement includes $4,429,292,000 for Health
Resources and Services instead of $4,204,395,000 as proposed
by the House and $4,365,498,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement includes bill language identifying
$104,052,000 for the construction and renovation of health
care and other facilities instead of $10,000,000 as proposed
by the Senate. The House bill contained no similar provision.
These funds are to be used for the following projects:
Northwestern University/Evanston Hospital Center for Genomics
and Molecular Medicine; Sinai Family Health Centers of
Chicago; Condell Medical Center Regional Center for Cardiac
Health Services; Northwestern Memorial Hospital; Hackensack
University Medical Center; Brookfield Zoo/Loyola University
School of Medicine; Westcare Fresno Community Healthcare
Campus, Fresno, California; Northern Illinois University
Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault;
Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, Houston, Texas; George
Mason University Center for Services to Families and Schools;
Dominican College Center for Health Sciences; Marklund
Children's Home, Bloomingdale, Illinois; Lawton and Rhea
Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies Perinatal Data
Center; Aging Health Services Center, Somerset, Kentucky; St.
Joseph's Hospital Health Center, Syracuse, New York;
Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine; Gateway
Community Health Center, Laredo, Texas; Uvalde County Clinic,
Uvalde, Texas; Vida y Salud Community Health Center, Crystal
City, Texas; Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas;
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Guyton Building;
Children's Hospital of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama; Edward
Health Services, Naperville, Illinois; Marquette University
School of Dentistry; St. Christopher-Ottilie Residential
Treatment Center, Sea Cliff, Long Island; Louisiana State
University Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, Shreveport,
Louisiana; Columbus Community Healthcare Center, Buffalo, New
York; Children's Hospital Los Angeles Research Institute;
Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, New Jersey;
Marywood University Northeast Pennsylvania Healthy Families
Center, Scranton, Pennsylvania; Temple University Outpatient
Facility; Temple University Children's Medical Center;
Pittsburgh Magee-Women's Hospital Women's Center; College of
Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Drexel University
National Chemical and Biological Research Center; University
of Pittsburgh Cancer Center; Philadelphia College of
Osteopathic Medicine; Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, Fairbanks,
Alaska; Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Bethel, Alaska;
University of Vermont Cancer Center; Burlington, Vermont
community health center; Central Wyoming community health
center; Clinical Diabetes Islet Transplanation Research
Center at the former NIH/Perrine, Florida Animal Research
Facility; Cooper Green Hospital, Alabama; Central Ozarks
Medical Center, Richland, Missouri; University of Alabama at
Birmingham Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Institute;
Lawton Chiles Foundation, Florida; Mississippi Institute for
Cancer Research; Jackson Medical Mall Foundation,
Mississippi; Union Hospital, Terre Haute, Indiana; St. Joe's
Hospital of Ohio; University of Northern Colorado, Rocky
Mountain Cancer Rehabilitation Institute; National Jewish
Medical and Research Center; University of Florida Genetics
Institute; Hidalgo County Health Complex, Lordsburg, New
Mexico; community health centers in Iowa; Medical University
of South Carolina Cancer Center; Child Health Institute at
the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; Harts
Health Center, Harts, West Virginia; West Virginia University
Eye Institute; University of South Dakota Medical School
Research Facility; Tufts University, Biomedical/Nutrition
Research Center; New York University Program in Women's
Cancer; Laguna Honda Hospital, San Francisco, California; and
University of Montana Institute for Environmental and Health
Sciences.
The conference agreement includes bill language identifying
$214,932,000 for family planning instead of $215,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $222,432,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
There is concern that there has been a steady erosion of
title X funds being made available by the Department for
authorized section 1001 clinical services. The Department is
directed to allocate at least 90 percent of the funds
appropriated for title X specifically for clinical services.
The conference agreement concurs with the language contained
in the Senate report regarding the expenditure of year-end
funds and allocation of title X funds to regional offices.
The conference agreement does not include a provision to
allow funds to be used to operate the Council on Graduate
Medical Education as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained no similar provision. The Health Professions
Education Partnerships Act of 1998 authorizes the use of
funds for this purpose.
The conference agreement provides $50,000,000 for the Ricky
Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act as proposed by the Senate
instead of $20,000,000 as proposed by the House. This funding
is included in the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund as proposed by the House. The Senate bill
provided funding in the HRSA account. Within the total
provided, $10,000,000 shall be for HRSA administrative costs.
The conference agreement does not include a provision
related to the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data Collection
Program as proposed by the Senate. The House bill contained
no similar provision.
The conference agreement provides $1,024,000,000 for
community health centers as proposed by the Senate instead of
$985,000,000 as proposed by the House. Within the total
provided, $5,000,000 is for native Hawaiian health programs.
The demonstration project by the Utah area health education
centers was identified under community health centers in the
Senate report and should be considered under the area health
education centers account.
The conference agreement provides $38,244,000 for the
national health service corps, field placements as proposed
by the House instead of $36,997,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within the total provided, $1,000,000 is to expand
the availability of behavioral and mental health services
nationwide.
The conference agreement provides $78,666,000 for national
health service corps, recruitment instead of $78,166,000 as
proposed by both the House and Senate. The amount provided
includes $500,000 to increase the number of SEARCH grantees
so as to include the Illinois Primary Health Care
Association. The conference agreement concurs with the Senate
report language concerning increasing health care
availability in underserved areas.
The conference agreement provides $324,277,000 for health
professions instead of $301,986,000 as proposed by the House
and $226,916,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement includes $1,000,000 within allied health special
projects for expansion of the Illinois Community College
Board's program, in coordination with the Illinois Department
of Human Services, to train and place welfare recipients in
the allied health field using distance technology.
The conference agreement includes $20,000,000 for pediatric
graduate medical education, subject to authorization. The
funds would be used to support health professions training at
children's teaching hospitals. The Secretary is directed to
provide a detailed operating plan that clearly specifies
those hospitals deemed eligible for funding, the methodology
and criteria used in determining payments, and performance
measurements and outcomes. It is intended that the funds
provided for this activity will be a one-time payment,
pending action by the authorizing Committees to establish
statutory guidelines for the structure and operation of the
program.
The conference agreement provides $20,282,000 for Hansen's
Disease Services instead of $18,670,000 as proposed by the
House and $17,282,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreement includes $3,000,000 to continue the
Diabetes Lower Extremity Amputation Prevention (LEAP)
programs at the University of South Alabama, the Louisiana
State University School of Medicine, and the Roosevelt Warm
Springs Institute for Rehabilitation.
The conference agreement provides $710,000,000 for the
maternal and child health

[[Page 27187]]

block grant instead of $800,000,000 as proposed by the House
and $695,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement includes bill language designating $108,742,000 of
the funds provided for the block grant for special projects
of regional and national significance (SPRANS) instead of
$198,742,000 as proposed by the House. The Senate bill
contained no similar provision. It is intended that
$5,000,000 of this amount be used for the continuation of the
traumatic brain injury State demonstration projects as
authorized by title XII of the Public Health Service Act.
Within the funds provided, sufficient funds are included to
initiate a multi-state dental sealant demonstration program
identified in the Senate bill. The agency is urged to work
closely with the Departments of Health of New Mexico and
Alaska to develop dental sealant programs that address the
needs of medically underserved children, especially those
living in rural, American Indian, and Native Alaskan
communities.
Within the total provided, $150,000 is included for the
Whole Kids Outreach program in southeast Missouri.
Within the total provided, the agency is encouraged to
support the efforts of the Kids Peace program in Orefield,
Pennsylvania, that assist children to overcome situational
crises.
The conference agreement provides $90,000,000 for healthy
start instead of $110,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
House bill provided $90,000,000 for healthy start within the
Maternal and Child Health block grant SPRANS account. It is
intended that these projects will be evaluated and States
will begin to incorporate those activities that are proven
successful and can be replicated into the mission of the
maternal and child health program.
The conference agreement provides $3,500,000 for newborn
and infant hearing screening instead of $2,500,000 as
proposed by the House and $4,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. These funds are to be used to implement title VI of
this Act, Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Interventions for
Newborns and Infants with Hearing Loss.
The conference agreement provides $32,067,000 for rural
health outreach grants instead of $38,892,000 as proposed by
the House and $31,396,000 as proposed by the Senate. Within
the total provided, $1,200,000 is to continue and expand the
development of the Center for Acadiana Genetics and
Hereditary Health Care at Louisiana State University Medical
Center.
The conference agreement provides $30,548,000 for rural
health research instead of $11,713,000 as proposed by the
House and $6,085,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreement includes the following amounts for the
following projects and activities:
--$300,000 for the Northern California Telemedicine Network
at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital;
--$385,000 for a rural telemedicine distance learning
project at Daemen College, Amherst, New York;
--$1,000,000 for a University of New Mexico and University
of Hawaii joint telehealth initiative;
--$1,000,000 for the Medical University of South Carolina
Center for the joint MUSC/Walter Reed/Sloan Kettering
Telemedicine program;
--$1,500,000 for the Southwest Alabama Rural Telehealth
Network at the University of South Alabama College of
Medicine;
--$1,500,000 for the Children's Hospital and Regional
Medical Center, Seattle, telemedicine project;
--$1,650,000 for the University of Maine rural children's
health assessment and follow-up program;
--$2,000,000 for the University of Mississippi Center for
Sustainable Health Outreach;
--$2,500,000 for the Mississippi State University Rural
Health, Safety, and Security Institute;
--$3,000,000 for a telehealth deployment research testbed
program; and
--$4,000,000 for the Alaska Federal Health Care Access
Network, Anchorage.
The conference agreement does not provide separate funding
for the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth as proposed
by the Senate. The House bill contained no similar provision.
The conference agreement provides $5,000,000 for traumatic
brain injury demonstrations within the Maternal and Child
Health block grant SPRANS account as proposed by the House.
The Senate bill provided $5,000,000 as a separate
appropriation.
The conference agreement does not provide separate funding
for trauma care as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained no similar provision. Within funds available for
maternal and child health, HRSA is urged to work with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
American Trauma Society to assess emergency medical services
systems.
The conference agreement provides $3,000,000 for poison
control as proposed by the Senate. The House bill contained
no similar provision. Efforts are underway by HRSA and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to initiate
planning for a national toll-free number for poison control
services. Funding is provided to support this effort and
related system enhancements such as the development and
assessment of uniform patient management guidelines. The
agency is also urged to assist the poison control centers'
planning and stabilization efforts.
The conference agreement provides $6,000,000 for black lung
clinics as proposed by the Senate instead of $5,000,000 as
proposed by the House.
The conference agreement provides a total of $1,550,000,000
for Ryan White programs instead of $1,519,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $1,610,500,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Included in this amount is $525,000,000 for emergency
assistance, $814,000,000 for comprehensive care, $132,000,000
for early intervention, $51,000,000 for pediatric
demonstrations, $20,000,000 for dental services, and
$8,000,000 for education and training centers.
The conference agreement includes bill language identifying
$518,000,000 for the Ryan White Title II State AIDS drug
assistance programs. The House bill identified $500,000,000
and the Senate bill identified $536,000,000.
The conference agreement provides $125,000,000 for program
management instead of $115,500,000 as proposed by the House
and $133,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Within the total
provided, it is intended that $900,000 will be allocated to
support the efforts of the American Federation for Negro
Affairs Education and Research Fund of Philadelphia and
$750,000 is for the University of Northern Iowa Global Health
Corps project.
There are plans by several transplant organizations to hold
a National Consensus Conference on Living Organ Donation in
early 2000 to examine the opportunities and challenges
surrounding living organ donation. Despite efforts to
increase organ donation, the demand for donations continues
to surpass the number of donated organs. The support of the
Administration is an important part of organ donation
efforts. The Department is urged to be a partner in this
upcoming conference.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Disease Control, Research, and Training

The conference agreement includes $2,798,886,000 for
disease control, research, and training instead of
$2,621,476,000 as proposed by the House and $2,760,544,000 as
proposed by the Senate. In addition, the conference agreement
includes bill language designating $51,000,000 for violence
against women programs financed from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund as proposed by both the House and
Senate.
The conference agreement provides $60,000,000 for
equipment, construction, and renovation of facilities instead
of $40,000,000 as proposed by the House and $59,800,000 as
proposed by the Senate, of which $20,000,000 was included in
the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. The
conference agreement also repeats bill language included in
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to allow the General
Services Administration to enter into a single contract or
related contracts for the full scope of the infectious
disease laboratory and that the solicitation and contract
shall contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found in
the Code of Federal Regulations.
The conference agreement provides a total of $100,000,000
for the National Center for Health Statistics instead of
$94,573,000 as proposed by the House and $109,573,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement also
includes bill language designating $71,690,000 of the total
to be available to the Center under the Public Health Service
one percent evaluation set-aside instead of $71,793,000 as
proposed by the House and $109,573,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The Center is urged to give priority to the NHANES
survey.
The table accompanying the conference agreement includes a
breakout of program costs and salaries and expenses by
program. Salaries and expenses activities encompass all non-
extramural activities with the exception of program support
services, centrally managed services, buildings and
facilities, and the Office of the Director. It is intended
that designated amounts for salaries and expenses are
ceilings. The agency may allocate administrative funds for
extramural program activities according to its judgment.
Funds should be apportioned and allocated consistent with the
table, and any changes in funding are subject to the normal
notification procedures.
The conference agreement provides $135,204,000 for the
prevention health services block grant instead of
$152,247,000 as proposed by the House and $118,161,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $17,500,000 for
prevention centers as proposed by the House instead of
$15,500,000 as proposed by the Senate. Within the total
provided, sufficient funds are included to establish an
Appalachian prevention center at the University of Kentucky.
The conference agreement provides $461,875,000 for
childhood immunization instead of $421,477,000 as proposed by
the House and $512,273,000 as proposed by the Senate. In
addition, the conference agreement provides $20,000,000 for
polio eradication in the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund.

[[Page 27188]]

In addition, the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program funded
through the Medicaid program is expected to provide
$545,043,000 in vaccine purchases and distribution support in
fiscal year 2000, for a total program level of
$1,006,918,000.
The conference agreement provides $662,276,000 for HIV/AIDS
as proposed by the Senate instead of $657,036,000 as proposed
by the House.
The conference agreement provides $123,574,000 for
tuberculosis instead of $121,962,000 as proposed by the House
and $125,185,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $129,097,000 for sexually
transmitted diseases as proposed by the House instead of
$128,808,000 as proposed by the Senate. CDC is encouraged to
address chlamydia as a disease with widespread prevalence
among teens and young adults.
The conference agreement provides $361,705,000 for chronic
and environmental diseases instead of $315,511,000 as
proposed by the House and $327,081,000 as proposed by the
Senate. In addition, the conference agreement provides
$5,000,000 for the environmental health laboratory in the
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. Included in
this amount are increases for the following activities:
$500,000 for oral health; $500,000 for prostate cancer;
$500,000 colorectal cancer; $500,000 for autism; $503,261 for
chronic fatigue syndrome; $538,820 for radiation; $539,055
for folic acid; $1,000,000 for limb loss; $1,000,000 for
arthritis; $1,000,000 for women's health/ovarian cancer;
$1,176,793 for birth defects; $2,000,000 for diabetes;
$2,300,000 for pfiesteria; $3,500,000 for newborn and infant
hearing screening; $5,000,000 for nutrition/obesity;
$10,000,000 for asthma; $10,000,000 for cardiovascular
diseases; and $27,000,000 for smoking and health/tobacco. The
agency is urged to give full and fair consideration to the
Hale County, Alabama, HERO program.
The conference agreement provides $167,051,000 for breast
and cervical cancer screening as proposed by the Senate
instead of $161,071,000 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement includes bill language to allow the
agency to expand the WISEWOMAN program to not more than 10
States. The agency is urged to give full and fair
consideration to proposals from Pennsylvania, Iowa, and
Connecticut.
The conference agreement provides a total of $165,610,000
for infectious diseases as proposed by both the House, when
adjusted for transfers from the Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund, and the Senate. Within this amount,
$145,610,000 is provided in this account and $20,000,000 is
provided in the Public Health and Social Services Emergency
Fund for bioterrorism surveillance-emergency preparedness and
response activities.
The conference agreement provides $38,248,000 for lead
poisoning as proposed by the House instead of $37,205,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $86,198,000 for injury
control instead of $57,581,000 as proposed by the House and
$82,819,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement includes the following amounts for the following
projects and activities:
--$200,000 to the City of Waterloo, Iowa, for expansion of
Fire PALS, a school-based injury prevention program;
--$500,000 for the Trauma Information Exchange Program as
described in the House and Senate reports;
--$2,500,000 to expand injury control centers; and
--$12,500,000 to initiate or expand youth violence
programs, of which $10,000,000 shall be for national academic
centers of excellence on youth violence prevention and
$2,500,000 shall be for a national youth violence prevention
resource center.
The conference agreement provides $215,000,000 for the
national occupational safety and health program as proposed
by the Senate instead of $200,000,000 as proposed by the
House.
The conference agreement provides $85,916,000 for epidemic
services as proposed by the House instead of $81,349,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Within the total provided, it is
intended that $1,600,000 will be allocated to support
expansion of an existing post-traumatic peer support model
intervention network to address the needs of landmine victims
in affected regions overseas.
The conference agreement provides $36,322,000 for the
Office of the Director instead of $31,136,000 as proposed by
the House and $32,322,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreement includes the following amounts for the
following projects and activities:
--$1,000,000 to establish a sustainable pilot program that
would initiate an interdisciplinary approach to mind-body
medicine and to assess their preventive health impact. To
ensure a program of the highest quality, a strong peer-review
process for all proposals should be put in place.
--$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama birth
defects monitoring and prevention activities; and
--$3,000,000 for the Center for Environmental Medicine and
Toxicology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center at
Jackson.
The conference agreement provides $30,000,000 for health
disparities demonstrations instead of $10,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $35,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
agency is urged to expand the REACH initiative to additional
communities and collaborate with Missouri community health
centers as well as other worthy centers across the country.

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

National Cancer Institute

The conference agreement provides $3,332,317,000 for the
National Cancer Institute instead of $3,163,727,000 as
proposed by the House, when adjusted for transfers from the
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, and
$3,286,859,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute

The conference agreement provides $2,040,291,000 for the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute instead of
$1,937,404,000 as proposed by the House and $2,001,185,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

The conference agreement provides $270,253,000 for the
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
instead of $257,349,000 as proposed by the House, when
adjusted for transfers from the Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund, and $267,543,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

The conference agreement provides $1,147,588,000 for the
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
Diseases instead of $1,087,455,000 as proposed by the House
and $1,130,056,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

The conference agreement provides $1,034,886,000 for the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
instead of $979,281,000 as proposed by the House and
$1,019,271,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

The conference agreement provides $1,803,063,000 for the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases instead
of $1,714,705,000 as proposed by the House, when adjusted for
transfers from the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund, and $1,786,718,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of General Medical Sciences

The conference agreement provides $1,361,668,000 for the
National Institute of General Medical Sciences instead of
$1,298,551,000 as proposed by the House and $1,352,843,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

The conference agreement provides $862,884,000 for the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
instead of $817,470,000 as proposed by the House, when
adjusted for transfers from the Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund, and $848,044,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Eye Institute

The conference agreement provides $452,706,000 for the
National Eye Institute instead of $428,594,000 as proposed by
the House and $445,172,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

The conference agreement provides $444,817,000 for the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences instead
of $421,109,000 as proposed by the House, when adjusted for
transfers from the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund, instead of $436,113,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Institute on Aging

The conference agreement provides $690,156,000 for the
National Institute on Aging instead of $651,665,000 as
proposed by the House and $680,332,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

The conference agreement provides $351,840,000 for the
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin
Diseases instead of $333,378,000 as proposed by the House and
$350,429,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

The conference agreement provides $265,185,000 for the
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders instead of $251,218,000 as proposed by the House
and $261,962,000 as proposed by the Senate.

National Institute of Nursing Research

The conference agreement provides $90,000,000 for the
National Institute of Nursing Research as proposed by the
Senate instead of $76,204,000 as proposed by the House.

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

The conference agreement provides $293,935,000 for the
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism instead of

[[Page 27189]]

$279,901,000 as proposed by the House and $291,247,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

National Institute on Drug Abuse

The conference agreement provides $689,448,000 for the
National Institute on Drug Abuse instead of $656,551,000 as
proposed by the House and $682,536,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Institute of Mental Health

The conference agreement provides $978,360,000 for the
National Institute of Mental Health instead of $930,436,000
as proposed by the House and $969,494,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Human Genome Research Institute

The conference agreement provides $337,322,000 for the
National Human Genome Research Institute as proposed by the
Senate instead of $308,012,000 as proposed by the House.

