[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Issue]
[Pages 30546-30823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 30546]]
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.
November 18, 1999
November 18, 1999
SENATE--Thursday, November 18, 1999
The Senate met at 11 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:
Almighty God, the only source of lasting authentic courage, we thank
You that You use ordinary people to do extraordinary things. This
morning, we turn to the psalmist and to Jesus for the bracing truth
about courage to see things through, not just to the end of the Senate
session but to the accomplishment of Your ends. David reminds us: ``Be
of good courage, and He shall strengthen your heart, all you who hope
in the Lord''--Psalm 31:24. And Jesus challenges us to take courage
(John 16:33). We know that we can take courage to press on because You
have taken hold of us. You have called us to serve You because You have
chosen to get Your work done through us. So bless the Senators as they
confront the issues of the budget, consider creative compromises, and
seek to bring this Senate session to a conclusion. In this quiet
moment, may they take courage and press on. Through our Lord and
Savior. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable JAMES INHOFE, a Senator from the State of Oklahoma, 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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe) The Senator from Ohio.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of
morning business until 12 noon, with Senator Voinovich in control of
the first 30 minutes and Senator Durbin in control of the second 30
minutes.
For the information of all Senators, the final appropriations items
were filed last night and are expected to be considered in the House
throughout the day. Therefore, following morning business, it is
expected that the Senate will begin consideration of the final
appropriations items as they are received. Members will be notified as
the schedule for consideration becomes clearer. The Senate may also
consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action during
today's session.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader.
____________________
BANKRUPTCY REFORM
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator outlining for us
what the intent is for the day. I hope that part of what we are going
to do is to work on completing the bankruptcy bill. I say to my friends
in the majority that we only have a few amendments remaining. I have
spoken to Senator Leahy and his staff, and I am ready to offer a
unanimous-consent request. I will not ask that the Senator accept this,
recognizing that he must speak with the manager of the bill, Senator
Grassley. But what I would like to do is ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments numbered 2517, 2537, 2538, 2539, 2658, 2666, 2667,
2747, 2748, 2753, 2759, 2761, 2763, and 2670, and any amendment agreed
upon by the two managers be the only amendments--those I have just read
and those agreed to by the two managers--in order to S. 625, the bill
to amend title 11, United States Code, and for other purposes, and that
following the disposition of all the above-described amendments, the
bill be immediately advanced to third reading; that the Senate then
proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 833; that all after the
enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate bill, as amended,
be inserted; that the bill be advanced to third reading; that a vote
occur on passage of the bill without any intervening action, motion or
debate; that the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference
with the House, and the Senate bill be placed back on the calendar.
Mr. President, that is the unanimous-consent request that I spread
across the Record of the Senate, recognizing that at this time there
will not be an objection to it. We will make this unanimous-consent
request at some later time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I am not asking, Mr. President, that there be objection. I
am not asking unanimous consent at this time.
I say to the majority that we have enumerated 14 amendments. Seven of
them have tentatively been agreed upon or they will be withdrawn. Only
seven amendments are now between completing the bankruptcy bill and not
completing it this year. The only two amendments of the seven that I
understand are causing any controversy are the ones dealing with gun
manufacturers and clinic violence.
On the gun manufacturing amendment, the proponents have agreed to a
70-minute time agreement, and on the amendment relating to clinic
violence, the proponent has agreed to 30 minutes. So there is really
not much left to complete this bill. I hope that during the day there
can be discussions ongoing to complete this bill. We would be willing
at any time the majority wants to lock in these amendments; we would be
willing to come back and I would propound this unanimous consent
request, or we could have the majority do so, so that this bill could
be completed in a reasonably short period of time.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, leadership time is
reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the
hour of 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak therein up to 5
minutes.
Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 shall be under the
control of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, or his designee.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, my colleague from Nevada spent several
minutes outlining a unanimous consent. It was on the time of the
Senator from Ohio. I wonder if we might accommodate that.
Mr. REID. Absolutely.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Ohio have charge of the time until 11:35 and then the remainder of
the time under the charge of the designee of the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
____________________
THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE BALKANS
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as the first session of the 106th
Congress
[[Page 30547]]
comes to a close, I want to remind my colleagues that the aftermath of
our nation's largest foreign policy initiative this year and a 78-day
air war, will be our nation's biggest foreign policy concern next year.
As my colleagues are aware, I opposed our nation's ``sign or we'll
bomb'' diplomacy that ultimately led to the decision to conduct the air
war over Kosovo and Serbia earlier this year. Instead, I believed that
we should have done all that we could to negotiate a real diplomatic
solution. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the conflict, I came to
the Senate floor and commented that ``some good always blows in an ill
wind.''
The ``good'' that I saw in the ill wind of the bombing campaign was
the opportunity for NATO and the United States to provide the impetus
for a lasting peace throughout Southeastern Europe. Since that time, my
staff and I have spent hours working hard to ensure that some good does
blow in and that we do not lose this opportunity to promote peace,
stability and prosperity in that region of our world.
To ensure the future of Southeast Europe, it is important to
understand its past. Every student of history is well aware that this
century's two most horrific wars had deep roots in the Balkans, but few
people are aware of the level of violence, bloodshed, hatred and
destruction that has been commonplace in the region for centuries.
Indeed, the Balkans have been the site of numerous wars and countless
battles, and have been fought over by every major regional power since
the days of the Roman legions.
Over the last 10 years, regional ethnic tensions have resulted in yet
another nightmare for the people of the Balkans. And for the third time
this century, Europe, reluctantly, has turned its attention to their
southern neighbors.
Their concern can be attributed to self-interest; an attempt to get
Southeast Europe to settle down so as to avoid any possible spillover
that could bring unrest to their nations, and a genuine concern over
the ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in the region. To do
this, Europe has involved the international community, and in
particular, the United States, which, for the first time in our
history, has immersed itself politically and militarily in the region.
Our willingness to get involved and lead should have come earlier.
Indeed, when conflicts began in Bosnia in the early 1990's, it was
reported that a key foreign policy official of the Bush Administration
made the statement that ``we have no dog in this fight.'' History
records that nothing could have been further from the truth. According
to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke in his book, ``To End A War'':
Europe believed it could solve Yugoslavia without the
United States; Washington believed that, with the Cold War
over, it could leave Yugoslavia to Europe. Europe's hour had
not dawned in Yugoslavia; Washington had a dog in this
particular fight.
The overconfidence of Europe and the disengagement of the United
States contributed greatly to the tragedy of Slavonia, Krijna and
Bosnia-Herzegovina. When we finally realized it was important for the
U.S. to get involved, we dealt with, and thus, legitimatized three war
criminals--Slobodan Milosevic, Franco Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic--at
the Dayton Peace Accords.
Unfortunately, the legitimitization of Milosevic caused us to
continue to have a relationship with him at a time when we should have
been working with opposition leaders to get rid of him. Then, when he
showed his true colors, we were reluctant to be as aggressive as we
should have been. We misjudged him, we underestimated him, and now
we're paying the price for our mistake.