National Center for Research Resources

The conference agreement provides $680,176,000 for the
National Center for Research Resources instead of
$642,311,000 as proposed by the House, when adjusted for
transfers from the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund, and $655,988,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement also includes bill language
designating $75,000,000 for extramural facilities
construction grants. These funds will provide seed money to
stimulate greater public and private sector investments in
this needed modernization effort. In awarding grants with
these funds, NCRR is directed to recognize the special needs
of smaller and developing institutions. NCRR shall assure
that, given a sufficient number of meritorious applications
from smaller and developing institutions, no less than 50
percent of the awards are made to these institutions. In
addition, NCRR shall take all steps necessary to assure that
small and developing institutions are notified of the funds
available in this account and are provided adequate technical
assistance in the application process. The conference
agreement does not include a provision proposed by the Senate
to provide $30,000,000 for extramural facilities available on
October 1, 2000. The House bill contained no similar
provision.
The total provided also includes $40,000,000 for the
Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) program as proposed
by the House instead of $20,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. In addition, $15,000,000 is included to enhance the
science education program as referenced in the House and
Senate reports.
The conference agreement concurs with language contained in
the Senate report concerning animal research facilities in
minority health professional schools.

John E. Fogarty International Center

The conference agreement provides $43,723,000 for the John
E. Fogarty International Center as proposed by the Senate
instead of $40,440,000 as proposed by the House, when
adjusted for transfers from the Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund.

National Library of Medicine

The conference agreement provides $215,214,000 for the
National Library of Medicine instead of $202,027,000 as
proposed by the House and $210,183,000 as proposed by the
Senate.

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

The conference agreement provides $68,753,000 for the
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
instead of $68,000,000 as proposed by the House and
$56,214,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement does not include bill language proposed by the
Senate to make these funds available for obligation through
September 30, 2001. The House bill contained no similar
provision.
It is believed that Federal policy in a number of areas is
failing to keep up with the increased use of complementary
and alternative therapies. Funding was provided in fiscal
year 1999 to support the establishment and operation of a
White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative
Medicine Policy to study and make recommendations to the
Congress on appropriate policies regarding consumer
information, training, insurance coverage, licensing, and
other pressing issues in this area. It is believed that the
Commission is not intended to review the work of or set the
priorities for the Center. Rather, the Center is expected
simply to provide administrative support to the Commission.
The conference agreement concurs with the House and Senate
report language regarding the training of physicians in
integrative medicine, but urges the Center to also support
the training of nurses in integrative medicine through
appropriate mechanisms. The Center is also urged to study
strategies for integrating complementary and alternative
medicine into all nursing curricula.

Office of the Director

(Including Transfer of Funds)

The conference agreement provides $283,509,000 for the
Office of the Director instead of $270,383,000 as proposed by
the House and $299,504,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreement includes a designation in bill language
of $44,953,000 for the operations of the Office of AIDS
Research as proposed by the House. The Senate bill contained
no similar provision.
It is expected that the Minority Access to Research
Careers, Minority Biomedical Research Support, Research
Centers in Minority Institutions, and the Office of Research
on Minority Health programs will continue to be supported at
a level commensurate with their importance.
Investigations into the causes, prevention, treatment, and
cure for diabetes are important. The Diabetes Research
Working Group report outlines many scientific opportunities
and NIH is encouraged to pursue research on all types of
diabetes with equal vigor.
NIH is expected to consult closely with the research
community, clinicians, patient advocates, and the Congress
regarding Parkinson's research and fulfillment of the goals
of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act. NIH is
requested to develop a report to Congress by March 1, 2000
outlining a research agenda for Parkinson's focused research
for the next five years, along with professional judgment
funding projections. The NIH Director should be prepared to
discuss Parkinson's focused research planning and
implementation for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
Continued advances in biomedical imaging and engineering,
including the development of new techniques and technologies
for both clinical applications and medical research and the
transfer of new technologies from research projects to the
public health sector are important. The disciplines of
biomedical imaging and engineering have broad applications to
a range of disease processes and organ systems and research
in these fields does not fit into the current disease and
organ system organizational structure of the NIH. The present
organization of the NIH does not accommodate basic scientific
research in these fields and encourages unproductive
diffusion of imaging and engineering research. Several
efforts have been made in the past to fit imaging into the
NIH structure, but these have proved to be inadequate.
For these reasons, NIH is urged to establish an Office of
Bioimaging/Bioengineering and to review the feasibility of
establishing an Institute of Biomedical Imaging and
Engineering. This Office should coordinate imaging and
bioengineering research activities, both across the NIH and
with other Federal agencies. The NIH shall report to the
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate on the
progress achieved by this Office no later than June 30, 2000.
Security at Federal facilities is a growing concern and
with the number of visitors to the NIH campus, including both
domestic and foreign dignitaries, and the type of research
that occurs on campus, adequate security at NIH is critical.
The Director is requested to contract with an independent
group to study the overall security situation at the Bethesda
campus. This study should include, but not be limited to,
recommendations regarding the appropriate manpower, training,
and equipment needed to provide adequate security for NIH
employees and all visitors to the campus as well as any
recommended changes to the current security policy.
Infantile autism and autism spectrum disorders are
biologically based neurodevelopmental diseases that cause
severe impairments in language and communication and
generally manifest in young children sometime during the
first two years of life. Best estimates indicate that 1 in
500 children born today will be diagnosed with an autism
spectrum disorder and that 400,000 Americans have autism or
an autism spectrum disorder. NIH is strongly encouraged to
dedicate more resources and to expand and intensify these
efforts through the NIH Autism Coordinating Committee. More
knowledge is needed concerning the underlying causes of
autism and autism spectrum disorders, how to treat and
prevent these disorders; the epidemiology and risk factors
for the disorders; the development of methods for early
medical diagnosis; dissemination to medical personnel,
particularly pediatricians, to aid in the early diagnosis and
treatment of this disease; and the costs incurred in
educating and caring for individuals with autism and autism
spectrum disorders. NIH is also encouraged to explore
mechanisms, including innovative collaborative approaches in
autism, supported by the Institutes to conduct basic and
clinical research into the cause, diagnosis, early detection,
prevention, control, and treatment of autism, including
research in the fields of developmental neurobiology,
genetics, and psychopharmacology.
NIDDK and NIAID are to be commended for jointly supporting
research on foodborne illness. The Institutes are encouraged
to enhance research on the reaction of the gut to foodborne
pathogens, including research on the pathogenesis of the
disease, the reasons for antibiotic resistance, the reaction
of the gut to infections, the development of animal models to
test therapies, and the invention of vaccines or substances
that bind with the toxins to prevent the illness.

Buildings and Facilities

The conference agreement provides $135,376,000 for
buildings and facilities instead of $108,376,000 as proposed
by the House and $100,732,000 as proposed by the Senate. In

[[Page 27190]]

addition, $40,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill for the Clinical Center.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

substance abuse and mental health services

The conference agreement provides $2,549,728,000 for
substance abuse and mental health services instead of
$2,413,731,000 as proposed by the House and $2,799,516,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement does not
provide $148,816,000 to become available on October 1, 2000
as proposed by the Senate. The House bill contained no
similar provisions.
Center for Mental Health Services
The conference agreement provides $300,000,000 for the
mental health block grant as proposed by the House instead of
$358,816,000, of which $48,816,000 was to become available on
October 1, 2000, as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $83,000,000 for
children's mental health as proposed by the House instead of
$78,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Mental health services for children and adolescents could
be strengthened by a comprehensive system that measures the
quality and effectiveness of these services. The Center's
Committee on Child and Adolescent Outcomes has supported the
collaboration between Vanderbilt University and Australia in
developing such an evaluation system in the United States.
The Department is urged to continue this collaboration.
The National Mental Health Self-Help Clearinghouse, the
Consumer Organization and Networking Technical Assistance
Center, and the National Empowerment Center provide
information and resources to individuals suffering from
mental illnesses and their families. Continued funding of
these Centers will allow services to be provided
uninterrupted.
The conference agreement provides $31,000,000 for grants to
states for the homeless (PATH) as proposed by the Senate
instead of $28,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement provides $25,000,000 for
protection and advocacy as proposed by the Senate instead of
$22,957,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement provides $137,932,000 for
knowledge development and application as proposed by the
Senate instead of $85,851,000 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement has doubled funding for mental health
services for school-age children, as part of an effort to
reduce school violence. It is intended that $80,000,000 be
used for the support and delivery of school-based and school-
related mental health services for school-age youth. It is
intended that the Department will continue to collaborate its
efforts with the Department of Education to develop a
coordinated approach.
Within the total provided, $1,000,000 is for the Northwest
Suburban Cook County and Lake County Public Action to Deliver
Shelter (PADS) provider organizations to address long-term
homelessness through service integration.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
The conference agreement provides $1,585,000,000 for the
substance abuse block grant as proposed by the House instead
of $1,715,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement does not include a provision proposed by the Senate
to provide $100,000,000 on October 1, 2000. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
The conference agreement provides $181,741,000 for
knowledge development and application instead of $136,613,000
as proposed by the House and $226,868,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within the total provided, $200,000 is for the Center
Point Program in Marin County, California, for substance
abuse and related services to high-risk individuals and
families.
Recent reports by NIH and the Institute of Medicine
recommend expansion of effective treatment approaches for
adolescent drug abusers. CSAT is to be commended for its work
in developing and testing manuals for program interventions
through the Cannabis Youth Treatment initiative. CSAT is
encouraged to expand this initiative by examining the
immediate and long-term outcomes across the developmental
period when adolescents are at risk for peak drug use, and by
taking steps to replicate and improve such treatment
approaches.
The Norton Sound Health Corporation project for substance
abuse treatment services should be given full and fair
consideration for funding.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
The conference agreement provides $139,955,000 for
knowledge development and application instead of $118,910,000
as proposed by the House and $161,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within the total provided, $750,000 is for the Rio
Arriba and Santa Fe Counties ``black tar'' heroin program and
$3,000,000 is for a regional consortium of South Dakota,
North Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana to provide Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome services.
The conference agreement provides $7,000,000 for high risk
youth grants as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
Program Management
The conference agreement provides $59,100,000 for program
management instead of $53,400,000 as proposed by the House
and $58,900,000 as proposed by the Senate. It is intended
that $1,000,000 of the increase over the Administration
request is to support the school violence prevention
initiative.
It is intended that, from within the funds reserved for
rural programs, $12,000,000 be allocated for CSAT grants and
$8,000,000 be allocated for CSAP grants.
The conference agreement includes $3,700,000 to initiate
and test the effectiveness of Community Assessment and
Intervention Centers in providing integrated mental health
and substance abuse services to troubled and at-risk children
and youth, and their families in four Florida communities.
Building upon successful juvenile programs, this effort
responds directly to nationwide concerns about youth
violence, substance abuse, declining levels of service
availability and the inability of certain communities to
respond to the needs of their youth in a coordinated manner.
The total provided includes: $2,000,000 from mental health
knowledge development and application; $500,000 from
substance abuse prevention knowledge development and
application; $1,000,000 from substance abuse treatment
knowledge development and application; and $200,000 from
program management.
The Senate recently heard testimony about pathological
gambling disorders and the importance of additional federal
research in this area as recommended by the National Gambling
Impact Study Commission. The Center is urged to conduct
demonstration projects to determine effective strategies and
best practices for preventing and treating pathological
gambling.

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research

health care policy and research

The conference agreement provides $111,424,000 in
appropriated funds instead of $104,403,000 as proposed by the
House and $19,504,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement designates $83,576,000 to be
available to the Agency under the Public Health Service one
percent evaluation set-aside instead of $70,647,000 as
proposed by the House and $191,751,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
In addition, $5,000,000 previously identified by the Senate
report for bioterrorsm activities is included in the Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund for the same
purpose.

Health Care Financing Administration

program management

The conference agreement provides $1,971,648,000 for
program management instead of $1,752,050,000 as proposed by
the House and $1,991,321,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
House bill assumed that the Administration's user fee
proposal would be enacted prior to conference. An additional
appropriation of $630,000,000 has been provided for this
activity in the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
The conference agreement provides $95,000,000 for
Medicare+Choice as proposed by the Senate instead of
$15,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
by the Senate that would have allowed Medicaid and CHIP
funding to be interchangeable. The House bill contained no
similar provision.
The conference agreement repeats language included in last
year's bill related to administrative fees collected relative
to Medicare overpayment recovery activities.
The conference agreement does not include bill language
proposed by the Senate to allow appropriated funds to be used
to increase Medicare provider audits. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
Research, Demonstration, and Evaluation
The conference agreement provides $60,000,000 for research,
demonstration, and evaluation instead of $50,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $65,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The conference agreement includes the following
amounts for the following projects and activities:
--$100,000 for Littleton Regional Hospital in New Hampshire
to assist in the development of rural emergency medical
services;
--$250,000 for the University of Missouri-Kansas City to
test behavioral interventions of nursing home residents with
moderate to severe dementia;
--$2,000,000 for a nursing home transition initiative;
--$2,000,000 for a demonstration of residential and
outpatient treatment facilities at the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation in Los Angeles; and
--$3,000,000 for the University of Pennsylvania Medical
Center, the University of Louisville Sciences Center, and St.
Vincent's Hospital in Montana to conduct a demonstration to
reduce hospitalizations among high-risk patients with
congestive heart failure.
HCFA is urged to conduct a demonstration project to test
the potential savings to the Federal government and to the
Medicare program by comparing different products used for
diabetic wound-care treatment. Such a demonstration should
compare the aggregate costs of wound care treatment using
different wound-care gel products as well as different gel
application regimens.

[[Page 27191]]

HCFA is urged to conduct a demonstration project addressing
the extraordinary adverse health status of native Hawaiians
at the Waimanalo health center exploring the use of
preventive and indigenous health care expertise.
HCFA is urged to conduct a demonstration project in Hawaii
and Alaska to address the extraordinary adverse health status
and limited access to health services of the indigenous
people in Hawaii and Alaska natives and others residing in
southwest Alaska.
There is strong concern over HCFA's failure to articulate
clear guidelines and set expeditious timetables for
consideration of new technologies, procedures and products
for Medicare coverage. Two particularly troubling examples
are HCFA's lengthy delays and failure to articulate clear
standards regarding Medicare coverage of positron emission
tomography (PET) and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS).
The effect of these delays in instituting Medicare coverage
is to deny the benefits of these technologies and products to
Medicare patients. There is also concern that HCFA appears to
be requiring new technologies to repeat clinical trials and
testing already successfully completed by the new products in
the process of gaining FDA approval or in NIH clinical trials
and which serve as signals to private insurers to cover new
technologies. The recent creation of a 120-person advisory
committee to review new technologies is also of some concern
and it is noted that the Appropriations Committees will be
observing the new advisory committee to review its costs and
to see whether its use further delays Medicare coverage of
new products. Because of the possible duplication of efforts
among HHS agencies and related unnecessary costs to the
Medicare program and the Department, it is expected that the
Secretary will take a leadership role in resolving this
matter expeditiously.
The Secretary is strongly urged to appoint a three-person
Medicare-Technology Consumer Advisory Committee. The
Committee should be appointed from among knowledgeable
patient advocates and members of the medical community with
expert knowledge of new technologies and cost-benefit
analysis. The new Committee should study the current HCFA
process for determining new coverages and should report at
least every six months to the Secretary, the Appropriations
Committees, and the general public on its findings and
recommendations. The Secretary is expected to report prior to
fiscal year 2001 appropriations hearings about its
recommendations on streamlining HCFA's approval process for
Medicare coverage of new technologies.
If the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services, under existing demonstration authority, chooses to
implement a program to improve health care access for
uninsured workers, the Secretary should encourage
applications from private, not-for-profit multi-state health
systems in urban and rural areas. Such multi-state systems
should be given special consideration if they are willing to
provide private matching funds to create model public-private
partnerships which enhance integrated systems of health care
for the working poor.
Medicare contractors
The conference agreement provides $1,244,000,000 for
Medicare contractors as proposed by the Senate instead of
$1,176,950,000 as proposed by the House. The amount provided
reflects HCFA's proposal to change its approach for
processing managed care encounter data, which will result in
estimated savings of $30,000,000.
State survey and certification
The conference agreement provides $189,674,000 for State
survey and certification instead of $106,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $204,347,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Federal administration
The conference agreement provides $480,000,000 for Federal
administration as proposed by the Senate instead of
$421,126,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement concurs with House report language
regarding its concern that the current performance evaluation
and recertification process for Organ Procurement
Organizations (OPO) may hinder the goal of increased organ
donations. HCFA is urged to work with and support the
industry in its effort to develop alternative performance
measures. HCFA is also urged to use existing authority to
extend the OPO certification period until such time as an
alternative process has been adopted.
Hospices in Wichita, Kansas will be adversely affected in
their Medicare reimbursement in fiscal year 2000 because of
an error in a faulty hospital cost report in 1995, over which
they had no control, and because of a faulty tabulation by
HCFA or its fiscal intermediary. HCFA is expected to correct
the error in the publication of the hospice wage index for
the Wichita, Kansas MSA by using the July 30, 1999 hospital
wage index, published in the Federal Register, for the
current fiscal year, rather than delaying until the following
fiscal year, and by publishing a revised notice to reflect
this correction.
Congress enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
with the intention of improving access to health care for
Native Americans, including access to Medicaid-funded
services. Congress intended to cover 100 percent of amounts
that States expend for medical assistance received through an
Indian Health Service (IHS) facility or a tribally-operated
facility, including contractual and referral arrangements
made through IHS or tribally-operated health programs.
Moreover, medical assistance includes the full array of
services for which a State Medicaid program can claim Federal
matching funds. Therefore, HCFA is urged to reconsider its
interpretation of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Administration for Children and Families

payments to states for child support enforcement and family support
programs

The conference agreement provides no extended availability
of funds proposed by the Senate. The House bill proposed no
extended availability.

low income home energy assistance

The conference agreement includes language proposed by the
House designating that the $1,100,000,000 appropriated for
LIHEAP for FY 2000 in the FY 1999 appropriations act is an
emergency under the Budget Act and requiring that such funds
be allocated in accordance with the statutory formula. The
Senate bill contained no such language. The agreement also
includes the House legal citation to section 251(b)(2)(A) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

refugee and entrant assistance

The conference agreement appropriates $426,505,000, instead
of $423,500,000 as proposed by the House and $430,500,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement provides for an annual
appropriation as proposed by the House instead of three-year
availability of funds proposed by the Senate. In the case of
the Torture Victims Relief Act funds, the agreement provides
for an annual appropriation as proposed by the House instead
of the funds remaining available until expended proposed by
the Senate.
In addition, the conference agreement includes language not
contained in either bill that designates all funding in this
account as an emergency requirement under the Budget Act.
The conference agreement includes $20,000,000 from
carryover funds that are to be used under social services to
increase educational support to schools with a significant
proportion of refugee children and for the development of
alternative cash assistance programs that involve case
management approaches to improve resettlement outcomes. Such
support should include intensive English language training
and cultural assimilation programs.
The agreement also includes $26,000,000 for increased
support to communities with large concentrations of refugees
whose cultural differences make assimilation especially
difficult justifying a more intense level and longer duration
of Federal assistance.

Child Care and Development Block Grant

The conference agreement appropriates $1,182,672,000 as an
advance appropriation for fiscal year 2001, instead of
$2,000,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The agreement
further provides that $19,120,000 shall be for child care
resource and referral and school-aged child care activities
as proposed by the Senate. The House bill had no
appropriation for this account.
The conference agreement includes $500,000 for a toll-free
child care services program hotline to be operated by Child
Care Aware.
States are encouraged to create or enhance systems of care
that support and educate families expecting a baby or with
young children, and help them understand that day-to-day
interaction with children helps them develop cognitively,
socially, physically and emotionally. Many states have
already created state and local collaboratives that
coordinate early childhood development, and these efforts are
to be commended.
In the case of states that have yet to initiate such
coordination, they are encouraged to look at best practices
from across the country. The National Governors Association
has developed goals, model indicators, and measures of
performance to help states focus on improving the conditions
of young children and their families. The State of Ohio has a
successful initiative known as Family and Children First that
could serve as a model. All states are encouraged to continue
to develop and expand healthy early childhood systems of
care.

Social Services Block Grant

The conference agreement includes $1,700,000,000, instead
of $1,909,000,000 as proposed by the House and $1,050,000,000
as proposed by the Senate. The agreement also includes the
provision in the House bill that limits the ability of States
to transfer TANF funds to the Social Services Block Grant to
4.25 percent instead of the 5 percent proposed in the Senate
bill.
The conference agreement does not include section 216 of
the Senate bill which increased the appropriation to
$2,380,000,000 but specified that $1,330,000,000 of that
amount would not become available for obligation until fiscal
year 2001 and that the amount available for allocation to
States in fiscal year 2001 would be $3,030,000,000. The House
had no similar provision.