As a result, we have spent at least $18 billion in operations in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia and elsewhere. We will, no
doubt, spend billions more. In addition, we have placed a tremendous
strain on the equipment and personnel of our Armed Forces due to our
past and present involvement in peacekeeping missions in Southeast
Europe. Also, the State Department has paid an incredible amount of
attention to the Balkans. And finally, we have complicated our
relations with other nations on the international scene--primarily,
Russia and China.
A November 1 article written by Elizabeth Sullivan, foreign-affairs
correspondent for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, indicates that the
Russians harbor resentment and incredulity towards the United States
over our assuming an air of moral superiority regarding their actions
in Chechnya. They see our attitude as a double standard, which affects
our ability to appeal to their better instincts. She writes:
The Kremlin is resolutely turning a deaf ear to U.S.
admonitions for restraint in Chechnya. The criticisms have
inflamed anti-U.S. feelings in Russia where it's bitterly
recalled that NATO's unpopular bombing killed hundreds of
Yugoslav civilians. It is the first big display of lost U.S.
influence after Kosovo.
It is clear that instability in Southeast Europe has the potential to
threaten America's overall interests throughout the rest of Europe.
However, a full-fledged integration of Southeast Europe into the whole
European community would remove the burden and expense of maintaining a
constant peacekeeping force, end years of diplomatic wrangling and
political posturing, and more important, end the death and destruction
that has plagued the region.
Recently, I met with a number of Ambassadors from the Balkans region
in the LBJ room here in the Capitol. They made it very clear to me that
they are ready to work together. I was pleased that they realized they
have a symbiotic relationship--a relationship that must be cultivated
in order to bring about peace and implement a modern, free-market
economy. The Holy Spirit was definitely present in that room. There was
an aura of enlightenment among those leaders, and we must capitalize on
the momentum of this cooperative spirit if we are to successfully bring
the region into the broader European fold.
Consider that not so many years ago, no one would have thought that
European political and economic cooperation, let alone union, was
possible. After all, two world wars had been fought in the trenches and
on the fields of Europe, fostering tremendous ill-will among many
nationalities.
Today, those feelings have largely dissipated. Germans, French,
Italians--all share the same currency. They cross national boundaries
freely. They work cooperatively to solve economic problems because it
is in their collective best interest. We are seeing that in terms of
competition right now. The Ambassadors I met with see this cooperation
and wish it for their nations, but, they are also quite frustrated with
the lack of speed by the international community in responding to the
humanitarian and economic needs of the region.
The NATO air war triggered immense human suffering which has not yet
been fully remedied. Here are some facts:
The refugee exodus from Kosovo decimated the economies of surrounding
nations, especially in Macedonia. Macedonia's reaching out to help
their fellow man was done at a great sacrifice to their economy and the
quality of life of their people.
In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), there are still 500,000
refugees from Slavonia, Krijna, and Bosnia. Another 150,000 were
displaced during the Kosovo bombing.
In Kosovo, the international community has had to deal with 700,000
refugees who have returned after the conflict. 500,000 of these
refugees are still officially considered ``internally displaced
persons,'' without any place to call their own.
Kosovo has turned into an armed camp where soldiers from numerous
countries are forced to keep the peace and prevent further bloodshed.
The lack of an effective internal police force has led to virtual
chaos, where organized crime and illegal drug trafficking is said to be
rampant and a cause of great concern among its citizens.
On this last point, a senior official from the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, told me that the reason there
is no effective police force in Kosovo is because there
[[Page 30548]]
aren't enough qualified or even interested individuals willing to join
the force. The official told me that if the crime problem in Kosovo
isn't checked, it will spread to the entire region and into the rest of
Europe.
Indeed, this point was illustrated again in the November 1 Elizabeth
Sullivan article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. She wrote:
The scope of the gun, drug and prostitute trade fanned by
the Kosovo conflict is also becoming clear. [Last week]
Italian and Swiss police busted a ring that allegedly
smuggled millions of dollars in Swiss weapons to Kosovo, and
Albanian prostitutes out to Italy, using humanitarian aid as
a cover.
The growing crime problem was definitely a topic of concern for the
Ambassadors I met with. I was amazed that they considered organized
crime and drugs their No. 1 or No. 2 concern to be addressed. Think of
that, organized crime and drugs as their No. 1 or No. 2 concern in the
region.
The fact of the matter is, the bombing has had a terribly
destabilizing effect on the region, and a very real impact on the
humanitarian situation and basic human existence as well, one that has
not been widely reported to the American people. The T.V. cameras are
gone now. You know how it is: out of sight, out of mind, and we have
moved on to other issues.
Although it's hard to grasp the extent of the problem, for the last
several months, the U.S. has been working through the United Nations
and the International Committee for the Red Cross to deal with the
needs of the region. Both the UN and the Red Cross claim that they will
be able to keep people fed, clothed and sheltered through the upcoming
winter. Yet, I have received a number of credible reports in recent
weeks which indicate that in fact we will witness a humanitarian
catastrophe in the region in the months ahead because of a lack of
shelter, heat, food and medical care.
I am aware that there are individuals in the foreign policy community
who are opposed to providing significant assistance to the people of
Serbia. They believe that humanitarian suffering will lead to political
discontent which will, in turn, lead to a popular movement that will
bring about the removal of Slobodan Milosevic. I disagree.
With the exception of South Africa, crippling sanctions have not
successfully brought about a change in political leadership. Just look
at Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We don't know what is going on there
anymore.
To emphasize this point, Professor Julie Mertus of the Ohio Northern
University wrote an excellent piece which was recently published in the
Washington Post. Professor Mertus specializes in international law.
Here is what she has to say:
How does a freezing and hungry Yugoslavia advance U.S.
policy goals? Certainly Milosevic will not be hungry this
winter. The idea is that the pain and suffering among the
lowest strata of society will ``trickle up'' to the higher
echelons. Protests by discontented citizens will lead to
policy changes and perhaps even the removal of Milosevic. The
problem is that humans do not behave this way. Cold,
dispirited citizens do not take to the streets. Rather, they
draw up inside their own homes and try to survive. If the
going gets tough, they try to exit, often leaving the
country. Only the few with hope continue to fight, and even
they cannot persist for long when they are isolated from
supportive networks.
Our sanctions policy has allowed Milosevic to blame Serbia's
faltering economy, declining humanitarian situation and international
isolation on the West. He has been able to deflect the ire of the
Serbian people who have little access to independent media.
We must pursue specific courses of action that will help us get rid
of Milosevic once and for all.
No. 1, we must continue to squeeze Milosevic so that his allies
inside and outside the Serbian government will see that he is
vulnerable and his hold on power is tenuous. Milosevic is an indicted
war criminal, and we have to make his allies understand that his fate
is their fate. In other words, leave now, or pay later.
No. 2, we should work with our allies to announce a detailed
humanitarian and economic aid package that would be available to the
people of Serbia once Milosevic is removed. The importance of this kind
of package to the success of democratization was underscored recently
when several of us met with the leaders of the anti-Milosevic force
right here in the Capitol.
They talked about how important it was we have a clear, defined
package that says, if he goes, here is what we are willing to do.
No. 3, we should provide as much assistance as we can, including such
things as heating oil, food, clothing and direct financial assistance,
as soon as possible to the Serbian opposition groups, particularly the
mayors, who are struggling to bring about democratic change.
No. 4, we should continue to support President Djukanovic of
Montenegro with whom I met two weeks ago. He is a bright and energetic
leader and a key ally for peace and prosperity in Southeast Europe.
No. 5, we must undertake a massive effort to overrun Milosevic's
monopoly control on Serbia's mass media. Milosevic's distorted
information must be countered with the truth; a commodity we must get
to the Serb people whatever way possible.
As I mentioned earlier, I held a meeting recently with a number of
ambassadors and senior embassy staff from the nations of Southeast
Europe to get their reaction to the Stability Pact initiative. And they
were honest; they said things were not going well. They were very clear
that it was essential that the United States be at the table to provide
leadership and contribute our fair share.
Without our presence, they are not confident that our NATO allies
will make good on the promises they made at the end of the war. And,
quite frankly, I think it is up to us to make it clear to our European
allies that we expect them to adhere to their commitment.
We are going to be at the table. We are going to have leadership. We
are anteing up, and it is time for you to ante up and make good on your
promises.
The best way I can summarize the attitude at the meeting I had with
the ambassadors, and the meeting I had with the Serbian opposition
leaders is a word in Serbo-Croatian--``edemo''--which means, ``let's
get going!''
On balance, I believe there has been some real progress made on a
number of fronts in our policy towards Southeast Europe in recent
months. The Stability Pact is moving ahead--albeit slowly and indeed
need of some additional leadership, particularly ours. The policy
toward sanctions seems to be finessed a bit and real work finally is
being done on the ground in the region to deal with humanitarian
concerns. I am pleased the administration is starting to soften up on
this a little bit.
The administration is meeting with Serbian opposition leaders and
financial support is beginning to trickle into the movement.
Southeastern European nations are beginning to think regionally with
the understanding they have a symbiotic relationship in their efforts
to promote and develop their economies. That is wonderful.
Although in many respects, things are much better off today than they
were after the war, the momentum has to be increased significantly, and
that is the challenge of this Congress and this administration.
The administration, working through the State Department, bears the
responsibility of bringing about real change in Serbia and honoring the
commitments the United States has made to friendly governments in
Southeast Europe. Congress has an obligation to provide oversight and
support to the administration's policies towards the restoration of
peace and stability in the region.
To that end, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the next
session of Congress to loosen some of the restrictive language that was
placed in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, language that the
State Department claims has made it difficult, and continues to make it
difficult, for them to do the kinds of things they would like to be
doing in Southeast Europe.
The Senate has already made a positive start with the recent
unanimous passage of the Serbia Democratization
[[Page 30549]]
Act. I believe we need to build on that progress.
Southeast Europe is strategic to our national interests and key to
our efforts to maintain peace in the world. Until the nations of
Southeast Europe are welcomed into the broader European community,
those efforts will remain unfulfilled. The United States must provide
the leadership because we do ``have a dog in this fight.''
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MILITARY STATE OF READINESS
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was presiding when the distinguished
Senator from Ohio was talking about the problems the U.N. faces in
Kosovo. I share all of the concerns the Senator from Ohio expressed. In
addition to that, since I am the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Readiness Subcommittee, I have another concern, and that is the
deployment of troops in 1995 into Bosnia, then again to Kosovo, and the
way they are being deployed today has put us in an apparent condition
in terms of our state of readiness.
It is very unfortunate that during this administration we have had a
cut in our force strength by approximately 50 percent, only to find out
just last week that two of our Army divisions are now rated at C-4.
That means they are not capable of combat today. Those two divisions
are the 10th Army Division, of which most are located in Bosnia, and
the 1st Infantry Division located in Kosovo.
This means that if something should happen, we are not in a ready
condition to defend America, where we do have national security
interests which, in my opinion, we do not have and never had in either
Bosnia or Kosovo. I stood side by side with the Senator from Ohio in
trying to keep us from making that deployment. We were not successful.
I do believe we should be looking very soon at any way we can bring our
troops back to a state of readiness, to do what we are supposed to be
doing, the No. 1 function of Government, and that is to defend America.
____________________
VIEQUES
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been a little disturbed not knowing
the certainty of the schedule and how long we will have to get some
things done at the last minute. I want to bring up one issue that has
to be discussed briefly, and that is the issue of the range that has
been used for 58 years on the island of Vieques located 6 miles off the
shores of Puerto Rico.
I am concerned about this because we started using this range 58
years ago. We have become dependent upon it because it is the only
range we can use that offers an integrated three-level type of
training--first, high-altitude bombing; second, the type of protection
that comes from the ships to the shore using live fire; and third, the
Marine expeditionary amphibious movements. All three of those can be
done simultaneously and have been done successfully over the last 58
years.
The problem we have with this range is that there is no place else in
the Western Hemisphere that we can actually give the training to our
troops. Right, now we have deployed into the Persian Gulf the U.S.S.
Kennedy. Because this President put a moratorium on training in
Vieques, only half of those deployed on the U.S.S. Kennedy have ever
had the necessary training should they have to become involved in
combat.
We have scheduled for the 18th of February the deployment of the
U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group. If this battle group goes through the
Mediterranean and goes to the Persian Gulf, the chances are better than
50-50 they will see combat. If we do not allow them to have the
training on the island of Vieques prior to their deployment, they will
have to go into combat very likely without ever having any live
ordnance training. This goes for the pilots flying the F-18s and the F-
14s that will be deployed off the U.S.S. Eisenhower.
I was there 3 weeks ago and watched them during their training, but
they were unable to use live ordnances and use that range. It goes for
the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the others who would be deployed
at the same time.
I would like to quote, if I could, Gen. Wes Clark. Of course, he is
one for whom we all have a great deal of respect. We watched the way he
worked commanding the European forces and the NATO forces. He said:
The live fire training that our forces were exposed to at
training ranges such as Vieques helped ensure that the forces
assigned to this theater--
We are talking about Kosovo, those 78, 79 days--
were ready-on-arrival and prepared to fight, win and
survive.
What General Clark is saying is, we were successful. Even though we
should not have been in Kosovo to start with, once we made that
decision, we were successful in dropping our cruise missiles in there
and our bombs because of the training those pilots had on the island of
Vieques.
Capt. James Stark, Jr., the commanding officer of the Roosevelt Roads
Naval Station, said:
When you steam off to battle you're either ready or you're
not. If you're not, that means casualties. That means more
POWs. That means less precision and longer campaigns. You pay
a price for all this in war, and that price is blood.
We are talking about American blood. I am very proud of all the
military, uniformed and others. This is the first time in the years I
have served in the Senate that they have been willing to stand up for
something they know is right, not knowing for sure where the President
is going to be on this issue.
The President has imposed a moratorium on training on the island of
Vieques. We are going to try our best to encourage him, for the lives
of Americans, to allow us to use it to train those people who are on
the U.S.S. Eisenhower, ready to be deployed.
Richard Danzig, the Secretary of the Navy, said:
Only by providing this preparation can we fairly ask our
service members to put their lives at risk.