[[Page 27192]]

Children and Families Services Programs

(including rescissions)

The conference agreement appropriates $6,809,733,000,
instead of $6,240,216,000 as proposed by the House and
$6,789,635,000 as proposed by the Senate. In addition, the
agreement rescinds $21,000,000 from permanent appropriations
as proposed by the House.
The agreement includes an advance appropriation of
$1,400,000,000 for Head Start for fiscal year 2001 as
proposed by the House instead of $1,900,000,000 proposed by
the Senate.
An amount of $10,000,000 is included under social services
and income maintenance research for establishing Individual
Development Accounts. The House proposed to fund this as a
separate line item.
The Hull House Association's Neighbor to Neighbor (NTN)
program in Chicago and Florida provides specialized placement
and family services for sibling groups, keeping such children
together, placed within their community, and stabilized in
one foster home. Outcomes for this program have been
noteworthy, including high rates of family reunification,
placement stability and foster parent retention. The
conference agreement includes $500,000 to support the
Association's project to provide training, technical
assistance and implementation assistance to establishment of
NTN programs within public and private foster care agencies
in other states and localities.
The conference agreement includes language not contained in
either House or Senate bills that requires the Department to
establish certain procedures regarding the disposition of
intangible property in the community economic development
program under the Community Services Block Grant Act.
There is awareness of efforts by the state information
technology consortium to identify best practices with regard
to implementing Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,
including best practices developed by states, the federal
government, and the private sector. The next phase of this
effort will enable states to discern which best practices are
appropriate for their particular needs, then work with the
consortium to implement those practices. Continuation of this
effort at the current level of support is urged.
It is important that the Congress determine the economic
status of former recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families, and the conference agreement provides funds to
support such research and evaluation.
Head Start grantees may use their basic grant funds,
quality funds, and expansion funds for minor renovations and
rehabilitation of existing Head Start facilities. The
Secretary is urged to give special attention to Native
American communities with particular needs, including the
Alaskan communities of Chevak, Napakiak, Haines, Marshall,
Noorvik, Selawik, Pilot Station, Hooper Bay, and Dillingham.
Within the funds provided for Runaway Youth--Transitional
Living, the conference agreement includes $500,000 for the
House of Mercy in Des Moines, Iowa.
Within the funds provided for child abuse prevention
programs, the conference agreement includes $1,000,000 for a
one-stop shopping demonstration for Catholic Social Services
in Juneau, Alaska; $2,000,000 for the Healthy Beginnings
Program in Alaska; $500,000 for Children's Advocacy Services
Center of Greater St. Louis; $50,000 for the Taos Community
Against Violence for ongoing services for children and
victims of domestic violence; and $1,000,000 for the
University of Louisville, Center for Research in Early
Childhood Development.
Within the funds provided for Native American programs, the
conference agreement includes $700,000 for the Cook Inlet
Tribal Council, Inc. and $300,000 for Kawerak, Inc.
The conference agreement includes $2,000,000 for the Public
Children Services Association of Ohio to build a multi-State
grassroots network that results in a State infrastructure of
local child protection agencies.
The conference agreement includes $400,000 for the National
Adoption Center to develop a national adoption photo listing
service on the Internet.
Within the funds provided for developmental disabilities,
projects of national significance, the conference agreement
includes $1,000,000 for the Sertoma Center in Knoxville,
Tennessee to work in conjunction with other entities to
develop a training regime for providers of services for the
developmentally disabled.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families

The conference agreement changes the name of this
appropriation account to ``Promoting Safe and Stable
Families'' as proposed by the Senate instead of ``Family
Preservation and Support'' proposed by the House.

Payments to States for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance

The conference agreement appropriates $4,307,300,000 as
proposed by the House instead of $4,312,300,000 as proposed
by the Senate.

Administration on Aging

Aging Services Programs

The conference agreement appropriates $930,225,000, instead
of $881,976,000 as proposed by the House and $942,355,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement includes a legal
citation as proposed by the Senate with respect to the
Alzheimer's initiative.
The conference agreement includes the following amounts
under aging research and training:
--$3,000,000 for social research into Alzheimer's disease
care options, best practices and other Alzheimer's research
priorities as specified in the House Report
--$10,000,000 for the ``Senior Waste Patrol'' pilot project
to determine the most effective means of eliminating Medicare
fraud, waste and abuse
--$2,000,000 for the Texas Tech University Center for
Healthy Aging
--$500,000 for the West Virginia University Rural Aging
Project
--$850,000 for Elder Services, Inc. in Middlebury, Vermont
--$2,200,000 for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior Center
--$450,000 for the Deaconess Billings Clinic Northwest Area
Center for Aging in Montana
--$1,000,000 for Family Friends
--$100,000 for the Nevada Rural Counties Retired and Senior
Volunteer Home Companion Program to provide services to
homebound elderly in rural areas
Within the funds provided for state and local innovations/
projects of national significance, the conference agreement
intends that funds be used for ongoing projects scheduled for
refunding in FY 2000.
Nearly one in four American households is currently
involved in family caregiving to elderly relatives or
friends. The Administration on Aging should give full and
fair consideration to a demonstration and evaluation of the
Metropolitan Family Services' community-based program that
builds on the strengths of families to provide cost-effective
and high quality care.

Office of the Secretary

general departmental management

The conference agreement appropriates $215,552,000, instead
of $227,787,000 as proposed by the House and $189,420,000 as
proposed by the Senate. To the extent that any staffing
reductions are required to implement the conference agreement
to freeze the basic salaries and expenses funding in this
account at the fiscal year 1999 level, the Secretary should
make the reductions in such overhead areas as the immediate
office of the Secretary, public affairs, Congressional
affairs, and intergovernmental affairs.
The agreement includes $1,500,000 for the United States-
Mexico Border Health Commission. The conference agreement
concurs with the Senate Report language concerning the human
services transportation technical assistance program. It also
concurs with the Senate Report language concerning the amount
available for a public education campaign on osteoporosis in
the Office on Women's Health. Within the amount allocated to
the Office on Women's Health, $2,000,000 is for the
initiation of biological, chemical and botanical studies to
assist in the development of the clinical evaluation of
phytomedicines in women's health.
The conference agreement includes language proposed by the
House that earmarks $450,000 for a contract with the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of OSHA's proposed
rule relating to occupational exposure to tuberculosis. The
study should address the following questions:
1. Are health care workers at a greater risk of infection,
disease, and mortality due to tuberculosis than the general
community within which they reside? If so, what is the excess
risk due to occupational exposure?
2. Can the occupationally acquired risk be quantified for
different work environments, different job classifications,
etc., as a result of implementation of the 1994 Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the
prevention of tuberculosis transmission at the worksite or
the implementation of specific parts of the CDC guidelines?
3. What effect will the implementation of OSHA's proposed
tuberculosis standard have in minimizing or eliminating the
risk of infection, disease, and mortality due to
tuberculosis?
The agreement includes language as proposed by the Senate
setting aside $10,569,000 under the adolescent family life
program for activities specified under Sec. 2003(b)(2) of the
Public Health Service Act, of which $9,131,000 shall be for
prevention grants under Sec. 510(b)(2) of the Social Security
Act, without application of the limitation of Sec. 2010(c) of
the Public Health Service Act. The House bill had no similar
provision.
With respect to the advance appropriation of $20,000,000
for title XX of the Public Health Service Act, it is intended
that these funds be used for grants to organizations that
clearly and consistently focus on abstinence for preventing
STD's and unwanted pregnancy. [Abstinence shall have the same
meaning as in Public Law 104-193, title IX, section 912.]
Grants to these organizations should focus on training
persons as abstinence instructors and on providing actual
presentations to youth at vulnerable ages (grades 7 through
12). The Department shall hold competition for these grants
during the regular grant cycle in fiscal year 2000 and

[[Page 27193]]

issue these grants at the beginning of fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement concurs with the language in the
House Report relating to an Institute of Medicine study on
ethnic bias in medicine.
Sufficient funds are available to continue the inner city
childhood asthma project at the Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia.
It is understood that the screening of blood and blood
products could be improved through the use of nucleic acid
testing (NAT) to better detect known infectious diseases such
as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1) and Hepatitis C virus
(HCV). The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in the
National Institutes of Health has contracted with private
companies to develop fully automated NAT tests for HIV-1 and
HCV. In view of NIH's financial commitment to NAT and the
approval of NAT in other countries, the Public Health Service
Blood Safety Committee, chaired by the Surgeon General/
Assistant Secretary for Health, is urged to encourage the
adoption of these screening tools for individual donor
testing of blood and plasma.
The conference agreement includes language proposed by the
Senate modified to earmark $2,000,000 to be utilized by the
Surgeon General to prepare and disseminate the findings of
the Surgeon General's report on youth violence and to
coordinate with other agencies activities to prevent youth
violence. The House bill had no similar provision.
The conference agreement also includes the following
amounts for the following projects:
--$1,000,000 for the Albert Einstein Medical Center LIFE
elderly care model
--$500,000 for the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
alternative medicine program
--$500,000 for the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
sickle cell program
--$1,000,000 for the CORE Center at Cook County Hospital in
Chicago to develop a model HIV/AIDS Education and Training
Center.

Office of Inspector General

The conference agreement appropriates $31,500,000, instead
of $29,000,000 as proposed by the House and $35,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement does not include
language proposed by the House to limit the amount of funds
available to the Inspector General in FY 2000 under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA) to no more than $100,000,000, the same amount as in
FY 1999. The Senate bill had no similar provision.
Sufficient funds are available to initiate activities in
Pittsburgh, PA as mentioned in the Senate Report.

Office for Civil Rights

The conference agreement appropriates $21,652,000, instead
of $20,652,000 as proposed by the House and $22,159,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

Policy Research

The conference agreement appropriates $17,000,000, instead
of $15,000,000 as proposed by the Senate and $14,000,000 as
proposed by the House. The agreement includes $850,000 for
the East St. Louis Center operated by Southern Illinois
University to analyze problems faced by health service
providers in administering multiple sources of funding.

Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

The conference agreement provides $510,600,000 for the
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund instead of
$391,833,000 as proposed by the House and $475,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement also
includes a provision that these funds shall be made available
only upon submission of a budget request designating the
entire amount as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as
proposed by the House. The Senate bill did not propose this
account as an emergency.
The amount provided includes $196,000,000 for the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. Included in this amount
is $122,000,000 for the following bioterrorism activities:
--$1,000,000 to enhance technical capabilities to identify
certain biological agents;
--$2,000,000 to assist States in developing emergency
preparedness plans;
--$2,000,000 for public health training centers;
--$2,000,000 to discover, develop, and transition anti-
infective agents to combat emerging diseases;
--$2,000,000 to expand epidemiological intelligence
service;
--$4,000,000 for conducting independent studies of health
and bioterrorism threats, of which $1,000,000 is for the
Carnegie Mellon Research Institute, $1,000,000 is for the St.
Louis University School of Public Health, $1,000,000 is for
the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston; and
$1,000,000 is for the Johns Hopkins University Center for
Civilian Biodefense;
--$5,000,000 to develop rapid toxic screening;
--$7,000,000 to strengthen State and local epidemiological
and surveillance capacity;
--$8,400,000 to better identify potential biological and
chemical terrorism agents;
--$9,000,000 to develop new sources and methods for
surveillance;
--$9,600,000 for regional laboratories for measuring
biological and chemical agents;
--$20,000,000 for infectious diseases emergency
preparedness and response;
--$30,000,000 for a national health alert network; and
--$20,000,000 for a pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpile.
The remaining $74,000,000 is provided for the following
activities: $5,000,000 for the environmental health
laboratory; and $69,000,000 for a global health initiative,
of which $5,000,000 is for micronutrient malnutrition
programs; $9,000,000 is for malaria programs; $20,000,000 is
for polio eradication activities; and $35,000,000 is for
international HIV/AIDS programs.
The amount provided also includes $30,000,000 for the
Office of the Secretary, $24,600,000 for the Office of
Emergency Preparedness, and $5,000,000 for the Agency for
Health Care Policy and Research for bioterrorism activities;
$20,000,000 for NIH Challenge Grants; $35,000,000 for
minority HIV/AIDS activities within the Office of the
Secretary; $50,000,000 for Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund
Act within the Health Resources and Services Administration,
of which $10,000,000 is for program administration; and
$150,000,000 for Y2K activities at the Health Care Financing
Administration.
Within the increase provided to NIH, sufficient funds are
available for global health initiative activities identified
in the Senate report.

General Provisions

NIH and SAMHSA Salary Cap

The conference agreement includes a provision limiting the
use of the National Institutes of Health and the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration funds to pay
the salary of an individual, through a grant or other
extramural mechanism, at a rate not to exceed Level II of the
Executive Schedule instead of Level III as proposed by the
Senate. The House bill contained no similar provision.

Transfer Authority

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the House to prohibit any appropriation from increasing by
more than three percent as a result of use of the Secretary's
one percent transfer authority. The Senate bill contained a
similar provision except it exempted the Public Health and
Social Services Emergency Fund.

Organ Allocation Final Rule

The conference agreement includes a provision to provide a
60-day comment period on the final rule entitled ``Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network'', promulgated by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on April 2, 1998
together with the amendments to such rule promulgated on
October 20, 1999. The comment period begins 3 days after the
date of enactment of this Act. Following the comment period,
the Department will have 21-days to review submitted comments
and to amend the rule, if necessary. The rule shall not
become effective before the end of a 90-day period beginning
from the date of enactment of this Act. The House bill
included a provision to prohibit the rule from becoming
effective until October 1, 2000. The Senate bill contained no
similar provision.

Substance Abuse Block Grant Formula Allocation

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the House to provide each State with the same funding level
in fiscal year 2000 as it received in fiscal year 1999. The
Senate bill contained a similar provision except it was based
on an increased appropriation amount.

Extension of Certain Adjudication Provisions

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the Senate to extend the refugee status for persecuted
religious groups. The House bill contained no similar
provision.

Medicare Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the Senate to prohibit funding to implement or administer the
Medicare Prepaid Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project in
Arizona or in Kansas City, Missouri or in the Kansas City,
Kansas area. The House bill contained no similar provision.

Delayed Obligations

The conference agreement includes a provision to delay the
obligation of $7,500,000,000 of NIH funds; $1,120,000,000 of
HRSA funds; $965,000,000 of CDC funds; $450,000,000 of SAMHSA
funds; $425,000,000 of Social Services Block Grant funds; and
$400,000,000 of Children and Families Services funds until
September 29, 2000. The Senate bill contained a provision to
delay the obligation of $3,000,000,000 of NIH funds until
September 29, 2000. The House bill contained no similar
provision.

Sense of the Senate Regarding Diabetes Awareness and Funding

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision regarding diabetes awareness and
support for

[[Page 27194]]

increased diabetes research funding. The House bill contained
no similar provision.

Study of the Geographic Adjustment Factors in the Medicare Program

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the Senate to require the Secretary of HHS to conduct a study
on appropriateness of the geographic adjustment factors used
to determine the amount of payment for physicians' services
under the Medicare program in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
and Texas and the effect these factors have on recruitment
and retention of physicians in small rural States. The House
bill contained no similar provision.

Dental Sealant Demonstration Program

The conference agreement deletes a provision proposed by
the Senate to establish a multi-State dental sealant
demonstration program. The House bill contained no similar
provision. The agreement includes sufficient funds within the
Maternal and Child Health block grant to initiate such a
program.

Withholding of Substance Abuse Funds

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the Senate to allow a State to avoid a penalty under section
1926 of the Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the
Synar Amendment) if the State agrees to commit new State
funding to help ensure compliance with State laws prohibiting
youth purchase of tobacco products. It is noted that the
provision applies only for fiscal year 2000 and States are
expected to continue to try to meet the established Synar
Amendment targets for enforcement of their youth tobacco
laws. It is also noted that there is increasing sentiment
that the Synar Amendment needs to be reexamined and all
concerned parties are encouraged to work toward a compromise
solution next year with the appropriate authorizing
committees. The provision allows the Secretary to exercise
discretion in enforcing the timing of the new State
expenditures in order to provide flexibility to States that
do not immediately have available funds for this purpose. It
is expected that within 30 days of accepting an agreement to
increase funding for enforcement, the State will provide a
report to the Secretary of all State resources spent in
fiscal year 1999 on enforcement of the State law by program
activity and by May 15, 2000, a report on FY 2000 obligations
regarding enforcement unless otherwise negotiated by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall deliver the findings of these
reports to Congress. The language provides the Secretary
authority to permit a State to commit an amount smaller than
its formula amount as described in subsection (b) in order to
recognize that an individual state may have been granted
``delayed applicability'' status under the Synar Amendment by
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.

Medicare Injectable Drug Coverage

The conference agreement includes a provision not proposed
by either House or Senate related to Medicare injectable drug
coverage. There is concern that an August 13, 1997 memorandum
and subsequent interpretations will inappropriately restrict
beneficiary access to injectable drugs that are and have been
covered by the Medicare program. It is noted that for many
years, Medicare policy (as stated in Section 2049.2 of the
Medicare Carriers Manual) has allowed coverage of a drug or
biological administered incident to a physician's service
where the product is one that is not usually self-
administered by the patient. It is intended that HCFA
continue to cover such products under Social Security Act
section 1861(s)(2) and communicate this policy through a
program memorandum to all HCFA regional offices.

National Cancer Institute

The conference agreement includes a provision to allow the
Cancer Therapy and Research Center in San Antonio, Texas to
continue to use prior year construction grant funding without
fiscal year limitation.

Childhood Asthma

The conference agreement deletes a provision proposed by
the Senate to provide an earmark of $8,706,000 for the asthma
prevention program on October 1, 2000. The House bill
contained no similar provision. The conference agreement
includes $11,294,053 for asthma prevention as part of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Title II Citation

The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the House to cite title II as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 2000''. The Senate bill
contained no similar provision.

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Education Reform

The conference agreement includes $1,586,560,000 for
Education Reform, instead of the $800,100,000 proposed by the
House and $1,655,600,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
agreement does not include advance funding of $344,625,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The House had no similar provision.
Goals 2000
For Goals 2000, the conference agreement provides
$491,000,000. The Senate provided $494,000,000. The House
proposed no funding for this program. This amount includes
$458,000,000 for state grants, instead of $461,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The House proposed no funding for
this program. For parental assistance, the conference
agreement includes $33,000,000, the same level as in the
Senate bill. The House did not propose funding for this
program.
School-to-Work Opportunities
The conference agreement provides $55,000,000 for School-
to-Work Opportunities, the same amount provided by the
Senate. The House provided no funding for this program.
Education technology
For education technology, the conference agreement provides
$740,560,000. The Senate provided $706,600,000. The House
proposed $500,100,000.
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
For the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, the conference
agreement includes $425,000,000 proposed by the Senate. The
House provided $375,000,000.
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
For the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the
conference agreement provides $143,310,000. Both the House
and the Senate provided $115,100,000. Within the amount
provided for Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the
conference report specifies funding for the following
activities:

Houston Independent School District for technology infrastructu$500,000
Long Island 21st Century Technology and E-Commerce Alliance.....300,000
I CAN LEARN...................................................8,000,000
Linking Education Technology and Educational Reform (LINKS) for
educational technology......................................2,000,000
Center for Advanced Research and Technology (CART) for comprehensive
secondary education reform..................................1,000,000
Vaughn Reno Starks Community Center in Elizabethtown, KY for a
technology program............................................250,000
Wyandanch Compel Youth Academy Educational Assistance Program in New
York..........................................................125,000
Hi-Technology High School in San Bernardino County, California for
technology enhancement......................................3,000,000
Montana State University for a distance learning initiative.....800,000
Tupelo School District in MS for technology innovation........2,000,000
Seton Hill College in Greensburg, PA for a model education
technology training program.................................1,000,000
University of Alaska-Fairbanks..................................500,000
North East Vocational Area Cooperative in WA for a multi-district
technology education center.................................1,000,000
University of Vermont for the Vermont Learning Gateway Program..400,000
State University of New Jersey for the RUNet 2000 project at Rutgers
for an integrated voice-video-data network to link students,
faculty and administration via a high-speed, broad band fiber
optic network...............................................2,500,000
Iowa Area Education Agency 13 for a public/private partnership to
demonstrate the effective use of technology in grades one through
three.........................................................500,000
Louisville Deaf Oral School for technology enhancements.........235,000
Bibb County Board of Education for technology enhancements.......50,000
Calhoun County Board of Education for technology enhancements....50,000
Chambers County Board of Education for technology enhancements...50,000
Chilton County Board of Education for technology enhancements....50,000
Clay County Board of Education for technology enhancements.......50,000
Cleburne County Board of Education for technology enhancements...50,000
Coosa County Board of Education for technology enhancements......50,000
Lee County Board of Education for technology enhancements........50,000
Macon County Board of Education for technology enhancements......50,000
St. Clair County Board of Education for technology enhancements..50,000
Talladega County Board of Education for technology enhancements..50,000
Tallapoosa County Board of Education for technology enhancements.50,000
Randolph County Board of Education for technology enhancements...50,000
Russell County Board of Education for technology enhancements....50,000
Alexander City Board of Education for technology enhancements....50,000

[[Page 27195]]

Anniston City Board of Education for technology enhancements.....50,000
Lanett City Board of Education for technology enhancements.......50,000
Pell City Board of Education for technology enhancements.........50,000
Roanoke City Board of Education for technology enhancements......50,000
Talledega City Board of Education for technology enhancements....50,000
University of Alaska at Anchorage for distance learning educatio900,000
Alaska Department of Education for the Alaska State Distance
Education Technology Consortium...............................200,000
Mansfield University to continue a technology demonstration.....500,000
Regional technology in education consortia
For Regional technology in education consortia, the
conference agreement includes $10,000,000 proposed by the
Senate. The House provided no funding for this program.
National activities
The conference agreement includes $87,000,000 for education
technology initiatives funded under National Activities:
$75,000 for teacher training in technology, $10,000,000 to
establish computer learning centers in low-income
communities, and $2,000,000 for national technology
leadership activities. The amounts provided are the same as
provided by the Senate. The House provided $10,000,000 for
Community Based Technology Centers and no funding for other
programs within this account.
Star Schools
For Star Schools, the conference agreement provides
$50,750,000. The Senate bill provided $45,000,000. The House
bill provided no funding for this program. Within the amount
provided for Star Schools, the conference report specifies
funding for the following activities:

Technology Literacy Center at the Museum of Science & Industry,
Chicago......................................................$750,000
Oklahoma State University for an on-line math and science training
program.....................................................1,000,000
Continuation and expansion of the Iowa Communications network
statewide fiber optic demonstration.........................4,000,000
Ready to learn television
The conference agreement provides $16,000,000 as proposed
by the Senate. The House proposed no funds. The conference
agreement notes that only $3,369,913 of the $25,000,000
appropriated for this program since fiscal year 1997 have
been outlayed to date. The conference agreement accordingly
directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to report to
the Appropriations Committees in the House and the Senate
during each quarter of fiscal year 2000 the amount of funds
obligated and outlayed from each of the fiscal years 1997,
1998, 1999 and 2000 appropriations, the dates on which
outlays occur during fiscal year 2000 and the specific uses
to which such outlays are put.
Telecommunications demonstration project for mathematics
The conference agreement provides $8,500,000 for
telecommunications demonstration project for mathematics as
proposed by the Senate. The House proposed no funds.
21st Century Learning Centers
The conference agreement includes $300,000,000 for the 21st
Century Learning Centers proposed by the House instead of
$400,000,000 proposed by the Senate. Within the amount
provided, the conference report specifies funding for the
following activities:

Study Partners Program, Inc. in Louisville, KY...................$6,000
Shawnee Gardens Tenants Association Inc. in Louisville, KY.......12,000
100 Black Men of Louisville, KY for a mentoring program..........12,000
Omaha Nebraska Public Schools for the OPS 21st Century Learning
Grant.........................................................500,000
Plymouth Renewal Center in Kentucky for a tutoring program.......25,000
Canaan Community Development Corporation's Village Learning Center
Program........................................................25,000
St. Stephen Life Center After School Program.....................25,000
Louisville Central Community Centers Youth Education Program.....25,000
Trinity Family Life Center tutoring program......................15,000
New Zion Community Development Foundation, Inc. after school
mentoring program..............................................15,000
St. Joseph Catholic Orphan Society program for abused and neglected
children.......................................................20,000
Portland Neighborhood House after school program.................25,000
St. Anthony Community Outreach Center, Inc. for the Education PAYs
program........................................................25,000

Education for the Disadvantaged

The conference agreement includes $8,547,986,000 for
Education for the Disadvantaged instead of the $8,750,986,000
proposed by the Senate and $8,417,897,000 as proposed by the
House. The agreement includes advance funding for this
account of $6,204,763,000, the same as both the House and the
Senate.
For Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) the agreement
provides $7,807,397,000, compared with $8,052,397,000
provided in the Senate bill and $7,732,397,000 provided in
the House bill. Of the funds made available for basic grants,
$5,046,366,000 becomes available on October 1, 1999 for the
academic year 1999-2000.
The agreement includes $6,649,000,000 for basic state
grants and $1,158,397,000 for concentration grants. Of this
total, $1,158,397,000 for fiscal year 2000 was advance funded
in the fiscal year 1999 Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education and Related Agencies Act (P.L.
105-277). The conference agreement funding of $1,158,397,000
for concentration grants is advanced for fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement includes $12,000,000 for capital
expenses for private school children, instead of $15,000,000
proposed by the Senate. The House contained no funding for
this program.
The conference agreement provides $150,000,000 for the Even
Start program as proposed by the House. The Senate provided
$145,000,000 for this program.
The conference agreement provides $42,000,000 for Neglected
and Delinquent Youth as proposed by the Senate. The House
provided $40,311,000 for this program.
The conference agreement provides $8,900,000 for evaluation
of title I programs as proposed by the Senate. The House
provided $7,500,000 for this activity.
The conference agreement includes the provision contained
in the Senate bill regarding a 100% hold harmless for States
and LEAs for both basic and concentration grants. The
conference agreement also adopts language included in the
Senate bill providing that the Department shall make 100%
hold harmless awards to LEAs who were eligible for
concentration grants in 1998 but are not eligible to receive
grants in fiscal year 2000, ratably reduced if necessary.
The House nevertheless opposes the hold harmless provision
because it unfairly penalizes underprivileged and immigrant
children in growing states, including Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Texas, Virginia and the District of Columbia. These states
represent over half of the U.S. population of underprivileged
schoolchildren.
The House also notes that the 100% hold harmless provision
is opposed by the House authorizing committee of jurisdiction
and the Administration. The House will continue to oppose the
inclusion of such a provision in the future.
The conference agreement also adopts language included in
the Senate bill providing that the Secretary of Education
shall not take into account the 100% hold harmless provision
in determining State allocations under any other program.
The conference agreement includes $160,000,000 for
demonstrations of comprehensive school reform; both the House
and Senate funded this program at $120,000,000. The
conference agreement directs the Department to follow the
directives in the conference report accompanying the fiscal
year 1998 bill (House Report 105-390) and in the conference
report accompanying the fiscal year 1999 bill (House Report
105-825).

IMPACT AID

The conference agreement provides $910,500,000 for the
Impact Aid programs. The House proposed $907,200,000. The
Senate proposed $892,000,000. For basic grants the conference
agreement includes $737,200,000, for payments for children
with disabilities the agreement includes $50,000,000, and for
payments for heavily impacted districts the agreement
includes $76,000,000. The agreement also includes $5,000,000
for facilities maintenance, $10,300,000 for construction, and
$32,000,000 for payments for federal property. The conference
agreement provides within the account for construction,
$500,000 for the Ft. Sam Houston ISD, $800,000 for the Hays
Lodgepole School District in MT and $2,000,000 for the North
Chicago Community Unit School District.
The conference agreement also includes the following
language provisions: eligibility for the Central Union,
Island, and Hueneme School Districts in California and the
Hill City, Wall, and Hot Springs School Districts in South
Dakota; timely filing of applications by the Brookeland
School District in Texas, the Fallbrook High School District
in California and Hydaburg School District in Alaska;
forgiveness of overpayment for the Hatboro-Horsham and
Delaware Valley School Districts in Pennsylvania; and
computing payments for Travis School District in California.
Neither the House nor Senate bills contained similar
provisions.
The conference agreement notes the Administration's
proposal to significantly expand the Military Family Housing
Privatization Initiative, which has since been scaled back.
In some privatization projects, the property itself is
privatized, causing serious implications for the affected
school districts' ability to receive funding under the Impact
Aid program. Thus, the conference agreement strongly urges
the Administration to

[[Page 27196]]

clarify that military family housing privatization proposals
will have no effect on Impact Aid payments to local school
districts, even if land is privatized.

School Improvement Programs

The conference agreement provides $2,926,134,000 for School
Improvement Programs, instead of $3,115,188,000 as proposed
by the House and $2,961,634,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The agreement provides $1,396,134,000 in fiscal year 2000 and
$1,530,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding for this account.
Eisenhower professional development
For the Eisenhower professional development activities, the
agreement provides $335,000,000, the same level as in the
Senate bill. The House provided no funding for this activity.
Innovative education program strategies
For innovative education program strategies, title VI of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the
conference agreement provides $380,000,000. The House
provided $385,000,000 and the Senate bill included
$375,000,000.
Class size/Teacher Assistance Initiative
The conference agreement includes $1,200,000,000 for a
class size/teacher assistance initiative. The House bill
provided $1,800,000,000 for the Teacher Empowerment Act,
subject to authorization. The Senate bill provided
$1,200,000,000 for teacher assistance activities subject to
authorization. The agreement provides $300,000,000 in fiscal
year 2000 and $900,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding for
this account.
The conference agreement modifies language contained in the
Senate bill regarding a class size/teacher assistance
initiative.
The modified provision distributes funds according to the
formula developed for the class size reduction initiative in
the fiscal year 1999 Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education and Related Agencies Act (P.L. 105-
277). The provision allows school districts to use funds for
class size reduction activities; however, if the local
educational agency determines that it wishes to use the funds
for purposes other than class size reduction as part of a
local strategy for improving academic achievement, funds may
be used for professional development activities, teacher
training or any other local need that is designed to improve
student performance. Funds must be used to supplement and not
supplant state and local funds that would otherwise be spent
for activities under this section.
The Senate bill provided funds for the initiative if
authorized by July 1, 2000. If the initiative was not
authorized by July 1, 2000, funds could be used for any
activity authorized by Title VI of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 that would improve the
academic achievement of all students.
Safe and drug free schools
The conference agreement includes $605,000,000 for the Safe
and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act instead of the
$566,000,000 proposed by the House and $636,000,000 proposed
by the Senate. The agreement provides $115,000,000 in fiscal
year 2000 and $345,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding for
this account.
Included within this amount is $460,000,000 for state
grants, instead of $441,000,000 as proposed by the House and
$476,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement also includes $95,000,000 for
national programs, instead of $90,000,000 as proposed by the
House and $100,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement includes $850,000 within the safe
and drug free schools national programs to continue the
National Recognition Awards programs to provide models of
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and education at the
college level.
The conference agreement includes $50,000,000 under
national programs for the Safe and Drug Free Schools
coordinator initiative, instead of $35,000,000 as proposed by
the House and $60,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Reading is Fundamental
For the Reading is Fundamental program, the conference
agreement provides $20,000,000 instead of $21,500,000 as
proposed by the Senate and $18,000,000 as proposed by the
House.
Arts in education
For Arts in Education, the conference agreement provides
$11,500,000, instead of $10,500,000 as proposed by the House
and $12,500,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Magnet Schools Assistance Program
For the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, the conference
agreement provides $110,000,000 instead of $104,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $112,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Education of Native Hawaiians
The conference agreement includes $23,000,000 for the
Education of Native Hawaiians, the same level as in the
Senate. The House included $20,000,000 for this account. The
conference agreement assumes that when allocating these
funds, the Secretary of Education will fund the following
activities as described in the Report of the Senate Committee
(Senate Report No. 106-166).
Alaska Native educational equity
The conference agreement includes $13,000,000 for the
Alaska Native Educational Equity program, the same level as
in the Senate. The House included $10,000,000 for this
account.
Charter schools
The conference agreement includes $145,000,000 for Charter
Schools, instead of $130,000,000 proposed by the House and
$150,000,000 proposed by the Senate.
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers
The conference agreement includes $28,000,000 for
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers as proposed by the
Senate instead of $27,054,000 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement includes $750,000 within these funds for
an evaluation to collect performance indicator data.
Advanced placement fees
For advanced placement fees, the conference agreement
provides $15,000,000 as proposed by the Senate instead of
$4,000,000 as proposed by the House. The conference agreement
notes that less than half of our Nation's high schools offer
some form of Advanced Placement (AP) course instruction for
junior and senior high school students. The lack of access to
this instruction is particularly acute in rural parts of the
country. Internet-based AP course instruction is a dynamic
and cost-effective way to deliver AP instruction to students
living in rural areas and other areas where conventional
instructor-led training for AP courses is not available.
Accordingly, the conference agreement encourages the
Secretary to use some of the Advanced Placement Incentive
Program funds to award grants to States or LEAs seeking to
establish Internet-based AP pilot programs in rural parts of
the country or other under-served districts where students
would otherwise not have access to AP instruction.

READING EXCELLENCE

The conference agreement includes $260,000,000 for
activities authorized under the Reading Excellence Act
instead of the $200,000,000 proposed by the House and
$285,000,000 proposed by the Senate. The agreement provides
$65,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $195,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001 funding for this account.

INDIAN EDUCATION

The conference agreement includes $77,000,000 for Indian
Education, the same level as in the Senate. The House
proposed $66,000,000 for this account.

BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION

The conference agreement includes $387,000,000 for
Bilingual and Immigrant Education programs instead of the
$380,000,000 proposed by the House and $394,000,000 proposed
by the Senate.
For Instructional Services, the agreement includes
$162,500,000 instead of the $160,000,000 proposed by the
House and $165,000,000 proposed by the Senate. For Support
Services, the agreement provides $14,000,000, the same level
as in the House and Senate bills. For Professional Services,
the agreement provides $52,500,000 instead of the $50,000,000
proposed by the House and $55,000,000 proposed by the Senate.
For immigrant education, the agreement provides $150,000,000,
the same level as in the House and Senate bills. The
agreement also provides $8,000,000 for foreign language
assistance instead of the $6,000,000 proposed by the House
and $10,000,000 proposed by the Senate.

special education

The conference agreement includes $6,036,646,000 for
Special Education instead of the $5,833,146,000 proposed by
the House and $6,035,646,000 proposed by the Senate. The
agreement provides $2,294,646,000 in fiscal year 2000 and
$3,742,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding for this account.
Included in these funds is $4,989,685,000 for Grants to the
States, the same as the Senate level. The House provided
$4,810,700,000. This funding level provides an additional
$679,000,000 to assist the States in meeting the additional
per pupil costs of services to special education students.
The conference agreement provides $390,000,000 for
Preschool Grants as proposed by the Senate instead of
$373,985,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes $375,000,000 for Grants
for Infants and Families as proposed by the Senate instead of
$370,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement also includes $1,000,000 for the
completion of the Easter Seal Society's Early Childhood
Development Project for the Mississippi River Delta Region
and $1,000,000 for the Center for Literacy and Assessment at
the University of Southern Mississippi. The conference
agreement also includes $1,500,000 for the 2001 Special
Olympics World Winter Games in Alaska and $1,000,000 for the
VIII Paralympic Winter Games.
Included in the conference agreement is $34,523,000 for
technology and media services proposed by the Senate instead
of the $33,523,000 as proposed by the House. The conference
agreement includes $7,500,000 for Recordings for the Blind
and Dyslexic as described in the House and Senate Reports.
The conference agreement contemplates that

[[Page 27197]]

these funds be distributed to RFB&D as early in the fiscal
year as possible.
The conference agreement also includes $1,500,000 for
Public Telecommunications Information and Training
Dissemination as proposed by the Senate. The House did not
contain funds for this activity.

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

The conference agreement includes $2,701,772,000 for
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research instead of
$2,687,150,000 proposed by the House and $2,692,872,000
proposed by the Senate.
For Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, the agreement
provides $2,338,977,000, the same as the House and Senate
levels.
The conference agreement includes $21,842,000 for
demonstration and training programs instead of $13,942,000
proposed by the House and $18,942,000 proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement also includes $11,894,000 for
Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights, the same level
as in the House bill. The Senate provided $10,894,000.
The conference agreement also provides $48,000,000 for
Independent Living Centers proposed by the Senate instead of
$46,109,000 proposed by the House. The conference agreement
includes $15,000,000 for services for older blind individuals
as proposed by the Senate instead of $11,169,000 as proposed
by the House.
The conference agreement also includes $34,000,000 for
Assistive Technology, the same level as in the House bill.
The Senate provided $30,000,000.
Within the amounts provided, the conference report
specifies funding for the following activities:

Krasnow Institute at George Mason University for a receptive
language disorders research center...........................$750,000
University of Central Florida for a virtual reality-based education
and training program for the deaf..........................$1,000,000
Seattle Lighthouse for the Blind.............................$2,000,000
Professional development and Research Institute on Blindness in
Louisiana..................................................$1,000,000
California State University at Northridge for a Western Center for
Adaptive Aquatic Therapy...................................$1,000,000
Alaska Center for Independent Living in Anchorage..............$600,000

The conference agreement recognizes the importance of
supporting grants for the purchase of assistive technology
for persons with disabilities to help them become employable
and live independently. This technology can improve the lives
of over 50 million Americans with physical or mental
disabilities. The conference agreement recommends that, after
state assistive technology projects have been allocated,
remaining funds should be used for Title III grants, which
enable consumers with disabilities to purchase needed
assistive technology.

Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities

American Printing House for the Blind

The conference agreement provides $10,100,000 for American
Printing House for the Blind as proposed by the Senate,
instead of $9,000,000 as proposed by the House.

gallaudet university

The conference agreement provides $85,980,000 for Gallaudet
University as proposed by the House instead of $85,500,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

Vocational and Adult Education

The conference agreement includes $1,656,750,000 for
Vocational and Adult Education instead of the $1,582,247,000
as proposed by the House and $1,676,750,000 as proposed by
the Senate. The agreement provides $865,750,000 in fiscal
year 2000 and $791,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding for
this account.
$1,055,650,000 is included in the agreement for Vocational
Education basic state grants, instead of the $1,080,650,000
as proposed by the House and $1,030,650,000 as proposed by
the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $4,600,000 for Tribally
Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions as proposed
by the Senate instead of $4,100,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement also includes $17,500,000 for
vocational education national programs instead of $13,497,000
proposed by the House and $19,500,000 proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $9,000,000 for National
Occupational Information Coordinating Committee activities as
proposed by the Senate. The House did not include funding for
this activity.
For Adult Education State Grants, the agreement provides
$425,000,000 instead of the $365,000,000 provided in the
House bill and $468,000,000 in the Senate bill.
The conference agreement provides $14,000,000 for adult
education national leadership activities as proposed by the
Senate instead of $7,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement also includes $19,000,000 for
State Grants for Incarcerated Youth as proposed by the
Senate. The House did not provide funding for this activity.

Student Financial Assistance

The conference agreement provides $9,435,000,000 for
Student Financial Assistance instead of $9,259,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $9,548,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The conference agreement sets the maximum Pell Grant
at $3,300 and provides a program level of $7,700,000,000 for
current law Pell Grants. The conference agreement does not
provide advance funding for this account. The House advance
funded $2,286,000,000 and the Senate advance funded
$1,226,400,000 for this account.
$621,000,000 is included in the agreement for Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), instead
of the $619,000,000 as proposed by the House and $631,000,000
as proposed by the Senate. The agreement also includes an
additional emergency appropriation of $10,000,000 and allows
the Secretary of Education to waive the usual rules regarding
the SEOG program for low-income college students that live in
or attend school in areas affected by Hurricane Floyd and
subsequent flooding as proposed by the House. The Senate
included no similar language.
$934,000,000 is included in the agreement for Federal Work
Study as proposed by the Senate. The House proposed
$880,000,000.
The agreement includes $40,000,000 for Leveraging
Educational Assistance Partnerships (LEAP), instead of the
$75,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The House did not
provide funding for this program.

federal family education loan program account

The conference agreement provides $48,000,000 for the
Federal Family Education Loan Program Account as proposed by
the Senate instead of $46,482,000 as proposed by the House.

higher education

The conference agreement provides $1,466,826,000 for Higher
Education instead of $1,151,786,000 as proposed by the House
and $1,406,631,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement includes $42,250,000 for Hispanic
Serving Institutions as proposed by the Senate instead of
$28,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes $141,500,000 for
strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities as
proposed by the Senate instead of $136,000,000 as proposed by
the House.
The conference agreement includes $31,000,000 for
Historically Black Graduate Institutions as proposed by the
Senate instead of $30,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes $5,000,000 for Alaska and
Native Hawaiian Institutions proposed by the Senate instead
of $3,000,000 proposed by the House.
The conference agreement also includes $6,000,000 for
strengthening Tribal Colleges proposed by the Senate instead
of $3,000,000 proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes $62,075,000 for the Fund
for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education instead of
$27,500,000 as proposed by the Senate and $22,500,000 as
proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes $62,000,000 for
International Education domestic programs as proposed by the
House instead of $61,320,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreement also includes $6,680,000 for
International Education overseas programs as proposed by the
Senate instead of $6,536,000 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement also includes $1,022,000 for the
Institute for International Public Policy as proposed by the
Senate instead of $1,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes $645,000,000 for TRIO
rather than the $630,000,000 included in the Senate bill and
the $660,000,000 included in the House bill.
The conference agreement includes $180,000,000 for the
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR UP), the same level proposed by the Senate.
The House contained no funds for this program.
The conference agreement includes $39,859,000 for Byrd
Scholarships as proposed by the Senate. The House did not
provide funding for this program.
The conference agreement includes $51,000,000 for Graduate
Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) as proposed by
the Senate instead of $31,000,000 as proposed by the House.
Within the total, $10,000,000 is provided to fund the Javits
Fellowship program in school year 2000-2001. An additional
$10,000,000 is also provided within this total to allow the
Javits Fellowship program to be forward funded.
The conference agreement includes $17,940,000 for the
Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships instead of $10,000,000
proposed by the Senate. The House did not fund this program.
Within the amount provided, the conference report specifies
funding for the following activities:

University of South Florida for a distance learning program..$3,000,000
New York Global Communication Center in West Islip, NY for a
distance learning program.....................................190,000
Alliance for Technology, Learning and Society (ATLAS) at the
University of Colorado for technology-enhanced learning.....1,000,000

[[Page 27198]]

Interactive Learning Environments at the University of Idaho for a
distance learning program...................................1,250,000
Illinois Community College Board to develop a systemwide, on-line
virtual degree program for the community college system.....2,500,000
The conference agreement includes $80,000,000 for Teacher
Quality Enhancement Grants as proposed by the Senate instead
of $75,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement also includes $1,750,000 for the
Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program as
proposed by the Senate. The House did not fund this activity.
The conference agreement includes $1,000,000 for community
scholarship mobilization, instead of $2,000,000 as proposed
by the Senate. The House did not fund this program.
The conference agreement includes $3,000,000 for data
collection and program evaluations in higher education
programs, including the development of performance
measurement data, instead of $4,000,000 as proposed by the
House. The Senate did not provide separate line item funding
for this activity.