In a joint statement between the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, they said: Vieques provides integrated live-fire training
``critical to our readiness,'' and the failure to provide for adequate
live-fire training for our naval forces before deployment will place
those forces at unacceptably high risk during deployment.
This is military language to mean casualties, those who can be killed
in action.
I am proud of Admiral Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and
General Jones, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, when they say:
Without the ability to train on Vieques, the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle
Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit scheduled for deployment
in February 2000 would not be ready for such deployment ``without
greatly increasing the risk to those men and women who we ask to go in
harm's way.''
Lastly, Admiral Murphy, the Commander of the Sixth Fleet of the Navy,
said: The loss of training on Vieques would ``cost American lives.''
It is a very serious thing. I sometimes listen to the complaints we
hear from some of the Puerto Ricans, but mostly from the people of the
island of Vieques, who say: Wait a minute. How would you like to have
bombs dropped and live ordnances fired where you are?
You can't do anything about that. They actually have a 10-mile buffer
range between the bombing range and where people live.
I happen to represent the State of Oklahoma. We have a very fine
organization there called Fort Sill, where we do all our artillery
training. I have said on the floor here several times before that,
while on Vieques they have a 10-mile buffer zone, we have only a 1-mile
[[Page 30550]]
buffer zone in the State of Oklahoma between a population of 100,000
people living in Lawton and the live-fire range.
So let me just wind up and conclude by saying that many of us,
including Senator Warner, the chairman of our Armed Services Committee,
are asking the President and pleading with him to work out some type of
arrangement to, at the very least during this interim while we are in
recess, provide for training on the island of Vieques because if that
does not happen, we will lose American lives.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Chair be kind enough to tell me what the order
of business is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business until the hour of
12 o'clock and under the minority's time.
Mr. DURBIN. I understand that my colleague, Senator Kennedy from
Massachusetts, will be joining me on the floor shortly. I will
certainly yield at that point.
____________________
VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE COCKPITS OF AIRCRAFT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address several topics
that I think may be of interest to those who are following the debate
in the Senate. One in particular has become a focal point of the news
media across the United States and literally around the world. That was
the crash of the EgyptAir aircraft just a few weeks ago and the loss of
over 200 lives.
I find it interesting, as we try to piece together all the
information to determine what happened in that aircraft disaster, how
limited we are with respect to investigative tools. We have the so-
called black box which has the flight data information. We are poring
through that to try to determine what was happening mechanically on
that plane when it went down. Then we have the audio recording which is
now the focus of all sorts of international speculation. We listen to
that audio recording for sounds, for words, and then try to piece
together this mystery to determine what happened in the cockpit of that
plane which led to this loss of life.
This is more than just to satisfy curiosity. This investigation is
being undertaken, as most are, to determine whether there is something
we can or should do to change the way aircraft are maintained and flown
to protect those who are passengers. These investigations are
critically important. We often come up with information about a
mechanical failure. We then set out to repair it. We decide that planes
won't go back up in the air until that is taken care of. If there is
human error--that will happen in most accidents--we at least get to the
bottom of the equation and understand what is going on.
The thing I find absolutely incredible, in 1999, is that we are
dealing with such primitive tools when it comes to investigating
aircraft disasters. The idea of an audio recording in a cockpit goes
back to the 1930s. That was the state of the art then. But today,
technology is far more advanced and I would suggest that we need to
update plane safety by putting a video camera in the new planes'
cockpits so we can determine what is happening in a crash.
The obvious is not being used. If you walk into a bank, if you walk
into most office buildings, a casino, a convenience store, or stand in
front of an ATM machine, you will be on a video camera which will
reflect your conduct and your activities. Think what a difference it
would make today if there had been a video camera in the cockpit of the
EgyptAir aircraft.
The obvious question is, Why haven't we done this? The technology is
there. It is a question of will. It may be a question of legislation.
That is why I have written not only to the head of the Federal Aviation
Administration as well as the Department of Transportation and the
National Transportation Safety Board, urging them to expedite this
question about whether or not we can safely install a video camera in
the cockpit of aircraft to make certain that if there is an accident,
so that we have another tool available to determine the reason for the
disaster. We wouldn't be involved in all this speculation with the
people of Egypt about the utterance of a prayer and whether that meant
this was a suicide mission or something far different if we had a
videotape we could refer to. We could find out who was at the controls
and what they did at those controls. We would have an obvious clear
answer to the question.
As I went through this, I was amazed. I stopped and thought for a
moment, why in the world are we still stuck with a tape recording of
voices and sounds in the investigation of this aircraft disaster? I am
urging my colleagues, those who feel as I do, to join me in this effort
to make certain we bring the very best technology to the cockpits of
aircraft, not only in the United States but those who serve the United
States, so the day may come that if there is a disaster, we will have a
final and complete answer, not just to satisfy curiosity but, even more
important, to make sure passengers across the world can at least have
some piece of mind knowing we have done everything we can to make
airline safety our top and highest priority.
____________________
CLOSING DAYS OF THE SESSION
Mr. DURBIN. In the closing days of this session--it is interesting--
we have spent almost a year debating 13 appropriations bills. Now we
are trying to bring them to a close. We have some six or seven bills
that will finally be lumped together in a huge package which literally
no single Member of the Senate will ever read.
It will come to the floor. And then weeks afterwards, when people
pore through the details, they will call us in our offices and say: Did
you know there was a paragraph in this bill which has an impact on some
people or some businesses? In all honesty, we don't. We rely on our
leadership and other appropriators. Frankly, we rely on a system that
is flawed, a system that allows this to happen too often. It is an
unfortunate system and, frankly, reflects the fact that this Congress
has been very unproductive.
When Members of the Senate return to their homes and are asked by
average families in their States, what did you accomplish to make life
better for the families of America, we will be hard pressed to point to
any significant thing we have done.
If we pay attention to the polling data of what Americans are worried
about and what families are concerned about, we have missed the boat
entirely. We have missed it entirely, when it comes to the question of
the relationship between American families and their health insurance
companies. Time and time again, when asked, these families respond that
they are concerned about the fact doctors are no longer making
decisions, nurses are no longer making decisions. Decisions are being
made by insurance companies and their clerks.
We are down to the wire. Most of the major issues that are on the
minds of the American public are being buried in this session of the
Congress. Most of the bills, such as the Patients' Bill of Rights, that
could have helped working families are being stifled and gutted. The
Senate passed a bill several months ago which was an embarrassment. It
was, in fact, a protection bill for the insurance companies. It didn't
protect patients. It protected the CEOs of companies that are making
literally millions of dollars off health care in America.
Over the steadfast opposition of the Republican leadership, the House
of Representatives took a different course. They overwhelmingly
approved, 275-151, a bipartisan bill with strong protections for all
privately insured Americans. What a contrast. The Senate came up with
an insurance version
[[Page 30551]]
of the bill; the House came up with a version for American families.
Well, keep hope alive. Can there be a conference? Can we come
together? Can we finally come up with a bill to protect American
families? No. The honest answer is the Republican leadership in the
House and the Senate refuse to convene the conference to come up with
the bill and the House leadership has rigged the naming of conferees so
that their conferees are all members who opposed the House passed bill.
So we leave and close this session at the end of 1999 no better than
when we started. We have nothing to say to the families across America
when they ask whether we have taken any steps to protect them when it
comes to their relationship with these insurance companies.
I am glad 68 Republicans in the House of Representatives broke from
their leadership and voted with the Democrats for a real Patients' Bill
of Rights. The bill the Senate passed on July 15 did absolutely nothing
when it came to protecting Americans and dealing with their concerns
about health insurance.
Let us take a look at some of the differences between the two bills
introduced in the House and the Senate. This chart shows the Senate
Republican bill and the bipartisan bill passed by Republicans and
Democrats in the House of Representatives. It goes through a long
litany of things American families tell us they want to see in their
health insurance policies: protecting all patients, whether they are
employed in a small or large business or bought their own insurance;
the ability to hold plans accountable if they make the wrong decision
about medical care; the definition of medical necessity; access to
specialists; access to out-of-network providers--the list goes on and
on--can a woman keep her OB/GYN as her primary care physician if that
is the person with whom she is comfortable.
Some plans say no. Many women across America think that is a decision
that should be made by them and their doctors. That is in this bill.
And as we go through all of these, we find the bipartisan bill that
passed the House of Representatives basically provides all these
protections.
Look at the scant protections provided by the Senate Republican bill.
You can see why many people across America think we have failed in our
most important mission. The bill passed by the Senate excluded more
than 100 million Americans from basic protections of health insurance
reform. Most of the provisions applied only to the 48 million Americans
in big employer-sponsored plans. It failed to provide basic protection
to millions of others.
In my State, Caterpillar Tractor Company's workers would have been
covered by the Senate bill; Motorola's employees would have been
covered. John Deere's would be covered. But America's small business
employees would be left behind by the Senate Republican bill. A farmer
in Macoupin County, IL, who pays for his own family's insurance, and
pays a lot for it, wouldn't be safe from insurance abuses. Public
school teachers, policemen, women, firemen, and so many others would be
out of luck.
I will return to this in a moment. I will speak to another issue,
which I believe the Senator from Massachusetts is going to address.
That is the perilous situation we find ourselves in in the closing
hours of the session when it comes to the critical question of fairness
in organ allocation.
We have a situation across America where over 4,800 Americans die
every year waiting for an organ transplant. There are people in your
State and mine sitting by the telephone hoping for the call that tells
them they have a chance to live. It is hard to believe this has become
a political issue. In fact, it has. An effort by the Department of
Health and Human Services to make organs available across America to
those in need is being stopped by an organization and a special
interest group that really has put profit ahead of human well-being. I
hope we can address this and address it forcefully. Let it be known on
a bipartisan basis that we want to take the politics and the special
interests out of organ allocation, that our dedication is to the men
and women and children sitting by those telephones waiting for word of
the availability of an organ.
At this point, I yield the floor to my colleague from Massachusetts,
Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 9 minutes remain
until the hour of 12.
____________________
TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives will
take up one of the most important bills to come before this Congress,
now labeled the Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act,
which is intended to move us closer to opening the workplace doors for
the disabled in communities across the country.
It is a sad day when the U.S. Congress finds it necessary to attach a
controversial provision to the legislation that could jeopardize the
opportunity for large numbers of people with disabilities to fulfill
their hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives.
A decade ago, when Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities
Act, we promised our disabled fellow citizens a new and better life in
which disability would no longer put an end to the American dream. Too
often, for too many Americans, that promise has been unfulfilled. The
Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act is basically the
legislation that Senator Jeffords of Vermont and I, Senator Roth, and
Senator Moynihan urged the Senate to accept and had been accepted by
the Senate by a 99-0 vote. Now the title is the Ticket To Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act, and it will dramatically strengthen the
fulfillment of that promise.
We know that millions of disabled men and women in this country want
to work and are able to work. But they are denied the opportunity,
primarily because they lack the continued access to needed health care.
As a result, the Nation is denied their talents and contributions to
our community.
Eliminating the health care barriers to work will help large numbers
of disabled Americans to achieve self-sufficiency and enable them to
become equal partners in the American dream. The Ticket To Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act removes these unfair barriers to work
that face so many Americans with disabilities. It makes health
insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work,
or develops a significant disability while working; it gives people
greater access to the services they need to become successfully
employed; it phases out the loss of cash benefits as income rises,
instead of the unfair sudden cutoff that workers with disabilities face
today; it places work incentives in communities, rather than
bureaucracies, to help workers with disabilities to learn how to obtain
the employment services and support they need.
For far too long, disabled Americans have been left out and left
behind. It is time for us to take the long overdue action needed to
correct the injustices that have unfairly been placed upon those with
disabilities. We should not have this legislation brought down by a
controversial provision that does not belong in this bill--a provision
that is effectively what they call around here a ``poison pill.'' A
provision that endangers the legislation.
I want to say that for a time it looked as if we were going to see a
successful achievement for this legislation, and I want to commend my
colleague and friend, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his
strong leadership, as chairman of our Human Resource Committee. He has
worked long and hard for this legislation. If we are able to achieve
it, his role in support of it and also in its development is enormously
important.
On the unacceptable amendment that I had mentioned, it is the
amendment
[[Page 30552]]
which would effectively undermine the proposal of the Secretary of HHS
on Final Rule for organ transplantation. There is an excellent
editorial in the Washington Post, dated 11-17-99. It puts this issue in
perspective. It says:
Congress has not quite given up the year-long attempt to
block rules that would make the Nation's organ transplant
network more equitable. House leaders are maneuvering to undo
a deal reached by conferees allowing the rules to go into
effect, even threatening to block an unrelated authorization
for research and training at children's hospitals if the
organ rules are not further delayed.
This was written at a time when they were threatening to hold up the
help and assistance that pediatric hospitals need to train
pediatricians, to make sure that pediatric hospitals were going to be
treated fairly and equitably, as other teaching hospitals.
There is broad and wide bipartisan support for the proposal to
support teaching in pediatric hospitals. But that was going to be the
messenger, and the poison pill was going to be the language which, as I
understand, would be a part of the legislation that we will see later
on in the day.
Let me continue with the Post editorial:
The rules issuance last year touched off furious counter-
lobbying by the supporters of the small local transplant
centers who feared that a new system based more on finding
the patients with the most urgent need, and less on keeping
organs near home, would force small centers to close. Never
mind if it also would save lives. Currently, when an organ
becomes available, it is offered locally first and then
regionally. That leads to situations in which people languish
on long waiting lists in some places, while the wait in other
regions is much shorter. The wealthy can get on multiple
waiting lists and fly to wherever a liver or kidney becomes
available. Since some 4,000 people a year die while waiting
for an organ, you would think a proposal to purge the
distribution system of some of its inefficiencies would have
been welcome. Instead, local transplant centers turn to
Congress, which twice attached riders to appropriations bills
delaying the regulations' effective date. They also turned to
State governments, many of which passed laws that bar and
prevent organs from being transferred out of State. Finally,
conferees reached a compromise that would delay the rules 6
more weeks, then let them go into effect.