COLLEGE HOUSING AND ACADEMIC FACILITIES LOANS

The conference agreement includes $737,000 for
administering the College Housing and Academic Facilities
Loans program as proposed by the Senate instead of $698,000
as proposed by the House.

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY

CAPITAL FINANCING

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The conference agreement provides $207,000 for the
Historically Black College and University Capital Financing
Program Account as proposed by the Senate instead of $96,000
as proposed by the House.

EDUCATION RESEARCH, STATISTICS AND IMPROVEMENT

The conference agreement includes $492,679,000 for
Education Research, Statistics and Improvement instead of the
$390,867,000 as proposed by the House and $368,867,000 as
proposed in the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $93,567,000 for research
instead of $83,567,000 proposed by the House and $82,567,000
proposed by the Senate. Within this increase, $10,000,000 is
included for an expansion of comprehensive school reform
activities and $1,000,000 is included for the development of
a five-year plan for an expanded research program of large-
scale, systematic experimentation and demonstration focused
on strategic education issues in accordance with the
guidelines outlined in the Report of the House Committee
(House Report 106-370).
The conference agreement provides $65,000,000 for regional
educational labs as proposed by the Senate instead of
$61,000,000 as proposed by the House. The conference
agreement provides that the regional laboratory governing
boards set the research and development priorities to guide
the work funded and that funds be obligated and distributed
in accordance with the fiscal year 1999 allocations by
December 1, 1999.
The conference agreement provides $68,000,000 for
statistics as proposed by the House instead of $70,000,000
proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $4,000,000 for NAGB as
proposed by the House instead of $4,500,000 as proposed by
the Senate.
Fund for the improvement of education
For the fund for the improvement of education (FIE), the
conference agreement provides $155,812,000 instead of the
$76,000,000 as proposed by the House and $39,500,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $25,000,000 for
continuation grants for schools in their third year of
implementing comprehensive school reform.
The conference agreement provides funds for the
continuation of Project Jump Start and provides funds for the
continuation and expansion of the Youth Safety Corps. The
conference agreement also includes $400,000 for the National
Student and Parent Mock Elections and $500,000 for the
continuation and expansion of the Boston Symphony Orchestra's
education resource center.
Within the amount provided, $20,000,000 is to be used for
the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Program to
establish or expand counseling programs in elementary
schools.
Within the amount provided, the conference report specifies
funding for the following activities:

Loyola University Chicago for recruitment and preparation of new
teacher candidates for employment in rural and inner-city sch$700,000
Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science education programs....500,000
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America to expand school-based men3,000,000
Chicago Public School System to support a substance abuse pilot
program in conjunction with Elgin and East Aurora School Sys2,500,000
University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies for the Youth
Leadership Initiative.......................................1,000,000
Institute for Student Achievement at Holmes Middle School and
Annandale High School in Virginia for academic enrichment.....800,000
Mountain Arts Center in Kentucky for educational programming....100,000
University of Louisville for research in the area of academic
readiness...................................................1,500,000
WestEd Regional Educational Laboratory for the 24 Challenge and
Jumping Levels Math Demonstration Project.....................500,000
Central Michigan University for a charter schools development and
performance institute.......................................1,000,000
Living Science Interactive Learning Model partnership in Indian
River, FL for a science education program.....................950,000
North Babylon Community Youth Services for an educational progra825,000
Los Angeles County Office of Education/Educational
Telecommunications and Technology for a pilot program for te1,000,000
University of Northern Iowa for an institute of technology for
inclusive education...........................................650,000
Youth Crime Watch of America to expand a program to prevent crime,
drugs and violence in schools.................................500,000
Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania for an environmental science
program.......................................................892,000
Western Suffolk St. Johns-LaSalle Academy Science and Technology
Mentoring Program.............................................560,000
National Teaching Academy of Chicago for a model teacher
recruitment, preparation and professional development progra4,000,000
University of West Florida for a teacher enhancement program..2,000,000
Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, VA for an educational
program.....................................................1,000,000
Challenger Learning Center in Hardin County, KY for technology
assistance and teacher training...............................450,000
Crawford County School System in Georgia for technology and
curriculum support............................................250,000
Berrien County School System in Georgia for technology developme500,000
Louisville Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club Diversion Enhancement
Program........................................................35,000
New Mexico Department of Education for school performance
improvement and drop-out prevention.........................1,000,000
Semos Unlimited Inc. in New Mexico to support bilingual education
and literacy programs.........................................300,000
Delta State University in MS for innovative teacher training..1,000,000
Alaska Humanities Forum, Inc. in Anchorage....................1,000,000
An Achievable Dream in Newport News to improve academic performance
of at-risk youths.............................................250,000
Rock School of Ballet in Philadelphia to expand its community-
outreach programs for inner-city children and underprivileged
youth in Camden, NJ and southern NJ...........................250,000
University of Maryland Center for Quality and Productivity to
provide a link for the Blue Ribbon Schools..................1,000,000
Continuing Education Center and Teachers' Institute in South Boston,
Virginia to promote participation among youth in the U.S.
democratic process..........................................1,000,000
National Museum of Women in the Arts to expand its ``Discovering
Art'' program to elementary and secondary schools and other
educational organizations...................................1,000,000
Alaska Department of Education's summer reading program.........400,000
Partners in Education, Inc. to foster successful business-school
partnerships..................................................400,000
Kodiak Island Borough School district for development of an
environmental education program...............................250,000
Reach out and Read Program to expand literacy and health awareness
for at-risk families........................................2,000,000
Jazz in the Schools program for educational programs............100,000
Mississippi Delta Education Initiative..........................500,000
Project 2000 D.C. Mentoring Project.............................100,000
National Constitution Center.................................10,000,000

[[Page 27199]]

Continuation of Iowa public school facilities repair demonstration
administered by the Iowa Department of Education...........10,000,000
Continuation of Foorman, Frances, and Fletcher NICHD-approved
longitudinal project ``Early Interventions for Children with
Reading Problems'' in public elementary schools in the District of
Columbia......................................................500,000
For Civics Education, the conference agreement provides
$9,500,000, the same level as in the Senate, rather than the
$5,500,000 included in the House bill.
The conference agreement provides $9,000,000 for the
National Writing Project instead of $10,000,000 as proposed
by the Senate and $5,000,000 as proposed by the House.

Departmental Management

The conference agreement includes $475,384,000 for
Departmental Management as proposed by the Senate instead of
$459,242,000 proposed by the House. Within this amount, the
agreement provides $71,200,000 for the Office of Civil Rights
and $34,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General as
provided by the Senate. The House provided $66,000,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights and $31,242,000 for the Office of
the Inspector General.
The conference agreement urges the Secretary of Education
to take whatever steps are necessary to select and fill the
Liaison for Proprietary Institutions of Higher Education
position which is provided for in section 219 of the Higher
Education Act, as amended (HEA). The conference agreement
notes that section 219 requires the Secretary to appoint the
Liaison within 6 months of passage of HEA.

General Provisions

Calculations for Heavily Impacted School Districts

The conference agreement modifies a legislative provision
that was contained in the House bill relating to payments for
heavily impacted school districts (section 8003(f)) that
changes the method by which payments made under this section
are allocated to provide supplemental payments for federally
connected students. The Senate bill had no similar provision.

Extension of Participation in Even Start Program

The conference agreement contains an amendment to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that was
contained in the House bill that allows local grantees to
continue to participate in the Even Start program beyond
eight years and reduces the federal share for the ninth and
succeeding years from 50 percent to 35 percent. The Senate
bill had no similar provision.

Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL)

The conference agreement includes a provision regarding the
FFEL program that was not contained in either House or Senate
bills.

Higher Education Assistance Foundation (HEAF)

The conference agreement includes a provision regarding
HEAF claims reserves that was not contained in either House
or Senate bills.

Additional Higher Education Funding

The conference agreement includes the following amounts for
the following projects and activities. Neither the House nor
the Senate bills contained this language.

Middle Georgia College for an advanced distributed learning center
demonstration program........................................$250,000
University Center of Lake County, IL..........................3,000,000
Oregon University System......................................1,000,000
Columbia College in IL for a freshman retention program.........500,000
University of Hawaii at Manoa for a globalization research cen1,500,000
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for technology infrastruc2,000,000
I Have a Dream Foundation.....................................1,000,000
Demonstration program for activities authorized under part G of
title VII of the Higher Education Act.......................1,000,000
University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, TX to improve
teacher capabilities in technology..........................1,000,000
Elmira College in New York for a technology enhancement initia1,000,000
Rust College in MS for technology infrastructure..............1,650,000
Snelling Center for Government at the University of Vermont for a
model school program..........................................250,000
Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi for the operation of the Early
Childhood Development Center..................................750,000
Southeast Missouri State University for equipment and curriculum
development associated with the university's Polytechnic Ins1,000,000
Washington Virtual Classroom Consortium.........................800,000
Puget Sound Center for Technology for faculty development activities
for the use of technology in the classroom....................500,000
Center for the Advancement of Distance Education in Rural Americ500,000
Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy at the University of
Washington..................................................1,500,000
North Dakota State University for the Career Program for Dislocated
Farmers and Ranchers..........................................200,000
North Dakota State University for the Tech-based Industry
Traineeship Program...........................................350,000
Washington State University for the Thomas S. Foley Institute to
support programs in congressional studies, public policy, voter
education, and to ensure community access and outreach......1,500,000
Minot State University for the Rural Communications Disabilities
Program.......................................................200,000
Bryant College for the Linking International Trade Education Program
(LITE)........................................................300,000
Concord College, WV for a technology center to further enhance the
technical skills of WV teachers and students................1,000,000
Peirce College in Philadelphia for education and training progra200,000
Philadelphia Zoo for educational programs.......................250,000
Philadelphia University Education Center for technology educat1,000,000
Lock Haven University for technology innovations................725,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium on Higher Education for
education programs..........................................1,000,000
Lehigh University Iacocca Institute for educational training....400,000
Lafayette College for arts education............................250,000
Lewis and Clark College for the Crime Victims Law Institute...1,000,000
University of Notre Dame for a teacher quality initiative.......500,000
Spelman College in Georgia for educational operations...........800,000
Western Governors University for a distance learning initiativ2,000,000

Technical Correction to Fiscal Year 1999 Bill

The conference agreement deletes a provision contained in
the House bill which made a technical correction to P.L. 105-
277 (the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999). The Senate bill had no similar
provision.

Direct Student Loan Administrative Account

The conference agreement deletes a provision contained in
the House bill which froze the administrative account for the
Direct Student Loan program at fiscal year 1999 levels. The
Senate bill had no similar provision.

Voluntary National Tests

The conference agreement does not include a provision
contained in the Senate bill regarding voluntary national
tests. This language is not necessary since P.L. 105-277 (the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999) adopted a permanent change to the
law that specifically prohibited any pilot testing, field
testing, administration or distribution of individualized
national tests that are not specifically and explicitly
provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law. At
the present time, there is no specific and explicit authority
in Federal law for individualized national tests.

Funding

The conference agreement deletes a provision contained in
the Senate bill which redistributed funding for certain
education programs. The House bill contained no similar
provision.

Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program

The conference agreement deletes a provision contained in
the Senate bill that provided advance funding for the LEAP
program. The House bill contained no similar provision.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

Armed Forces Retirement Home

The conference agreement provides $68,295,000 for the Armed
Forces Retirement Home as proposed by the House. The Senate
bill contained no appropriation for the Home.

Corporation for National and Community Service

DOMESTIC VOLUNTEER SERVICE PROGRAMS, OPERATING EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $295,645,000 for the
Domestic Volunteer Service programs instead of $293,261,000
as proposed by the Senate and $274,959,000 as proposed by the
House.
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)
The conference agreement provides $81,000,000 for VISTA as
proposed by the Senate instead of $73,000,000 proposed by the
House.
National Senior Volunteer Corps
The conference agreement provides $95,782,000 for the
Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), $39,669,000 for the Senior
Companion Program (SCP), and $46,565,000 for the

[[Page 27200]]

Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). The House proposed
$93,256,000 for Foster Grandparents, $36,573,000 for Senior
Companions and $43,001,000 for Retired Senior Volunteers. The
Senate proposed $95,000,000 for FGP, $39,031,000 for SCP and
$46,001,000 for RSVP.
One-third of the increases provided for the FGP, SCP, and
RSVP programs shall be used to fund Programs of National
Significance expansion grants to allow existing FGP, RSVP and
SCP programs to expand the number of volunteers serving in
areas of critical need as identified by Congress in the
Domestic Volunteer Service Act.
Sufficient funding has been included to provide a 2 percent
increase for administrative costs realized by all current
grantees in the FGP and SCP programs, and a 4 percent
increase for administrative costs realized by all current
grantees in the RSVP program. Funds remaining above these
amounts should be used to begin new FGP, RSVP and SCP
programs in geographic areas currently unserved. The
conference agreement expects these projects to be awarded via
a nationwide competition among potential community-based
sponsors.
The Corporation for National and Community Service shall
comply with the directive that use of funding increases in
the Foster Grandparent Program, Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program and VISTA not be restricted to America Reads
activities. The agreement further directs that the
Corporation shall not stipulate a minimum or maximum amount
for PNS grant augmentations.
The conference agreement also provides $1,500,000 for
senior demonstration activities, instead of $3,100,000
proposed by the Senate. The House did not propose funding for
this activity. Sufficient funds are provided for the third
and final year of the Seniors for Schools demonstration. Of
the total, $350,000 is provided to conduct an evaluation of
existing demonstration activities and to bring to closure the
Seniors for Schools demonstration project.
Funds are also provided to continue other existing senior
demonstration activities, except that no funds are provided
for the payment of non-taxable, non-income stipends to
individuals not meeting income requirements established by
Congress. No new demonstration projects may be begun with
these funds. None of the increases provided for FGP, SCP, or
RSVP in fiscal year 2000 may be used for demonstration
activities. The agreement further expects that all future
demonstration activities will be funded through allocations
made through Part E of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act.
Funds appropriated for Fiscal Year 2000 may not be used to
implement or support service collaboration agreements or any
other changes in the administration and/or governance of
national service programs prior to passage of a bill by the
authorizing committees of jurisdiction specifying such
changes.
Program administration
The conference agreement includes $31,129,000 for program
administration of DVSA programs at the Corporation, instead
of $29,129,000 that was provided in both House and Senate
bills. The additional $2,000,000 is provided to assist the
Corporation in correcting its financial management weaknesses
and obtaining a clean opinion on its financial statements.
Funding should be used to fully implement the new core
financial management system and to make other technology
enhancements that will improve customer service and field
communications.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

The conference agreement provides $350,000,000 in advance
funding for fiscal year 2002 for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting as proposed by the Senate instead of
$340,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The conference agreement includes language proposed by the
House providing an additional $10,000,000 for digitalization,
if specifically authorized by subsequent legislation by
September 30, 2000. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has mandated that all public television be converted
from analog to digital transmission by May 2003. Because
television and radio broadcast infrastructures are closely
linked, the conversion of television to digital will create
immediate costs not only for television, but also for public
radio stations. Public broadcasting stations with limited
resources, in particular small rural stations, will be faced
with extreme hardship because of the significant cost of
converting to digital, therefore, the conference agreement
encourages funds provided to be targeted to those stations
with the most financial need.
The conference agreement commends the Corporation for
adoption of the Listener Access 2000 initiative and other
related efforts that recognize the need to enhance service in
rural and underserved areas. These steps will expand the
number of stations defined as serving rural areas, create a
new incentive grant tailored to areas with limited financial
resources, while maintaining the public-private nature of
public broadcasting.
While this approach is a meaningful initial investment, the
conference agreement urges the Corporation to continue to
explore additional ways to ensure that its goal of universal
service throughout the country is achieved. The conference
agreement recognizes that stations serving rural and
underserved audiences typically have limited local potential
for fundraising because of sparse populations serviced,
limited number of local businesses, and low-income levels.
The conference agreement strongly urges the Corporation to
consider expanding its Rural Listener Access Incentive Fund,
which will support further enhancements to and reliability of
service in rural and underserved areas. Furthermore, the
conference agreement supports additional actions that will
assist stations in serving rural and underserved areas.

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

The conference agreement provides $36,834,000 for the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as proposed by the
Senate instead of $34,620,000 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement also includes bill language proposed by
the Senate stating that FMCS may charge for training
activities, services, and assistance, including those
provided to foreign governments and international
organizations.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

The conference agreement provides $6,159,000 for the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission as proposed
by the Senate instead of $6,060,000 as proposed by the House.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

The conference agreement provides $163,250,000 for the
Institute of Museum and Library Services. The Senate proposed
$154,500,000. The House proposed $149,500,000. The conference
agreement does not accept the President's request for
$5,000,000 under National Leadership Grants for Libraries for
the National Digital Library initiative. The increase in
funding for this account should be used for new awards under
the regular grant competition. Within the amount provided,
the conference report specifies funding for the following
activities:

Library & Archives of New Hampshire's Political Tradition at the New
Hampshire State Library......................................$700,000
Vermont Department of Libraries in Montpelier, Vermont........1,000,000
Consolidation and preservation of archives and special collections
at the University of Miami Library in Coral Gables, FL........750,000
Exhibits and library improvements for the Mississippi River Museum
and Discovery Center in Dubuque, Iowa.......................1,900,000
Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage......................750,000
Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem, MA...............................750,000
Bishop Museum in Hawaii.........................................750,000
Oceanside Public Library in California for a local cultural heritage
project.......................................................200,000
Urban Children's Museum Collaborative to develop and implement pilot
programs dedicated to serving at-risk children and their fam1,000,000
Troy State University Dothan in Alabama for archival of a special
collection....................................................150,000
Chadron State College in Nebraska for the Mari Sandoz Center....450,000
Alabama A&M University Alabama State Black Archives Research Center
and Museum....................................................350,000

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

The conference agreement provides $1,300,000 for the
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science as
proposed by the Senate instead of $1,000,000 as proposed by
the House. The conference agreement also includes bill
language citing Public Law 91-345, as amended.

National Council on Disability

The conference agreement provides $2,400,000 for the
National Council on Disability as proposed by the Senate
instead of $2,344,000 as proposed by the House.

National Education Goals Panel

The conference agreement provides $2,250,000 for the
National Education Goals Panel as proposed by the Senate
instead of $2,100,000 as proposed by the House.

National Labor Relations Board

The conference agreement provides $199,500,000 for the
National Labor Relations Board instead of $210,193,000 as
proposed by the Senate and $174,661,000 as proposed by the
House.
The conference agreement deletes language proposed by the
House which prohibits the NLRB from expending any funds to
promulgate a final rule regarding the use of single location
bargaining units in representation cases. The conference
agreement notes that the NLRB has indefinitely withdrawn from
active consideration its proposed rulemaking proceedings in
this area.

National Mediation Board

The conference agreement provides $9,100,000 for the
National Mediation Board as proposed by the Senate instead of
$8,400,000 as proposed by the House. The conference agreement
also includes bill language that unobligated balances at the
end

[[Page 27201]]

of fiscal year 2000 not needed for emergencies shall remain
available through September 30, 2001.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

The conference agreement provides $8,500,000 for the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission as proposed
by the Senate instead of $8,100,000 as proposed by the House.

Railroad Retirement Board

DUAL BENEFITS PAYMENT ACCOUNT

The conference agreement provides $174,000,000 for dual
benefits payments instead of $175,000,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATION

The conference agreement includes a limitation on transfers
from the railroad trust funds of $91,000,000 for
administrative expenses instead of $90,000,000 as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.

Social Security Administration

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME PROGRAM

The conference agreement includes $21,503,085,000 for the
Supplemental Security Income Program instead of
$21,553,085,000 as proposed by the Senate and $21,474,000,000
as proposed by the House.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The conference agreement includes a limitation of
$6,093,871,000 on transfers from the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds and Supplemental Security Income program
for administrative activities instead of $6,188,871,000 as
proposed by the Senate and $5,996,000,000 as proposed by the
House.
The conference agreement includes language authorizing the
Commissioner of Social Security to use up to $3,000,000, in
addition to amounts appropriated previously, for Federal-
State partnerships to evaluate ways to promote Medicare buy-
in programs targeted to elderly and disabled individuals.

Office of Inspector General

The conference agreement provides $66,000,000 for the
Office of Inspector General through a combination of general
revenues and limitations on trust fund transfers as proposed
by the Senate instead of $56,000,000 as proposed by the
House.

United States Institute of Peace

The conference agreement provides $13,000,000 for the
United States Institute of Peace as proposed by the Senate
instead of $12,160,000 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement directs the United States Institute of
Peace to provide information in the fiscal year 2001
Congressional budget justification regarding the use of
appropriated funds in the Endowment. Included in this
information should be the total amount of appropriated funds
transferred into the Endowment from the most recent fiscal
year available, the total amount of interest earned in the
fiscal year on those funds, a list of all dates in which draw
downs occur and those amounts, and a beginning and end of
year balance of the Endowment.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Distribution of Sterile Needles

The conference agreement includes a general provision as
proposed by the House that prohibits the use of funds in this
Act to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles
or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
The Senate bill included the same provision except that it
would not have become effective until one day after the date
of enactment of this Act.