Mr. President, that agreement was broken with the language that has
been included on the disability legislation. By breaking that
agreement, the lives of tens of thousands of desperately ill people are
put at risk. Every year, thousands of people die while waiting for
transplantation--and at least one person every day dies because the
transplantation system is not equitable. The language included on the
disability legislation violates fundamental fairness--the fairness of
the bargaining process in which an agreement was reached between the
Secretary and the appropriators, and the fairness of the organ
allocation system.
Mr. President, I will take only a moment or two more--because the
time is moving on--to refer to the Institute of Medicine report, which
really is the authoritative report on this whole issue. I will mention
relevant parts of the institute report, and focus on the conclusion
that the Institute of Medicine had on the whole question of developing
rules on fairness for organ transplantation--the question of how to
best address the moral issues and the ability of people to be able to
be treated fairly under a system of organ distribution.
The Institute of Medicine's analysis shows that patients who have a
less urgent need for a transplant sometimes receive transplants before
more severely ill patients who are served by different OPOs. There is
no credible evidence that implementing the HHS's recommendation would
result in closure of smaller transplant centers.
Mr. President, that fear about the fate of small centers is the heart
of the argument of those that have put on this rider. A rider that has
no business being put on this legislation.
The Institute of Medicine analysis further found that there is no
reason to conclude that minority and low-income patients would be less
likely to obtain organ transplants as a result. Likewise, data does not
support the assertion that potential donors and their families would
decline to make donations because an organ might be used outside the
donor's immediate geographical area.
The Institute of Medicine recommended that HHS--and this is on page
12 of the report--should exercise the legitimate oversight
responsibilities assigned to it by the National Organ Transplant Act,
and articulated in the Final Rule, to manage the system of organ
procurement and transplantation in the public interest.
Federal oversight is needed to ensure that high standards of equity
and quality are met. Those high standards of equity and quality were
included in the Secretary's excellent recommendation. By tampering with
those, we are undermining enormously powerful and important health
policy issues. And this extremely controversial rider is added onto
underlying legislation which is so important to millions of disabled
individuals in our country. Individuals who thought--when this
legislation moved through with very strong bipartisan support in the
Senate, and then through the final months, has moved through the House
of Representatives, and has the strong support of President Clinton,
and has had the bipartisan support here in the Congress--thought that
there was going to be a new day for those who have physical or mental
challenges and disabilities to have the ability to participate in the
workforce and become more productive, useful, active, and independent
citizens in this country, and also to be able to contribute to the
Nation in a more significant way.
I certainly hope we can work through this process because the
legislation, which as I mentioned, has been completed and supported in
a bipartisan way, is a lifeline to millions of Americans and deserves
passage.
I see my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords, who has been
instrumental in having this legislation advanced. I am glad to see him
on the floor at this time. I hope he will address the Senate on this
issue.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
The Senator from Vermont.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning
business be extended until 1 p.m. with the time equally divided in the
usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
I would be happy if he desires to more fully discuss what we have done.
I was not here to hear his full speech. I thank him. We have worked
together. He was here years before I came to the Senate. In 1975, we
had the initial big step forward for the disabled and were able to set
up the 94142, as it was called then, to make sure all children got a
good education, and specially those with disabilities.
As we have walked through this over a period of many years, we have
fought year by year to remove block by block what the disabled
community has had to face. Finally, we are at that point where we are
opening the final door to allow them to do what all disabled want to
do, and that is to have a meaningful life, to be able to seek
employment, and get employment without having the doors slammed because
they lost their benefits.
I can't thank the Senator enough for what he has done. Also, there
are others, some who have left this body, such as Bob Dole, who was
another leader for the disabled. I praise him also for the work he did,
and especially in this area where he helped us introduce the bill that
we were so happy to be able to cosponsor and to see it put into the
final steps.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts profusely for all he has done.
I would be happy to yield for any further comment.
[[Page 30553]]
Mr. KENNEDY. As I mentioned earlier, this has been a continuing
process beginning with the passage of the Americans With Disabilities
Act, when we put into law protections for the disabled so they wouldn't
be discriminated against in the workplace based upon their disability.
As the Senator knows very well, that has been enormously important
and has been effective. But as the Senator has pointed out, with this
legislation complimenting what has been achieved with the Americans
With Disabilities Act, we can open an entirely new dawn for millions
who have some disability.
As we are getting closer to achieving that, I am sure the Senator
agrees with me that when we finally have the President's signature on
this, there will be people saying: What has taken them so long? This is
such a commonsense approach. But as the Senator knows, this has been a
battle every step of the way. There have been those who have felt that
if we do this for this particular group, we might be establishing some
form of precedent that may be used somewhere down the road, and worry
if we know where it might lead.
There are a number of strong negative voices out there. Nonetheless,
I think with the leadership of the Senator from Vermont and others--he
mentioned certainly Senator Dole, Senator Weicker, and our good friend
on our human resources committee, Tom Harkin, who is generally
recognized in this body as one of the real authorities on disability
issues--this has been a common effort of this institution. It is an
area of public policy where this institution has done what it is
challenged to do; and that is to find common ground in a bipartisan way
to address a common concern that affects millions of Americans and make
progress on it.
I again thank the Senator from Vermont for the opportunity to work
with him. We still have a ways to go to make sure the legislation
actually reaches the people and addresses the regulations in the way it
is intended. But I think this is going to be enormously important--and
I hope soon to finally have the President's signature on this
legislation. We are much closer today than we have ever been in the
past.
I join with the Senator to thank him for his good work. We hope to
see that this is actually put into place and implemented so it will
benefit those that it should benefit.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts for those comments and for all the work he has done.
I am delighted to stand before you today, to speak about an extremely
important piece of legislation. The bill we are sending to the
President today, a bill I know he is eager to sign into law, will have
a tremendous impact on people with disabilities. In fact, this
legislation is the most important piece of legislation for the
disability community since the Americans with Disabilities Act.
My reason for sponsoring this particular piece of legislation is
quite simple. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 addresses a
fundamental flaw in current law. Today, individuals with disabilities
are forced to make a choice . . . an absurd choice. They must choose
between working and receiving health care. Under current federal law,
if people with disabilities work and earn over $700 per month, they
will lose cash payments and health care coverage under Medicaid or
Medicare. This is health care coverage that they need. This is health
care coverage that they cannot get in the private sector. This is not
right.
Once enacted, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 will allow
individuals with disabilities, in states that elect to participate,
continuing access to health care when they return to work or remain
working. In addition, those individuals who seek it, will have access
to job training and job placement assistance from a wider range of
providers than is available at this time. Currently, there are 9.5
million individuals with disabilities across the country who receive
cash payments and health care coverage from the federal government.
Approximately 24,000 of these individuals live in my home state,
Vermont. Once enacted, the Work Incentives Improvement Act will
actually save the federal government money. For example, let's assume
that 200 Social Security disability beneficiaries in each state return
to work and forgo cash payments. That would be 10,000 individuals out
of the 9.5 million individuals with disabilities across the country.
The annual savings to the Federal Treasury in cash payments for just
these 10,000 people would be $133,550,000! Imagine the savings to the
Federal Treasury if this number were higher. Clearly, the Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is fiscally responsible legislation.
I began work on this bill in 1996. Though it was a long and sometimes
difficult task, many hands made light work. Senator Kennedy, Ranking
Member on the HELP Committee, joined me in March of 1997. Senators Roth
and Moynihan, Chairman and Ranking Member on the Finance Committee
signed on as committed partners in December of 1998. Last January, 35
of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, joined us in
introducing S. 331, the Senate version of this legislation. One week
later, in a Finance Committee hearing, we heard compelling testimony
from our friend, former Senator Dole, a strong supporter of this
legislation. A month later, we marked this legislation out of the
Finance Committee with an overwhelming majority in favor of the bill.
Finally, on June 15th, with a total of 80 cosponsors, we passed this
legislation on the floor of the United States Senate, with a unanimous
vote of 99-0.
Four months later, over 35 of our colleagues in the House of
Representatives, took to the floor of their chamber, and spoke
eloquently for their version of this legislation. Later that day, the
bill passed the floor of the House with a vote of 412-9. Since then,
the Senate and House Conferees have been working diligently in effort
to reach common ground. I am very pleased today, that the differences
in policy in the two different bills have been resolved and consensus
has been reached on a conference agreement. This agreement does not
compromise the original intent of the legislation, retaining key
provisions from S. 331.
From my perspective, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
represents a natural and important progression in federal policy for
individuals with disabilities. That is, federal policy increasingly
reflects the premise that individuals with disabilities are cherished
by their families, valued and respected in their communities, and are
an asset and resource to our national economy. Today, most federal
policy promotes opportunities for these individuals, regardless of the
severity of their disabilities, to contribute to their maximum
potential--at home, in school, at work, and in the community.
I have been committed to improving the lives of individuals with
disabilities throughout my Congressional career. Providing a solid
elementary and secondary education for children with disabilities, so
that they will be equipped, along with their peers, to benefit from
post-secondary and employment opportunities is crucial. When I came to
Congress in 1975, Public Law 94-142, the Education for all Handicapped
Children Act, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), was enacted into law. IDEA assures each child with a
disability, a free and appropriate public education. I am proud to be
one of the original drafters of this legislation which has reshaped
what we offer to and expect of children with disabilities in our
nation's schools.
In addition, I have been committed to providing job training
opportunities for individuals with disabilities. In 1978, I played a
central role in ensuring access to programs and services offered by the
federal government for individuals with disabilities through an
amendment to the Rehabilitation Act. I believe that this amendment
alone laid the foundation for significant legislation that followed,
including the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with
Disabilities Act of 1988, now the Assistive Technology Act of
[[Page 30554]]
1998, both of which I drafted. Most importantly, this legislation
opened the doors for the most comprehensive piece of legislation of
all, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This legislation
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment,
public services, public accommodations, transportation, and telephone
service.
These laws have forever changed the social landscape of America. They
serve as models for other countries who recognize that their citizens
with disabilities are an untapped resource. In our country, individuals
with disabilities are seen everywhere, doing everything. Just this past
weekend, thousands of physically disabled individuals participated in
the New York City Marathon, as they have been doing for years. The
expectations that these people set for themselves and the standards we
apply to them have increasingly been raised, and now in many
circumstances equal those set and applied to other individuals.
Unfortunately, one major inequity remains. That is, the loss of
health care coverage if an individual on the Social Security disability
rolls chooses to work. Individuals with disabilities want to work. They
have told me this. In fact, a Harris survey found that 72 percent of
Americans with disabilities want to work, but only one-third of them do
work. With today's enactment of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of
1999, individuals with disabilities will no longer need to worry about
losing their health care if they choose to work a forty-hour week, to
put in overtime, or to pursue career advancement. Individuals with
disabilities are sitting at home right now, waiting for this
legislation to become law. Having a job will provide them with a sense
of self-worth. Having a job will allow them to contribute to our
economy. Having a job will provide them with a living wage, which is
not what one has through Social Security.
In addition to continuing health care coverage and providing job
training opportunities for individuals with disabilities, this
legislation offers many other substantial long-term benefits. The Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 will give us access to data
regarding the numbers, the health care needs, and the characteristics
of individuals with disabilities who work. Furthermore, this
legislation will provide the federal government as well as private
employers and insurers, the facts upon which to craft appropriate
future health care options for working individuals with disabilities.
It will allow employers and insurers to factor in the effects of
changing health care needs over time for this population. Hopefully, it
will even improve the way in which employers operate return-to-work
programs. Through increased tracking of data, we will learn the
benefits of intervening with appropriate health care, when an
individual initially acquires a disability. We will also learn the
value of continuing health care to a working individual with a
disability. If an individual, even with a severe disability, knows that
he or she has access to uninterrupted, appropriate health care, the
individual will be a healthier, happier and thus more productive
worker.
I would like to take the time now to briefly outline the major
provisions which have remained as part of this legislation. The
conference agreement retains the two state options of establishing
Medicaid buy-ins for individuals on Social Security disability rolls,
who choose to work and exceed income limits in current law, as well as
for those who show medical improvement, but still have an underlying
disability. For working individuals with disabilities, the conference
agreement extends access, beyond what is allowed in current law, to
Medicare. In addition, the legislation before us today retains several
key provisions from S. 331, including, the authority to fund Medicaid
demonstration projects to provide access to health care to working
individuals with a potentially severe disability; the State
Infrastructure Grant Program, to assist states in reaching and helping
individuals with disabilities who work; work incentive planners and
protection and advocacy provisions; and finally, most of the provisions
in the Ticket to Work Program.
In order to control the cost of this legislation, compromises were
made. Although the purpose of the State Infrastructure Grant Program
and the Medicaid Demonstration Grant Program remain the same, the terms
and conditions of these grants were altered in conference. As a result,
states are not required to offer a Medicaid buy-in option to
individuals with disabilities on Social Security, who work and exceed
income limits in current law, prior to receiving an Infrastructure or a
Medicaid Demonstration Grant.
Also in Conference, the extended period of eligibility for Medicare
for working individuals with disabilities has been changed from 24 to
78 months. During this extended period, the federal government is to
cover the cost of the Part A premium of Medicare for a working
individual with a disability, who is eligible for Medicare. S. 331
would have extended such coverage for an individual's working life, if
he or she became eligible during a 6-year time period.
I would like to note two changes to the Ticket to Work program made
during Conference. The new legislation shifts the appointment authority
for the members of the Work Incentives Advisory Panel from the
Commissioner of Social Security to the President and Congress. In
addition, language regarding the reimbursements between employment
networks and state vocational rehabilitation agencies was deleted in
Conference. The new legislation gives the Commissioner of Social
Security the authority to address these matters through regulation.
Although several changes have been made from the original Work
Incentives bill, I am still very pleased with what we are adopting
today. This is legislation that makes sense, and it will contribute to
the well-being of millions of Americans, including those with
disabilities and their friends, their families, and their co-workers.