Unobligated Salaries and Expensesa

The conference agreement includes a general provision
proposed by the House that would allow salaries and expenses
funds in the bill that are unobligated at the end of the
fiscal year to remain available for three additional months,
provided that the Appropriations Committees are notified
before they are obligated. The Senate bill had no similar
provision.

Railroad Retirement Board Buyouts

The conference agreement includes a provision amending
existing law as proposed by the Senate to allow the Railroad
Retirement Board to offer voluntary separation incentives to
Board employees who either retire or resign by December 31,
1999. The House bill contained no similar provision.

Brooklyn Museum of Art

The conference agreement does not include a provision
expressing the sense of the Senate that the conferees on H.R.
2466, the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Act, shall include
language prohibiting the use of funds for the Brooklyn Museum
of Art unless the Museum immediately cancels the exhibit
``Sensation'' which contains obscene and pornographic
pictures and other offensive material.

Hospital Outpatient Services

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision that the Secretary of HHS should
carry out congressional intent and cease her inappropriate
interpretation of the provisions of the prospective payment
system for hospital outpatient department services under
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
13951(t)).

Former Recipients of TANF Assistance

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision stating that it is important that
Congress determine the economic status of former recipients
of assistance under the TANF program.

Scientific Validity of Polygraphy

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision stating that the Director of the NIH
should enter into appropriate arrangements with the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study and
investigation into the scientific validity of polygraphy as a
screening tool for Federal and Federal contractor personnel.
However, the Secretary of HHS is urged to conduct such a
study and report her findings to Congress.

Prostate Cancer Research

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision stating that finding treatment
breakthroughs and a cure for prostate cancer should be made a
national health priority, that significant increases in
prostate cancer research funding should be made available to
NIH and DoD, and that these agencies should prioritize
research that is directed toward innovative clinical and
translational projects.

Border Health Commission Act

The conference agreement includes a Senate provision
amending the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission
Act to require the President to appoint the United States
members of the Commission and attempt to conclude an
agreement with Mexico providing for the establishment of such
Commission no later than 30 days after the date of enactment
of this provision. The House bill contained no similar
provision.

Access to Obstetric and Gynecological Services

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision stating that Congress should enact
legislation that requires health plans to provide women with
direct access to a participating obstetrician/gynecologist
without first having to obtain a referral from a primary care
provider or the health plan.

Public Education Reform

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision stating that the Federal government
should support state and local educational agencies engaged
in comprehensive reform of their public education systems.

Federal Employees' Compensation Act

The conference agreement includes a Senate provision with
respect to a compensation claim arising from injuries
sustained as a result of an employee's exposure to a nitrogen
or sulfur mustard agent at the Department of the Army's
Edgewood Arsenal before March 20, 1944. The House had no
similar provision.

Workforce Investment Act

The conference agreement includes a Senate provision
amending the Workforce Investment Act with respect to Alaska
Natives. The House had no similar provision.

Needlestick Injuries

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a sense
of the Senate provision stating that the Senate should pass
legislation to eliminate or minimize the risk of needlestick
injury to health care workers.

Salaries and Expenses Reduction

The conference agreement includes a reduction of
$121,000,000 in the salaries and expenses funds contained in
this bill to be allocated by the Office of Management and
Budget among the Departments and agencies in the bill. This
provision was not included in either House or Senate bills.
Within 30 days of enactment, the Director of OMB shall submit
a report showing the allocation of the reduction. In making
these reductions, the Departments and agencies are strongly
urged to make reductions first in such areas as public
affairs, Congressional affairs, intergovernmental affairs,
planning and evaluation, and the immediate offices of the
Secretaries. Administrative travel costs should also be
closely scrutinized and should be one of the first things to
be reduced.

TITLE VI

Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention

The conference agreement includes a separate title as
proposed by the House which authorizes grants to States on a
voluntary basis for a three-year period to aid in setting up
newborn infant hearing screening programs. This language
authorizes funding for the Health Resources and Services
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health for the
implementation of these programs and provides that State
programs shall work with participants to ensure that all
children are given options for care to include, but not be
limited to medical, audiologic, rehabilitative, education,
and community service programs. The Senate bill contained no
similar language.

Other Provisions

The conference agreement deletes without prejudice a House
provision to require any elementary or secondary school or
public library that has received any Federal funds for

[[Page 27202]]

the acquisition or operation of any computer that is
accessible to minors and that has access to the Internet to
install software on such computer designed to prevent minors
from obtaining access to any obscene information using that
computer and to ensure that such software is operational
whenever that computer is used by minors. Exceptions are
granted to permit a minor to have access to information that
is not obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution
under the direct supervision of an adult designated by the
school or library. The Senate bill contained no similar
provision.
The conference agreement does not include House language
amending the National Labor Relations Act to require the NLRB
to adjust its jurisdictional threshold amounts for the
inflation that has occurred since the adoption of the current
thresholds on August 1, 1959. The Senate bill contained no
similar provision.
The conference agreement does not include House language
amending the Internal Revenue Code to require that Earned
Income Tax Credit payments be paid on a monthly basis rather
than in a lump sum annual payment. The Senate bill contained
no similar language.
The conference agreement does not include House language
amending the Higher Education Act to require the Secretary of
Education to charge an origination fee on direct student
loans of four percent. The Senate bill included no similar
provision.
The conference agreement does not include House language
amending the National Housing Act to eliminate the premium
rebate on FHA home mortgages. The Senate bill included no
similar provision.
The conference agreement does not include an appropriation
of $508,000,000 proposed by the House for the Department of
Agriculture to provide assistance to producers for crop and
livestock losses incurred as a result of the hurricanes, and
the flooding associated with the hurricanes, that struck the
eastern United States in August and September, 1999. The
Senate bill included no similar appropriation.

Conference Agreement

The following table displays the amounts agreed to for each
program, project or activity with appropriate comparisons:

[[Page 27203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.020

[[Page 27204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.021

[[Page 27205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.022

[[Page 27206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.023

[[Page 27207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.024

[[Page 27208]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.025

[[Page 27209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.026

[[Page 27210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.027

[[Page 27211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.028

[[Page 27212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.029

[[Page 27213]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.030

[[Page 27214]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.031

[[Page 27215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.032

[[Page 27216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.033

[[Page 27217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.034

[[Page 27218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.035

[[Page 27219]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.036

[[Page 27220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.037

[[Page 27221]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.038

[[Page 27222]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.039

[[Page 27223]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.040

[[Page 27224]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.041

[[Page 27225]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.042

[[Page 27226]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.043

[[Page 27227]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.044

[[Page 27228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.045

[[Page 27229]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.046

[[Page 27230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.047

[[Page 27231]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.048

[[Page 27232]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.049

[[Page 27233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.050

[[Page 27234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.051

[[Page 27235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.052

[[Page 27236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.053

[[Page 27237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.054

[[Page 27238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.055

[[Page 27239]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.056

[[Page 27240]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.057

[[Page 27241]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.058

[[Page 27242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.059

[[Page 27243]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.060

[[Page 27244]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.061

[[Page 27245]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.062

[[Page 27246]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.063

[[Page 27247]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.064

[[Page 27248]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.065

[[Page 27249]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.066

[[Page 27250]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.067

[[Page 27251]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.068

[[Page 27252]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.069

[[Page 27253]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.070

[[Page 27254]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.071

[[Page 27255]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.072

[[Page 27256]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.073

[[Page 27257]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.074

[[Page 27258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.075

[[Page 27259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.076

[[Page 27260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.077

[[Page 27261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.078

[[Page 27262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.079

[[Page 27263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.080

[[Page 27264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.081

[[Page 27265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.082

[[Page 27266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.083

[[Page 27267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.084

[[Page 27268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC99.085

[[Page 27269]]

DIVISION C

RESCISSIONS AND OFFSETS

Sec. 1001. The conference agreement includes a government-
wide across-the-board reduction of 0.97 percent to all
discretionary accounts. The managers expect that Federal
agencies will, to the maximum extent possible, meet the
reduced funding levels by eliminating waste, fraud, abuse,
and excessive overhead expenses in Federal programs.

National Directory of New Hires

Sec. 1002. The conference agreement includes a provision
that amends the Social Security Act and the Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 to allow the Department
of Education to access data from the National Directory of
New Hires, maintained by the Department of Health and Human
Services, to enhance student loan default collection efforts.
This provision was not contained in either the House or the
Senate bills.
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.,
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Jo Ann Emerson,
John E. Sununu,
Bill Young,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Ted Stevens,
Pete Domenici,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 2158

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Linder) at 9 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE
REPORT ON H.R. 3064, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-420) on the resolution (H. Res. 345) waiving
certain points of order against the conference report on the bill (H.R.
3064) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar
and ordered to be printed.

____________________

MAKING AN ORDER AT ANYTIME CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 73, FURTHER
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
at any time to consider in the House the joint resolution, H.J. Res.
73, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2000, and
for other purposes;
That the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment;
That the joint resolution be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and
That the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Pallone) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Underwood, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Capuano, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Smith of Washington, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Sununu) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage, for 5 minutes, November 2 and November 3.

____________________

SENATE BILLS REFERRED

Bills of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. 1235. An act to amend part G of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow railroad
police officers to attend the Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Academy for law enforcement training; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 1485. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and
retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by
citizens of the United States; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

____________________

ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

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

H.R. 1175. To locate and secure the return of Zachary
Baumel, a United States citizen, and other Israeli soldiers
missing in action.
H.J. Res. 62. To grant the consent of Congress to the
boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina.

____________________

BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee did on the following date present to the President, for
his approval, a bill of the House of the following title:

On October 26, 1999:
H.R. 2367. To reauthorize a comprehensive program of
support for victims of torture.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 59 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 28, 1999,
at 10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

4961. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--Animal
Welfare; Perimeter Fence Requirements [Docket No. 95-029-2]
received October 18, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
4962. A letter from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting Final Regulations--Federal Perkins Loan Program
and Federal Family Education Loan Program, pursuant to 20
U.S.C. 1232(f); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
4963. A letter from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting Final Regulations--Student Assistance General
Provisions, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1232(f); to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
4964. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final
rule--National Awards Program for Model Professional
Development--received October 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
4965. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final

[[Page 27270]]

rule--Student Assistance General Provisions; General
Provisions for the Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal
Work-Study Program, and Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant Program; Federal Perkins Loan Program;
Federal Work-Study Programs; Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant Program; and Federal Pell Grant Program
(RIN: 1845-AA01) received October 26, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
4966. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of Student Financial Assistance,
Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Federal Family Education Loan Program and William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (RIN: 1845-AA00) received
October 26, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
4967. A letter from the Assistant Inspector General for
Audit, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
annual audit on the use of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Superfund program for Fiscal Year 1998,
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 7501 nt.; to the Committee on Commerce.
4968. 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; Revisions to the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program
[AL-050-9953(a); FRL-6461-8] received October 18, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
4969. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Office of Mergers
and Acquisitions, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities
and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Cross-Border Tender and Exchange Offers, Business
Combination and Rights Offerings (RIN: 3235-AD97) received
October 26, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
4970. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Office of Mergers
& Acquisitions, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities
and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Regulation of Takeovers and Security Holder
Communications (RIN: 3235-AG84) received October 26, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
4971. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting the Department of the Navy's
proposed lease of defense articles to Malaysia (Transmittal
No. 02-00), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2796a(a); to the Committee
on International Relations.
4972. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting the Department of the Air
Force's proposed lease of defense articles to the Republic of
Korea (Transmittal No. 01-00), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2796a(a); to the Committee on International Relations.
4973. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting notification concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA) to Thailand for defense articles and
services (Transmittal No. 00-14), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2776(b); to the Committee on International Relations.
4974. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting notification concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA) to Korea for defense articles and services
(Transmittal No. 00-13), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to
the Committee on International Relations.
4975. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting notification concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA) to Greece for defense articles and services
(Transmittal No. 00-02), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to
the Committee on International Relations.
4976. A letter from the Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
Department of Defense, transmitting a copy of Transmittal No.
13-99 which constitutes a Request for Final Approval for
Amendment Number 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding between
the U.S. and the United Kingdom concerning the development
testing, qualification testing, and unconstrained enclosure
development for the Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine
Engine, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the Committee on
International Relations.
4977. A letter from the Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
Department of Defense, transmitting a copy of Transmittal No.
12-99 which constitutes a Request for Final Approval for the
Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Seasparrow
Consortium concerning the cooperative in-service support of
the Evolved Seasparrow missile, pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2767(f); to the Committee on International Relations.
4978. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense articles or
defense services sold commercially under a contract to Japan
[Transmittal No. DTC 126-99], pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c);
to the Committee on International Relations.
4979. A letter from the Director, Information Security
Oversight Office, transmitting a copy of the ``Report to the
President'' for 1998; to the Committee on Government Reform.
4980. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Office of Acquisition Policy, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Federal Acquisition Regulation; Very Small Business
Concerns [FAC 97-14; FAR Case 98-013; Item I] (RIN: 9000-
AI29) received September 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
4981. A letter from the Administrator, U.S. General
Services Administration, transmitting the Clean Air
Incentives Act Report for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
4982. A letter from the Executive Director, American
Chemical Society, transmitting the Society's annual report
for the calendar year 1998 and the comprehensive report to
the Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society on
the examination of their books and records for the year
ending December 31, 1998, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 1101(2) and
1103; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
4983. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727-100 and -100C
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-367-AD; Amendment 39-
11353; AD 99-21-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4984. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-
80, and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88
Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-268-AD; Amendment 39-11350; AD
99-21-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4985. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon (Beech) Model 400A
Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-280-AD; Amendment 39-11351; AD
99-21-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4986. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -
82, -83, and -87 Series Airplanes (MD-81, -82, -83, and -87)
and Model MD-88 Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-267-AD; Amendment
39-11349; AD 99-21-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4987. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives: McDonnel Douglas Model DC-10-10, -
15, and -30 Airplanes, and KC-10A(Military) Airplanes [Docket
No. 99-NM-14-AD; Amendment 39-11354; AD 95-04-07 R2] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4988. A letter from the Attorney, Research and Special
Programs Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Determining the
Extent of Corrosion on Gas Pipelines [Docket No. PS-107;
Amdt. 192-87] (RIN: 2137-AB50) received October 21, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4989. A letter from the Program Analyst, 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-244-AD; Amendment 39-
11377; AD 99-21-31] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4990. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
Powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4 Series Turbofan Engines
or General Electric CF6-80A Series Turbofan Engines [Docket
No. 98-NM-363-AD; Amendment 39-11363; AD 99-21-18] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4991. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. 99-NM-94-AD; Amendment 39-11375; AD 99-21-29]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4992. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319,

[[Page 27271]]

A320, A321, A330, and A340 Series Airplanes Equipped With
AlliedSignal RIA-35B Instrument Landing System Receivers
[Docket No. 99-NM-25-AD; Amendment 39-11374; AD 99-21-28]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4993. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-311 and -315
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-324-AD; Amendment 39-
11373; AD 99-21-27] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4994. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A,
400T, and MU-300-10 Airplanes [Docket No. 96-NM-209-AD;
Amendment 39-11372; AD 99-21-26] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4995. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT9D Series
Turbofan Engines [Docket No. 98-ANE-31-AD; Amendment 39-
11221; AD 99-15-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4996. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SE.3160,
SA.315B, SA.316B, SA.316C, and SA.319B Helicopters [Docket
No. 99-SW-29-AD; Amendment 39-11370; AD 99-21-25] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4997. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA-365C,
C1, C2, N, and N1; AS-365N2; and SA-366G1 Helicopters [Docket
No. 98-SW-75-AD; Amendment 39-11369; AD 99-21-24] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4998. A letter from the Department of Transportation, FAA,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Airworthiness
Directives; Short Brothers Model SD3-30, SD3-60, SD3 SHERPA,
and SD3-60 SHERPA Series Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-137-AD;
Amendment 39-11367; AD 99-21-22] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
October 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

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. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 348. A
bill to authorize the construction of a monument to honor
those who have served the Nation's civil defense and
emergency management programs (Rept. 106-416). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 2889. A
bill to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act to
provide for acquisition of water and water rights for Central
Utah Project purposes, completion of Central Utah project
facilities, and implementation of water conservation measures
(Rept. 106-417). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. S. 278. An act
to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico (Rept. 106-
418). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. ISTOOK: Committee of Conference. Conference report on
H.R. 3064. A bill making appropriations for the government of
the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in
whole or in part against revenues of said District for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes
(Rept. 106-419). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. LINDER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 345.
Resolution waiving points of order against the conference
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3064) making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-420).
Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. GOSS:
H.R. 3152. A bill to provide for the identification,
collection, and review for declassification of records and
materials that are of extraordinary public interest to the
people of the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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. ANDREWS:
H.R. 3153. A bill to amend title 49 of the United States
Code to require automobile manufacturers to provide automatic
door locks on new passenger cars manufactured after 2003; to
the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. GEJDENSON (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Berman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mr. Martinez, Mr. Payne, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms.
Danner, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. King, Mr. Houghton, Mr.
Meehan, Ms. Waters, Mr. Cooksey, Ms. Pelosi, Ms.
DeLauro, Ms. Norton, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Mr. George Miller of California, and
Ms. Kaptur):
H.R. 3154. A bill to combat trafficking of persons in the
United States and countries around the world through
prevention, prosecution and enforcement against traffickers,
and protection and assistance to victims of trafficking; to
the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to
the Committees on the Judiciary, and Banking and Financial
Services, 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. GEKAS:
H.R. 3155. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to establish a grant program for providing assistance to
emergency response organizations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HOEFFEL (for himself and Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania):
H.R. 3156. A bill to amend the Technology for Education Act
of 1994 to clarify the authority for, and to encourage, the
use of Federal funds for incentives for school personnel to
participate in professional development relating to the use
of technology in education, and in the development of
technology applications; to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
By Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
McGovern, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Pombo, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Nadler, Ms.
Eshoo, and Mr. Brown of Ohio):
H.R. 3157. A bill to prohibit all United States assistance
to Indonesia until the President certifies to the Congress
that the Government of Indonesia has provided full
compensation for the material damage in East Timor; to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and in addition
to the Committee on International Relations, 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 Ms. NORTON (for herself, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, and Ms.
Woolsey):
H.R. 3158. A bill to establish Federal safeguards for the
prevention of sexual misconduct of women inmates at State
correctional institutions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. Minge, and Ms.
Baldwin):
H.R. 3159. A bill to impose a moratorium on large
agribusiness mergers and to establish a commission to review
large agriculture mergers, concentration, and market power;
to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the
Committee on 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. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Pombo, Mr.
Tauzin, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Doolittle, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Baker, Mr. Skeen, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Walden of Oregon,
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Gary Miller of California, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Tancredo,
Mr. Bachus, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Herger, Mr. Cunningham,
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Gibbons,
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. John, Mr. Bonilla, and Mr.
Packard):
H.R. 3160. A bill to reauthorize and amend the Endangered
Species Act of 1973; to the Committee on Resources.

[[Page 27272]]

By Mr. YOUNG of Florida:
H.J. Res. 73. A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
By Mr. ACKERMAN:
H. Con. Res. 210. Concurrent resolution expressing the
strong support of the Congress for the recently concluded
elections in the Republic of India and urging the President
to travel to India; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Mr. Gejdenson, and Mr.
Lantos):
H. Con. Res. 211. Concurrent resolution expressing the
strong suppport of the Congress for the recently concluded
elections in the Republic of India and urging the President
to travel to India; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. BUYER (for himself, Mr. Spence, Mr. Young of
Florida, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Stump, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Bateman, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hefley, Mr.
Sam Johnson of Texas, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. McHugh, and
Mr. Chambliss):
H. Con. Res. 212. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress concerning continued use of the United
States Navy training range on the island of Vieques in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. TANCREDO (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Coble, Mrs.
Cubin, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Goode, Mr.
Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr.
Hayes, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr.
Kingston, Mr. Largent, Mr. Ose, Mr. Paul, Mr. Petri,
Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Schaffer,
Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Weldon
of Florida, Mr. Wu, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Fletcher, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hayworth,
Mr. Hefley, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hoekstra,
Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Linder, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Rogan,
Mr. Royce, Mr. Shays, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Terry, and Mr.
Traficant):
H. Res. 343. A resolution amending rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives to prohibit the consideration of
legislation that provides for the designation or
redesignation of any building, highway, or other structure in
honor of an individual who is serving as a Member of
Congress; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Mr. McCollum, Mr. DeLay, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Talent, Mrs. Emerson, Ms.
Danner, Mr. Gephardt, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr.
Skelton, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Tanner, Mr.
Ryan of Kansas, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, and Mr.
Largent):
H. Res. 344. A resolution recognizing and honoring Payne
Stewart and expressing the condolences of the House of
Representatives to his family on his death and to the
families of those who died with him; to the Committee on
Government Reform.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 125: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 488: Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 531: Mr. Wicker.
H.R. 797: Mr. Paul and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 809: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 914: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 997: Mr. Scott and Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 1093: Mr. Kuykendall.
H.R. 1168: Mr. Berry and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1271: Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 1300: Mr. Weller and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 1303: Mr. Collins.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 1341: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1349: Mr. Barcia.
H.R. 1356: Mr. Barcia.
H.R. 1456: Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 1525: Mr. Wu and Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 1621: Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Barcia.
H.R. 1657: Mr. Larson.
H.R. 1687: Mr. Campbell.
H.R. 1775: Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Vitter.
H.R. 1871: Mr. Lewis of Georgia and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1885: Mr. Campbell and Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 1899: Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, and Mr.
LaFalce.
H.R. 2059: Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr.
Cunningham.
H.R. 2200: Mr. Traficant.
H.R. 2282: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 2356: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 2366: Mr. Davis of Virginia and Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 2451: Mr. McInnis and Mr. Hutchinson.
H.R. 2569: Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Franks of New
Jersey.
H.R. 2604: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 2640: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Evans, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr.
Nethercutt.
H.R. 2662: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 2697: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 2706: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 2727: Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2733: Ms. Carson, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. DeMint,
and Mrs. Morella.
H.R. 2738: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 2802: Mr. Larson.
H.R. 2837: Mr. Vento.
H.R. 2865: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 2890: Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 2892: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr.
Wynn.
H.R. 2900: Mr. Meehan and Mr. Larson.
H.R. 2980: Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 2985: Mr. Goodling, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and
Mr. Thune.
H.R. 3044: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 3075: Mr. Everett.
H.R. 3082: Mr. Matsui.
H.R. 3100: Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Franks of New
Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Petri, Mr. LaTourette, and Mrs.
Emerson.
H.R. 3105: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 3115: Mr. Pomeroy.
H.R. 3136: Ms. DeLauro and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 3144: Mr. Costello, Mr. Holden, Mr. McNulty, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Lantos, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Moakley,
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Mendendez, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Engel, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Jones of Ohio,
Mr. Coyne, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Frost, Mr. Green of
Texas, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Mollohan, Ms. DeGette, and Mr.
Gephardt.
H.J. Res. 46: Mr. Stump.
H.J. Res. 53: Mr. Chambliss.
H. Con. Res. 120: Mrs. Morella, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
and Mr. Hostettler.
H. Con. Res. 200: Mr. Gilman.
H. Con. Res. 206: Mr. Hoyer.
H. Res. 238: Ms. Carson, Mr. DeMint, and Mrs. Morella.
H. Res. 298: Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Weiner, Mr.
Owens, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Barrett
of Wisconsin, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Sherman, and Ms. Woolsey.
H. Res. 325: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Spence, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
Matsui, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Frost,
Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr.
Etheridge, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Wynn,
Mr. Underwood, Mr. Castle, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mrs.
Lowey, and Mr. Bilirakis.

[[Page 27273]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

October 27, 1999

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

THE BUDGET

______

HON. MAX SANDLIN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, a battle over the budget has engulfed
Congress. I am saddened by the extent to which the Republican
leadership has allowed partisan politics to pollute this distinguished
body and shift the budget debate from substance to sound-bites.
With only seven of thirteen spending bills signed into law, the
budget for fiscal year 2000 is far from complete. Moreover, Congress
has been forced to fund the government through temporary stop-gap
spending measures in order to avoid a shutdown of national parks,
monuments, agencies, and the federal government. Yet rather than sit
down and negotiate with the administration and the Democrats in the
House and Senate, Republicans have chosen to take the path of
confrontation rather than compromise.
The cause is misplaced priorities, and the effect is a bad budget.
Republicans made a choice to fund their own priorities, while
completely ignoring the priorities of the American people, Democratic
members, and the administration. In the process of drafting spending
bills for fiscal year 2000, they shut out the minority and proceeded to
go their own way. Now they point fingers when their irresponsible bills
are vetoed because they fail to sufficiently fund the priorities of the
American people: Programs essential to education, defense, and senior
citizens.
Left out of their spending proposals are key Democratic initiatives
such as funding for 100,000 new teachers and smaller classes, funding
for the COPS program which provides grants to local communities for
hiring more police officers, and funding for a Medicare prescription
drug benefit. These programs have been completely left out of the
Republican budget. Yet when Democrats fight for funding for these key
initiatives, we are falsely accused of proposing more spending. The
truth is, we do not want more spending. Rather, we advocate different
spending. Instead of giving priority to a member pay raise and member
earmarked projects, let's fund the initiatives that count. Sadly,
Republicans have ignored our pleas and instead chosen to resort to
name-calling and groundless accusations.
One of our primary initiatives must be to protect Social Security. I
propose taking it completely off-budget. Social Security funds must be
used only for Social Security. However, the Congressional Budget
Office, the Republican-appointed budget score-keepers, confirm that the
Republicans are already on their way to spending at least $25 billion
of the Social Security trust fund.
Adding insult to injury, Republicans have tried to cover up their
irresponsible spending and penchant for dipping into Social Security
through numerous gimmicks and accounting tricks designed to fool the
American people into believing their false claims of good fiscal
policy. These gimmicks range from declaring the 2000 census, something
which happens every ten years as required by the Constitution, as
emergency spending. This spending dips directly into Social Security.
In addition to emergency designations, Republicans have also proposed
adopting a thirteen-month fiscal year, tried to withhold payment of tax
credits to the working poor and ``forward-fund'' certain programs,
thereby attempting to count this year's spending in next year's budget.
These gimmicks are dishonest and unacceptable to the American people.
When the administration sent its budget recommendation to Congress
almost one year ago, Congress rejected it and promised the American
people we would pass an even better budget that protected important
programs without dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Rather
than fulfill this promise to the people, Republicans have opted for a
political showdown. The result is a completely unnecessary, wholly
manufactured crisis over the budget.
Republicans have chosen rhetoric over responsibility and taken the
partisan path towards a 1.4 percent across-the-board budget cut which
will have costly ramifications on critical programs. Specifically,
education for the disadvantaged would be cut by $109 million, literacy
programs would be cut by $3.6 million, and Head Start would be unable
to provide services to 6,700 children. Child immunization programs
would be cut by approximately $6.7 million, and vitally needed
assistance to farmers would be slashed by $124 million.
Agricultural income assistance would be cut by $90 million, and crop
and livestock loss payments would be cut by $22 million. In addition,
national security would suffer dearly as $3.9 billion would be cut from
the defense budget. Military pay and readiness would suffer the most.
The men and women in the military who risk their lives for our safety
and security would suffer a 2.8 percent cut in personnel.
While this battle rages on over the politics of the budget, the
American people suffer. As Republicans focus the energy of the Congress
on their budget end game, the Patients Bill of Rights, relief for
farmers and veterans' benefits face a dismal future. While Republicans
devise more gimmicks to cover their tracks, Congress neglects a long
overdue increase in the minimum wage, making schools safer for our
children, and passing much-deserved tax relief for families, small
businesses, and farmers.
In a tragic example of irresponsible governance, the majority party
has chosen to fund its own priorities at the cost of Social Security
and drastic budget cuts in education, law enforcement, agriculture, and
national security. It's time for Republicans to sit down at the
negotiating table and put an end to the budget bickering. It's time for
responsible government. Let's choose principle over politics, and let's
pass a budget that doesn't short-change the American people.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF REV. ALFRED WALKER, JR., AND NEW HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH

______

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
recognition of Rev. Alfred Walker, Jr., the 12th pastor of the historic
New Hope Baptist Church in Dallas, TX.
Reverend Walker has served New Hope Baptist Church with unwavering
faith. His fine tradition of spiritual guidance and community service
is an inspiration to us all.
New Hope Baptist Church is blessed to have called Reverend Walker its
pastor. Likewise, the Reverend was fortunate to serve a church with
such a rich history.
New Hope has the distinction of being the first African-American
church within the city limits of Dallas entirely organized and owned by
African-American people. In the 1870's, Sisters Rainey, Robinson,
Drake, Williams, Starke, Taylor, and Brother Jerry Taylor held regular
prayer meetings. On July 27, 1873, these spiritual leaders organized
their prayer band into a church. Many direct descendants of these
pioneers continue to worship at New Hope.
In addition to its religious programs, the church has been a strong
force in the community. New Hope sponsored one of the earliest African-
American newspapers, and it has offered etiquette and public speaking
classes to interested citizens. The church constructed the historic
building at 919 Bogel Street, that became the center for cultural,
political, and educational activities. Also, the first free public
schools for African-Americans in Dallas were organized at New Hope
Baptist Church.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the grateful congregation of New Hope
Baptist Church, I commend Rev. Alfred Walker, Jr., for his dedication
to the church and the community. I also commend Dallas' oldest African-
American Christian Witness, New Hope Baptist Church, for 126 years of
continuous community service.

____________________

[[Page 27274]]

HONORING EULAH LAUCKS

______

HON. LOIS CAPPS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of my
colleagues an extraordinary woman, who was honored by family and
friends on October 22nd as she celebrated her 90th birthday in Santa
Barbara, California.
Eulah Laucks has become a good friend and mentor to me, and I want to
mention just a few of her many accomplishments. Eulah was born on
October 23, 1909 in Goldhill, Nevada. After completing high school, she
worked for six years at a Tuberculosis Sanitorium to pay for her own
college education. Her hard work paid off and in 1933 she began her
studies in journalism at the University of Washington. Eulah had a very
successful college career and in 1936, during her last year in school,
she traveled to Italy to study. Eulah soon became fascinated with the
people and the turbulent changes in government that were taking place
in Europe.
In 1942, Eulah married Irving Laucks, whom she met while working in
the public relations department of the chemical analysis lab he owned
in Seattle. In 1964 the Laucks moved to Santa Barbara. Irving soon
began work as a consultant for the Santa Barbara Center for the Study
of Democratic Institutions. When Irving left the Center, Eulah
continued this important work, where she served on the board in 1966
with my husband, Walter Capps. Eulah's passion for knowledge and
commitment to learning did not end in college or with her work at UCSB.
In 1979 at the age of 70, she earned a Ph.D. in Family Studies. Her
research culminated in a book, ``The Meaning of Children in
Contemporary America,'' which she published shortly after receiving her
degree. In 1996, Eulah completed another book about her childhood
memories in Nevada mining country.
Mr. Speaker, as impressive as any complete accounting of Eulah's life
would be, it would not do justice to the long lasting and immeasurable
contributions she has made in Santa Barbara. I find myself to be
exceptionally fortunate to be a friend of Eulah Laucks. She is an
incredibly progressive, strong willed, and independent person. Eulah
was also very close to my husband, Walter Capps. I know that they often
encouraged and supported one another in their faith and commitment to
others. He valued her insight and wisdom immensely.
Eulah Laucks will continue to commit much of her energy to the values
and ideals that she loves--the well-being of children, education for
all, world peace, and protecting our environment. I am truly honored to
represent Eulah Laucks in Washington and to incorporate her ideals in
my work as a citizen representative.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO COMMUNITY SERVICE HONOREES OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS
LEAGUE

______

HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Community Service
Honorees of the Japanese American Citizens League. On Thursday,
December 9th, the JACL will host a recognition dinner to honor these
citizens' outstanding contributions to their community. I ask all of my
colleagues to join with me in saluting this special occasion.
This year's first nominee for service to the Nikkei community is
Midori Hiyama. A long time faculty member and head of the English
Department at Sacramento City College, she is being recognized for many
decades of service to the Sacramento Japanese American community in the
academic field. Along with Henry Taketa and others, she built up the
Sacramento JACL Scholarship Program to the largest such program at the
chapter level.
Next, the JACL will honor Percy and Gladys Masaki. The late Percy
Masaki and his wife Gladys have dedicated many years of service to the
Sacramento JACL, especially during the early formation of the local
chapter. Their contributions included providing many years of rent-free
space and committing thousands of hours of volunteer time. Their
volunteer efforts focused in the areas of coordination of community
events and the publishing and distribution of the chapter newsletters.
Another esteemed honoree will be Shigeru Shimazu. Known simply as
Shig, Mr. Shimazu is being honored for his forty years of invaluable
service to the Sacramento Nikkei community. He has remained a
consistently active and productive member of the Japanese American
community. Although he is not always openly visible during his
participation in community functions, his contributions during the past
decades have been outstanding.
The Sacramento JACL would also like to recognize the contributions of
the Union Bank of California. Union Bank will represent the corporate
honoree at this year's Community Service Recognition Dinner. This
financial institution has remained supportive of the JACL and many
other Japanese American organizations in the entire state.
The contributions of the Union Bank of California have extended
beyond the JACL to areas such as various churches, tanoshimi kais, the
Asian Community Nursing Home, Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of
Commerce, and public television's Channel 6. Their policy of service
charge free accounts to all non-profit organizations has been
appreciated.
In addition, Anne Rudin has been selected for recognition. The former
mayor of Sacramento will be the only non-Nikkei honoree of 1999. She
has been extremely active in the Japanese American community for the
past three decades. Not only was she the first Honorary Chair of
Matsuyama-Sacramento Sister City Corporation, but she has traveled to
Japan several times as a delegate to the Japan-U.S. Mayors Conference
and as a member of the Sacramento contingent to the Sister City
conferences.
The last nominee of this year's banquet will be James Maddock and the
Sacramento Bee. Mr. Maddock of the FBI and the Sacramento Bee
(represented by Howard Weaver) are being nominated for their support
during the recent arson attacks on three Jewish synagogues. Because of
their intensive and active support during the aftermath of these
terrible events, the citizens of the Sacramento area have rallied
together in opposition to such hate crimes.
Mr. Speaker, as these exceptional people and organizations are
honored by the Japanese American Citizens League, I am proud to give my
heart-felt endorsement. These people and organizations have all
contributed immensely to the betterment of the Japanese American
community in Sacramento. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in
wishing the honorees and the JACL continued success in the future.

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE ON THE 11TH ANNIVERSARY OF PATIENT RECOGNITION DAY

______

HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1999, for the 11th year in a
row, the Board of Visitors of the Bronx Psychiatric Center held its
``Patient Recognition Day.''
This day recognizes those who have significantly progressed on the
path toward eventual discharge back to the community, and have made a
positive impact on the lives of their peers in their wards.
The dedication of the professional staff at Bronx Psychiatric Center
has contributed to the recovery process of the patients by putting
great care and pride in their work.
The family and friends of the patients who lend so much support and
understanding are also recognized, but the greatest honor is reserved
for the patients who, in having trusted and worked with the staff, have
made great strides on their journey towards recovery.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of the 11th anniversary of Patient Recognition
Day at the Bronx Psychiatric Center, I would like to recognize Samuel
Lopez, the President of the Board of Visitors, as well as Sylvia Lask,
Nellie Neazer, and Richard Somer who oversee the center, as well as the
patients.

____________________

HONORING MICHAEL BERRY ON HIS RETIREMENT

______

HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and congratulate a
very close friend as he marks the close of a very significant chapter
of his life: practice law.
Michael Berry has served as a model of community leadership
throughout his career

[[Page 27275]]

as an attorney and public servant, and he is fully deserving of the
tribute to be given this Friday in Dearborn, Michigan.
Earlier this year, Michael ended the 45-year existence of his law
firm, Berry, Francis, Seifman, Salamey and Harris. During these years,
Michael represented a wide variety of clients, while becoming involved
in a myriad of business, civic, legal and political organizations. His
participation in literally scores of activities demonstrates Michael's
long-standing commitment to making his community a better place to
live, work and raise a family.
Michael served as a Wayne County Public Administrator from 1956-78,
and for 15 years as a Member and Chairman of the Board of the Wayne
County Road Commission. Having helped build the infrastructure for one
of the nation's largest counties, the county rightfully designated
Detroit Metropolitan Airport's international terminal in Michael's
name, a designation which was particularly fitting given Michael's
family heritage as a Lebanese-American.
Throughout my service in Congress, Michael has been a leader among
leaders in southeast Michigan's Arab-American community. As such he has
devoted countless hours toward improving the lives of Arab-Americans
across the nation, and building bridges of understanding between
Americans of Arab descent and those of us with other ethnic roots. A
Life Member of the NAACP, Michael serves today as an Executive Board
Member of the American Task Force for Lebanon. He also has served as a
Director of the Greater Round Table of the National Conference of
Christians, Muslims and Jews. If one wonders whether Michael's
participation and advocacy have had an impact, I need only point to the
growing influence today of Arab-Americans in nearly every sphere of our
lives, in government, education, business and trade, literature and the
arts, and politics.
Mr. Speaker, as Michael's many friends prepare to gather to celebrate
this many accomplishments on behalf of his community and country, I
wanted to share with my colleagues just how much Michael's service and
friendship have meant to me. As a past Chairman of the 16th District
Democratic Party for four terms, Michael has been active in Michigan
politics for more than 40 years. Throughout this period, Michael has
been a true and loyal friend and someone I could trust to give me good
advice about everything from transportation policy to the current
politics of Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East. His knowlege
and insight have been invaluable to me in representing Michigan's 16th
Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. I wish him
and his fiancee, Cindy Hanes, every happiness as Michael prepares to
turn yet another new page on a successful life.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY CORRECTIONAL
STAFF ACT

______

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

of the district of columbia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Prevention of Sexual
Misconduct by Correctional Staff Act, a bill to protect female inmates
from sexual misconduct while incarcerated in our nation's prisons. This
bill follows a GAO investigation that I requested of the three largest
prison systems--the federal Bureau of Prisons, the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and, in
addition, the District of Columbia, (1995-1998). I asked GAO to
investigate these jurisdictions because they house one-third of the
nation's 80,000 female inmates, and, therefore, are likely to reflect
the range of problems women in prison face.
The treatment of women incarcerated cries out for remedies. Let me
summarize some of the most important findings in the GAO report:
1. The full range of civil and criminal sexual misconduct and abuse
was found: rape, improper touching, inappropriate visual surveillance,
verbal harassment, and consensual sex, which is a crime when
correctional personnel are involved.
2. None of the four jurisdictions had readily available or
comprehensive information that would allow them to effectively prevent
and address sexual misconduct. Since jurisdictions do not collect and
examine even basic information, such as the number, nature, and
outcomes of sexual misconduct allegations, it is no wonder that they do
little to prevent them. When attempts to track the abuse have been
made, they often have been useless or dangerously incompetent. For
example, the federal Bureau of Prison's (BOP) tracking system does not
break down allegations of non-criminal sexual misconduct, such as
indecent language from other allegations BOP classifies as
``unprofessional conduct.'' The District of Columbia had no information
on allegations.
3. Only 41 states specifically punish criminal sexual misconduct by
corrections personnel, and eight states treat sexual abuse by
corrections officials as only a misdemeanor. Although the four
jurisdictions studied have criminal laws against sexual misconduct by
corrections personnel, only BOP reported prosecutions with convictions
(14 prosecutions: rape, consensual sex with an inmate, and sex for
money).
4. The GAO reports that, ``Many correctional experts believe that the
full extent of staff-on-inmate misconduct is likely underreported
nationally due to the fear of retaliation and the vulnerability felt by
female inmates.'' Nevertheless, 506 reported allegations of sexual
misconduct were made in the past three years in the four jurisdictions.
Only 18% were sustained. Most of the sustained allegations resulted in
resignations or terminations. What ordinary citizens go to jail for,
corrections personnel often can walk away from if they are willing to
leave the job.
5. Civil liability can be expected to mount if states do not
substantially and immediately improve their efforts to illuminate
sexual abuse. A $500,000 settlement paid by the BOP to three women in a
suit alleging rape, being sold by guards for sex, and beatings are the
tip of the iceberg.
6. States have primary responsibility for the conduct of their own
correctional staff, but the federal government is deeply implicated or
complicit in two ways: (a) sexual abuse by guards, who have complete
authority over inmates and are charged with their incarceration, often
rises to the level of constitutional violations; and (b) the federal
government gives financial assistance to state prison systems and
therefore must be seen to condone constitutional violations in the face
of this report unless appropriate requirements are attached to federal
assistance.
The Prevention of Sexual Misconduct by Correctional Staff Act I
introduce today responds to the specific issues uncovered by the GAO
report. It provides mandatory sexual harassment and abuse awareness
training for prison officials and staff, establishes a system for women
inmates to report abuses by correctional staff, creates a reporting
system for submission to the states' attorneys general so that they can
detect patterns of abuse, establishes a mechanism by which allegations
of sexual misconduct can be investigated, and requires that each state
have criminal penalties that explicitly prohibit custodial sexual
misconduct by correctional staff. This bill provides that each state
submit reports on the compliance of the state to the U.S. Attorney
General.
Women inmates should not be made to feel that sexual abuse and
harassment is part of their sentence. I ask for your support to put an
end to this violence against women.

____________________

GIRLS TOWN RECREATIONAL CENTER

______

HON. IKE SKELTON

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Scallorns, of California, MO. Over the years, Fran and
Joe have worked for the betterment of their community and of the State
of Missouri. They have contributed countless hours to improve the lives
of many Missourians and they have dedicated themselves to public
service.
Recently, Fran and Joe donated the money for the construction of a
new recreational center at Missouri Girls Town. It was named in honor
of the Scallorns and their selfless contribution to the institution and
the young ladies who reside therein. On October 2, 1999, the Scallorns
Recreational Center was dedicated and Joe addressed those in
attendance. His speech is set forth as follows:

We are here today for a dedication of this wonderful
structure. Fran and I are a little embarrassed about the fact
that it bears our name. Most people don't see their name cast
in bronze or in stained glass. In most cases when a building
is named it is for someone deceased. On those occasions,
friends gather and say some nice things about the ``dearly

[[Page 27276]]

departed''. On those other occasions in which the persons are
still living, they are invited to make a few remarks. I can't
tell you how happy I am to be here before you today.
We are here as a result of our lead gift for this
recreation center. That was possible because we are living
the American dream. From a very modest beginning of our
marriage, we have worked hard, been lucky, and have enjoyed
the encouragement and support of family and friends, many of
whom are here today. We were fortunate enough to own our own
business, sell it, and retire early. We do live in the
greatest nation on Earth that is truly good and provides many
opportunities.
Fran and I are so pleased to be a part of this great
effort. We have been inspired and encouraged by the
leadership of the Marshes, Ann K., the McClains, Isabelle
Bram, and others in sharing their time and resources with the
needs of the girls here. We are pleased and proud to be able
to do this and hope that this might influence and encourage
others to support Girlstown as much as they can.
We are particularly pleased that our gift was for the
recreation center. Sports play such an important part in all
our lives, but especially in the development of young people.
Not only is this the largest structure on the campus,
beautifully designed, and well built although it is all those
things; but it is perhaps an apt symbol of what we try to
teach all our children--those at home and those here.
Sports teach us that we get along better in life if we
learn to play by the rules. Wherever we are in our society,
we learn that there are certain expectations of behavior.
There are rules in the workplace, rules of the road and rules
of personal demeanor and behavior. The sooner we learn to
take responsibility for our actions by respecting and
abiding by those rules, the better we are able to get
along.
Sports, whether recreational or competitive, teach us to do
our best. Coaches in any sport certainly know the
fundamentals of the game they are playing, but what makes a
great coach is having the ability to motivate others to do
their very best. If these young ladies can learn to motivate
themselves to improve at whatever they are doing--to strive
to do their best at every endeavour, that may be the best
tool for the building of character. Those that spend their
lives looking for happiness seldom find it. If they spend
their lives pursuing excellence, they can lead productive and
rewarding lives.
The other great lesson that sports will teach us is
teamwork. Once we learn to depend on others and let them
depend on us, then achievements multiply. There are very few
efforts that don't improve geometrically as we approach them
as a team. The results of teamwork are always greater than
the sum of the individual efforts of those involved. It is
through working and giving together, to the best of our
abilities, that we are able to build this campus, continue to
improve it, and continue to add to it.
A group of girls once gathered for their annual hike in the
woods. Taking off at sunrise, the group commenced a fifteen
mile trek through some of the most scenic grounds in the
country. About midmorning, the girls came across an abandoned
section of railroad track. Each in turn, tried to walk the
narrow rails, but after only a few unsteady steps each lost
her balance and fell off.
Two of the girls, after watching one after the other fall
off the iron rail, offered a bet to the rest of the group.
The two bet that they could both walk the entire length of
the railroad track without falling off even once.
The others laughed and said ``no way'', Challenged to make
good on their boast, the two girls jumped up on the opposite
rails, simply reached out and held hands to balance each
other and steadily walked the entire section of the track
with no difficulty.
How easy it was, simply by working together as a team. When
people help each other, freely and voluntarily, there is a
spirit of teamwork that can conquer a multitude of problems.
When we don't cooperate, the whole system can fall apart.
So remember: play by the rules, do your best, reach out--
and never quit holding hands.

____________________

COMMON SENSE PROTECTIONS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 2000

______

HON. DON YOUNG

of alaska

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today we introduce the Common Sense
Protection for Endangered Species Act of 2000. My efforts to improve
and update the Endangered Species Act date back over my entire 26 years
of service in the House of Representatives. The Endangered Species Act
or the ESA, was originally adopted in 1973, with the goal of protecting
those species of fish, wildlife and plants that were in danger of
extinction. However, over the last 26 years the ESA has gotten off
course. It is now in danger of foundering in a sea of bureaucratic
abuse and misuse.
The Committee on Resources has held over 25 hearings on the impacts
of the Endangered Species Act since I became the Chairman. We have
heard hundreds of witnesses testify regarding the misuse of this law
for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting wildlife. We know
that there are 1,197 U.S. species listed as endangered or threatened,
yet no species has recovered due to actions taken under the Endangered
Species Act. The ESA is a failure, when it is judged solely on the
basis of the number of species recovered and it is a failure when you
realize that it punishes those private property owners who do the most
to protect wildlife on their property. We need to turn this failure
into a success story and we can do that through the application of some
basic common sense principles.
First, we need to return more authority and responsibility for
wildlife protection back to the states. The states have primary
responsibility for wildlife and plants within their borders. The states
have done the best job of managing their own wildlife. State programs
to restore depleted species of game through good scientific management
have been a resounding success. Species such as wild turkey, deer, elk,
mountain lions, bear, and countless others managed by the states are
becoming so plentiful that their numbers are now considered too
plentiful in some areas.
Almost every state has its own endangered and threatened species
program. Most of the states are doing a better job than the federal
government at protecting endangered species and they are doing it in a
common sense fashion, unlike some of our federal agencies. However, we
seem to be imposing the greatest number of federal resources in those
states that have had the best endangered species programs. The State of
California, under the leadership of former governor Pete Wilson,
developed an endangered species program that is as stringent as the
federal program and is the best funded state ESA program in the
country, yet we have spent more federal ESA funds in California than in
any other state. We need to insure that our scarce federal resources
are used in those areas that need federal help--not in those states
that are doing a good job. Let's stop duplicating the state's good work
and let them do what they do best--manage their own wildlife.
Second, it is absolutely imperative that when a new species is added
to the list of endangered and threatened species, that the science used
to justify that listing is accurate and adequate. We need to improve
the quality of the scientific data used to list species. We can only do
that by requiring the agency to use good science, not just whatever
science happens to be available at the time a petition is received to
list a species. When a species is listed that is not really endangered
or threatened with extinction, there are severe economic consequences
for local communities and for affected private property owners. This
should be avoided through the use of well-founded science.
Thirdly, we need to be fair to landowners who are affected by the
listing of endangered species. Most endangered species are found on
private lands. Private landowners need to be given incentives and
rewards for protecting endangered and threatened species.
Unfortunately, the ESA has been used against landowners to deprive them
of the right to use their own property and to demand both land and
money from affected landowners. The federal agencies that administer
the ESA have been given extraordinary powers which they are using to
force landowners to set aside ``in perpetuity'', huge amounts of
privately owned lands that can only be used for one purpose--the
protection of the public's wildlife and plant species. This type of
treatment only discourages other landowners from providing habitat for
wildlife.
We need to guarantee the public's right to know what the federal
government is going to require for the protection of endangered
species. The public and affected landowners should be included at every
step in the process and should have a right to be heard and to have
their questions answered about what kinds of new regulations the
government may be proposing.
Fourth, we need to insure that when federal agencies' activities
affect endangered species that the species are protected, but also
those agencies need to fulfill their primary missions. We have seen
examples of our military unable to prepare for the national defense
because of the presence of endangered species on military lands. Flood
control projects are delayed over many years resulting in ever
increasing damage from floods. Much needed roads, bridges, and other
transportation projects are stopped or delayed. Entire forests are
closed

[[Page 27277]]

to harvesting while timber workers are left unemployed. The list goes
on and on.
We must insure that the government keeps its promises to private
property owners. The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued over 250
permits to various landowners for the use of their property. We need to
insure that the federal government does not ignore those permits and
demand even greater amounts of land and money in the future during the
term of those agreements.
Fifth, we must recover the populations of species and then be sure
they are taken off the lists of endangered species. Under the current
ESA, the federal agencies list species and then never remove them from
the lists even when their populations increase dramatically. This is
unacceptable. The federal government must work with the local community
and affected landowners to develop workable recovery plans for species.
The federal government must then keep its word to delist species when
the communities make concessions to recover species.

Our bill, the Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species Act of
2000 would bring back basic common sense solutions to help achieve all
these goals. It would:
1. Improve the listing process by involving and relying upon the
expertise of States.
2. Improve petitions and listing investigations and insure greater
public participation in the listing process.
3. It would require the use of peer reviewed science to support the
listing of species.
4. It would reduce conflicts and economic dislocation caused by
federal agency shut downs and provide deadlines for agency decision
making. It would insure that agencies fulfill their missions and
provide a faster and surer method of resolving conflicts between
agencies. It would insure that public safety will be protected.
5. It would allow affected citizens a full opportunity to participate
in consultations; discuss the impacts of a biological opinion and any
proposed alternatives, receive information on the biological opinion;
and receive a copy of the draft biological opinion prior to its
issuance.
6. It would prevent abusive and excessive demands on private
landowners for their land and money as a condition of getting an ESA
permit from the federal government and require reasonable deadlines for
making permit decisions. It would insure that conservation agreements
are binding on all parties to the agreement.
7. It would make recovery planning an inclusive process and would
allow the Secretary to delegate to the states the development and
implementation of recovery plans. Designation of critical habitat would
become part of the recovery process. It would insure that recovery
results in the delisting of species.
While I would personally prefer to make even more improvements in the
ESA, I feel that these changes will be a good first start toward
bringing back a common sense and reasonable approach to our federal
government's efforts to recover species. I fully support protecting the
rights of private property owners and believe that you can't protect
wildlife unless you protect property owners. I also recognize that in
order to achieve any goal, you have to take a first step. This is our
first step toward Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species.

____________________

COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 1999

______

HON. SAM GEJDENSON

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Comprehensive
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 1999, legislation to combat
trafficking in human beings, a form of modern day slavery. Thirty-four
Members of Congress are original co-sponsors of this bill. I commend my
colleagues for lending their bi-partisan support to this legislation,
which seeks to combat in the United States and countries around the
world one of the worst human rights violations of our time.
More than one million people, predominantly women and children, are
trafficked around the world each year. U.S. Intelligence Agencies
estimate that 45-50,000 women and children are trafficked annually into
the United States, primarily from the Former Soviet Union and Southeast
Asia.
Trafficking networks, dominated by organized criminal groups, lure or
force victims into the industry using various schemes. Traffickers buy
young girls from relatives, kidnap children from their homes, or allure
women with false promises of earning money overseas as dancers, maids,
factory workers, sales clerks or models. Traffickers then use tactics
including rape, starvation, torture, extreme physical brutality and
psychological abuse to force victims to work under slavery-like
conditions as prostitutes, in sweatshops, or as domestic servants.
Trafficking in human beings is a multi-billion dollar industry that
is growing at an alarming rate. Consequently, the United States must
act now to combat all forms of trafficking and protect and assist
trafficking victims. This legislation employs a domestic and
international approach to this effort because we cannot stop
trafficking into the United States if we do not address the root causes
of this phenomenon in countries around the world.
The Comprehensive Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 1999 strengthens
prosecution and enforcement tools against traffickers operating in the
United States and expands existing services to meet the needs of
domestic trafficking victims. This legislation also works through our
international affairs agencies to help other countries prevent
trafficking, protect victims, and enforce their own anti-trafficking
laws. The bill creates an Inter-Agency Task Force to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking, comprised of cabinet level members and chaired by the
Secretary of State, and requires expanded coverage on trafficking in
the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Finally, this
legislation establishes a humanitarian, non-immigrant visa
classification for trafficking victims in the United States and gives
the President discretionary authority to impose sanctions against
countries and individuals involved in trafficking.
Please join me and my colleagues in supporting the Comprehensive
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 1999.

____________________

THE SITUATION IN ARMENIA

______

HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and deeply saddened by the
brutal assassinations of top Armenian officials this morning, as well
as the continuing hostage crisis currently taking place in the Armenian
Parliament. My heart goes out to the families of the victims and to all
Armenians. We must not permit these senseless acts to hinder the
progress made by Prime Minister Sarkisian and his late colleagues in
furthering democracy in Armenian. In the face of these unspeakable
atrocities, the United States must reaffirm its commitment to
supporting the Republic of Armenia in her pursuit of a lasting
democracy and enduring peace.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRIBUSINESS MERGER MORATORIUM ACT

______

HON. EARL POMEROY

of north dakota

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Agribusiness
Merger Moratorium Act of 1999. I am honored to have Judiciary Committee
Member Tammy Baldwin and my colleague on the Agriculture Committee,
David Minge, join me as original cosponsors of this important
legislation. Our legislation is very similar to the Senate legislation
that was introduced recently by Senators Wellstone, Dorgan, Harkin, and
Daschle.
Unfortunately, the agriculture sector of our economy has experienced
rapid consolidation, disrupting the competitive dynamic of the market
place. Today, concentration is more prevalent than ever in agriculture
as we have observed with the recent acquisitions of Continental Grain
by Cargill and the Smithfield Foods merger with Murphy Family Farms.
For example, if the proposed acquisition of Continental Grain by
Cargill is allowed with the divestitures set forth in the proposed
consent decree, Cargill will handle more than 25 percent of the all of
the Nation's export markets.
To illustrate the degree of concentration in agriculture processing,
in 1999, 80 percent of beef cattle are slaughtered by only four meat
packers, 75 percent of sheep are processed by only four firms, and 60
percent of hogs are slaughtered by only four firms. At the same time
concentration has been drastically increasing, a farmer's share of
every food dollar spent decreased from 37 cents to 23 cents from 1980
to 1998.
The Agribusiness Merger Moratorium Act of 1999 is a short-term
legislative response to the rapid consolidation that I have described.
This legislation would establish an 18-month

[[Page 27278]]

moratorium on mergers and acquisitions by large agribusinesses. It
would create a commission to determine whether concentration in the
agriculture industry has reached a point where market competition can
no longer be counted on to get family farmers and ranchers a fair price
for the products they produce.
The moratorium would apply to any proposed merger and acquisition
that involves at least one firm with annual net revenues or assets of
more than $100 million and another firm with assets of at least $10
million. Agricultural cooperatives would be exempted from this
legislation.
Clearly, this legislation is only a short-term response. The long-
term solution is enforcement and strengthening of our antitrust laws.
But, with the current dire economic conditions farmers and ranchers
across the United States are facing, we, as Federal lawmakers, must
provide immediate action.
Mr. Speaker, as we enter the new millennium, it is ironic that
Congress faces the same challenges our colleagues faced 100 years ago.
To paraphrase one of North Dakota's favorite adopted sons, our Nation's
26th President Teddy Roosevelt, ``We must carry a big stick to return
fairness and freedom to the marketplace.'' The Agribusiness Merger
Moratorium Act of 1999 is a step in that direction.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JAMES PATRICK (PAT) GODWIN, SR.

______

HON. BOB ETHERIDGE

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great North
Carolinian, Mr. James Patrick (Pat) Godwin, Sr. Mr. Godwin recently
received the Distinguished Service Award of the Occoneechee Council of
the Boy Scouts of America. Pat has been a leader and advocate of
scouting in my home state of North Carolina, and I am proud to call him
my friend. He has touched many lives in our community through the
generous support he gives to our young people.
Mr. Godwin is the owner of Godwin Manufacturing Inc. in Dunn, NC. His
truck body manufacturing business began in his backyard in 1966 and is
one of the largest truck body builders in the United States. He has
been featured in two national publications, yet he remains a humble man
who continues to serve his community through his church and other
charitable organizations.
I am honored to join The Occoneechee Council in saluting Mr. Godwin
for Exemplary Public Service and Lifelong Fidelity to the Scouting
Creed of Service to the Community. I congratulate him on his much
deserved Distinguished Service Award.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF RED RIBBON WEEK

______

HON. BILL McCOLLUM

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 7, 1985, Enrique
``Kiki'' Camarena stashed his DEA badge and his service revolver in his
desk drawer and headed for a lunch date with his wife. Kiki, a Drug
Enforcement Administration agent, had been in Mexico for 4\1/2\ years
on the trail of Mexico's marijuana and cocaine barons. He was due to be
reassigned in three weeks, having come dangerously close to unlocking a
multibillion-dollar drug pipeline, which he suspected extended in the
highest reaches of the Mexican army, police and government.
As Kiki was about to get into the cab of his truck, five men appeared
and shoved him into a car, threw a jacket over Kiki's head and sped
away. Kiki Camarena's body was found 1 month later in a shallow grave
70 miles from Michoachan, Mexico. He had been tortured, beaten and
brutally murdered.
This week, Oct. 23-31, we celebrate Red Ribbon Week. Red Ribbon Week
is a time to commemorate the death of Kiki Camarena and for communities
to come together to reinforce a drug-free message. The red ribbon,
which I am wearing, has become a symbol to eliminate the demand for
drugs, and the National Family Partnership's Red Ribbon Campaign is
designed to create community awareness concerning drugs, alcohol, and
tobacco.
It is estimated that 80 million people participate annually in Red
Ribbon Week. In order for the Red Ribbon Week message to be effective
in communities, it must be recognized and reinforced across as many
sectors of the community as possible--schools, businesses, parents,
churches, law enforcement, doctors, government, social service
organizations, etc. Red Ribbon Week provides an important opportunity
for everyone in the community to use their unique skills and talents to
deliver a drug-free message.
All of us want to make our communities healthier, safer and drug free
for our children to grow up in. During this week may we join together
and remember those officials like Kiki Camarena who have given their
lives in order to fight the war on drugs. And may we mobilize our
communities to prevent problem behaviors before they start, so that we
help create a brighter, healthier and drug-free future for our children
and for the 21st century.

____________________

IN HONOR OF HEAD START AWARENESS MONTH AND THE NATIONAL HEAD START
ASSOCIATION

______

HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, since its establishment on May 18, 1965,
Head Start has provided comprehensive health, education, nutritional
and social services to over 17 million children and their families.
Today, the program includes more than 835,000 children, 167,130 staff,
and 2,051 Head Start grantees and delegate agencies nationwide.
October 1999 has been designated as Head Start Awareness Month. I
rise today to join with everyone in the more than 48,000 Head Start
classrooms who celebrate the success of Head Start everyday.
With next year's 35th anniversary of Head Start we will all have an
opportunity to join together to promote the continued quality,
comprehensiveness, and accountability of the program which has given it
the staying power to improve the lives of low-income children and
families.
The program also has an impact on child development and day care
services; the expansion of state and local activities for children; the
range and quality of services offered to young children and their
families; and the design of training programs for those who staff such
programs. Outreach and training activities also assist parents in
increasing their parenting skills and knowledge of child development.
With the bipartisan reauthorization of the program in 1998, we
embarked upon a new era for Head Start. Increased professional
development, research into the long-term benefits of the program,
outcome measures and program accountability, and an expansion of Early
Head Start were but a few of the changes in the law. Progress is
already being made.
In the days ahead, Congress will likely be considering legislation to
provide a significant part of the resources needed to make good on the
promise of last year's reauthorization.
Our partner in that reauthorization process and a critical element of
delivering on the promise is the National Head Start Association.
Representing the program's 835,000 children, 167,130 staff, and 2,051
Head Start grantees and delegate agencies nationwide, NHSA provides
training tools and policy guidance in a manner which makes the program
more effective and most responsive to the needs of America's low-income
children and families, I am honored to join with the Association in
celebrating Head Start Awareness Month--October 1999.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks

[[Page 27279]]

section of the Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each
week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, October 28, 1999 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

OCTOBER 29
10 a.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on the nomination of Joseph R. Crapa, of
Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development;
Willene A. Johnson, of New York, to be United States
Director of the African Development Bank; and Alan
Phillip Larson, of Iowa, to be Under Secretary of State
(Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs).
SD-419

NOVEMBER 2
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings on the recent announcement by
President Clinton to review approximately 40 million
acres of national forest lands for increased
protection.
SD-366
10 a.m.
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
To hold hearings on the World Trade Organization, its
Seattle Ministerial, and the Millennium Round.
SD-538
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine public interest's concerning
government lawsuits.
SD-226
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on pending nominations.
SD-419
2 p.m.
Judiciary
Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee
To hold joint oversight hearings with the House Committee
on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law on bankruptcy judgeship needs.
2141 Rayburn Building
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings on the nomination of Charles Taylor
Manatt, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador
to the Dominican Republic.
SD-419
3 p.m.
Foreign Relations
Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine extremist movements and their
threat to the United States.
SD-419

NOVEMBER 3
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings on lessons learned from the military
operations conducted as part of Operation Allied Force,
and associated relief operations, with respect to
Kosovo.
SH-216
10 a.m.
Governmental Affairs
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-628
Environment and Public Works
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine solutions to the policy
concerns with respect to Habitat Conservation Plans.
SD-406
10:30 a.m.
Foreign Relations
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
S-116, Capitol
2:30 p.m.
Foreign Relations
International Operations Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine issues in promoting United
States interests.
SD-419

NOVEMBER 4
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold joint hearings with the House Committee on
Resources on S. 1586, to reduce the fractionated
ownership of Indian Lands; and S. 1315, to permit the
leasing of oil and gas rights on certain lands held in
trust for the Navajo Nation or allotted to a member of
the Navajo Nation, in any case in which there is
consent from a specified percentage interest in the
parcel of land under consideration for lease.
Room to be announced
Armed Services
To hold hearings on the nomination of Alphonso Maldon,
Jr., of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense; and the nomination of John K. Veroneau, of
Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
SR-222
10 a.m.
Aging
To hold hearings on certain initiatives to improve
nursing home quality of care.
SD-562