Today's vote provides us the opportunity to bring responsible change to
federal policy and to eliminate a misguided result of the current
system--if you don't work, you get health care; if you do work, you
don't get health care. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
makes living the American dream a reality for millions of individuals
with disabilities, who will no longer be forced to choose between the
health care coverage they so strongly need and the economic
independence they so dearly desire.
In closing, I would like to thank the many people who contributed to
reaching this day. I especially thank the conferees, Majority Leader
Lott, Senators Roth and Moynihan, and in the House, Majority Leader
Armey, and Congressmen Archer, Bliley, Rangel, and Dingell. I also
thank their staff who worked so closely in effort to reach this day.
From my staff, I thank Pat Morrissey, Lu Zeph, Leah Menzies, Chris
Crowley, and Kim Monk. I want to recognize and extend my appreciation
to the staff members of my three fellow sponsors of this bill; Connie
Garner in Senator Kennedy's office, Jennifer Baxendell and Alexander
Vachon with Senator Roth, and Kristen Testa, John Resnick, and Edwin
Park from Senator Moynihan's staff. Finally, I wish to thank Ruth Ernst
with the Senate Legislative Counsel for her drafting skill and
substantive expertise, her willingness to meet time tables, and most of
all, her patience.
In addition to staff, we received countless hours of assistance and
advice from the Work Incentives Task Force of the Consortium for
Citizens with Disabilities. These individuals worked tirelessly to
educate Members of Congress about the need for and the effects of this
legislation.
Finally, I would like to urge my colleagues in both chambers to set
aside any concerns about peripheral matters and to focus on the central
provisions of this legislation. Let's focus on what today's vote will
mean to the 9.5 million individuals with disabilities across the
nation. At last, these individuals will be able to work, to preserve
their health, to support their families, to become independent, and
most importantly, to contribute to their communities, the economy, and
the nation. We are making a statement, a noble
[[Page 30555]]
statement and we must do the right thing. Let's send this bill to the
President.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, how
much time remains in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). We are in morning business until
1 o'clock, with the time equally divided between the two sides.
Mr. DURBIN. The remaining time on the Democratic side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-six minutes.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE LANDFILL
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we reflect at the end of this
legislative session on our accomplishments, it is my belief that there
are very few things we can go back home to tell the American people we
achieved.
100 Senators and 435 Members of the House of Representatives came to
Washington, DC, at the beginning of the year and listened closely to
President Clinton's State of the Union Address where he outlined a
program and some objectives, many stood and cheered. The applause lines
were frequent during the course of that speech. People of both
political parties left the State of the Union Address saying they were
now energized and invigorated to go forward and address the issues
facing America, and we began the legislative process.
For me, it is the 17th time I have been through this. It is hard for
me to remember another session of the Congress as unproductive as this
session of the Congress. When it came to issues that the people and
families across America care about, this Congress refused to do
anything. This wasn't a titanic struggle between the Republican
conservative agenda and the progressive agenda of the Democrats where
we brought issues to the floor and fought over amendments from one side
to the other. That is what we are supposed to see on Capitol Hill. That
didn't happen because there was no agenda on the other side. The
Republican leadership had no agenda.
Recently, a Republican Congressman said we considered this year a
``legislative timeout.'' When timeouts occur during the course of an
NFL football game, most people leave the room and go to the
refrigerator; if America's families had left the room and gone to the
refrigerator, they would have spent a lot of time there this year if
they were waiting for Congress to do something. We didn't do it. We
didn't respond. Now we have to go home, as we should, and explain it.
Let me state some of the issues we failed to act on this year, issues
that make a difference to families across America. The Patients' Bill
of Rights: The relationship of a person, a family, a business, to their
health insurance company. That is pretty basic. When we asked America's
families, they said that is the No. 1 concern. We want to make certain,
when we go in a doctor's office, that the doctor makes the decision,
not some clerk at an insurance company off in Topeka, KS.
I know from my experience in Illinois, as most others know from their
own personal experiences, many times doctors are being overruled. I can
recall a doctor who said to me a mother came in the office with an
infant and the baby had been complaining of a headache on the right
side of his head for several months. The doctor asked if it was always
complaining about one side of the head, and the mother said yes. The
doctor thought: I had better take an MRI to see if there might be a
brain tumor. Before he said that to the mother, he looked at her file
for the name of her insurance company. He said, excuse me, left the
room, got on the phone and called the insurance company. He said: The
mother presents herself with an infant complaining of headaches for
several weeks and months on one side of the head. It is my medical
decision and opinion we should have an MRI to determine whether there
is a possibility of a brain tumor.
The voice on the other end of the phone said: No; no. The insurance
company that pays for the bills declines that procedure.
That doctor had to walk back to that room and not even tell the
mother what had happened. He was bound by his contract not even to
disclose that his medical judgment had been overruled by an insurance
company clerk.
That is the state of health care in America. Families who go into
those doctors' offices, confident the patient-doctor relationship is a
sacred one that can be trusted, are beginning to think twice. They
appeal to Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans: Do something;
restore our faith in our medical system. Restore quality health care.
Pass a Patients' Bill of Rights.
No, not in this Congress. This Congress and the Senate on July 15
passed a bill friendly to the insurance companies--as if they needed
another friend on Capitol Hill--a bill which, frankly, didn't address
the most basic issues families worry over every single day.
I won't even get into the question of expanding medical insurance
coverage. We wouldn't even utter those words on Capitol Hill for fear
it might bring down charges of radicalism, the idea that the 44 million
uninsured Americans who grow in number every year might have their
Government care enough to do something. We are not in that business
with the Republican-controlled Congress. We don't talk about those
things--like the aunt who is somewhere off in the distance, never
referred to by a family.
We don't talk about medical coverage for all Americans. Families talk
about it. Families talk about their kids turning 23 years of age,
coming off the health insurance policies of their moms and dads, and
whether they have a chance to be covered. Families talk about whether
or not someone with a preexisting condition can find insurance in this
country. We don't talk about it in Congress, no. The insurance
companies don't want Members to talk about it. The special interests
ruled this session of Congress.
We see in the Republican legislative landfill of the 106th Congress
the Patients' Bill of Rights, an issue we failed to address.
The nuclear test ban treaty: Just a few weeks ago, possible one of
the worst decisions made by Congress in a decade, a decision to turn
down a treaty where the United States not only would have the moral
leadership in the world but enact a treaty that backs it up and says to
countries around the world: If you are not a nuclear power, don't
become one. If you have nuclear weapons, don't test them. Let's stop
this nuclear arms race in place.
This nuclear test ban treaty failed in the Senate on a largely
partisan vote. It was a sad day for America. It was a sad day for a
country which has tried to lead the world and say to countries such as
India and Pakistan, stop what you are doing, don't keep this arms race
going and develop nuclear weapons that could mushroom into a war that
would destroy not only people in those two countries but in many other
nations. This Congress, this Senate, failed to enact a nuclear test ban
treaty.
We failed to enact any legislation to deal with school construction.
Take a look at the numbers: There will be more kids showing up for
classes in the next 10 years than we have been serving in the last 10
or 20 years. Those kids need teachers, they need classrooms, they need
modern schools, schools where they have the electricity to make certain
they can sustain the computer technology, schools that are safe,
schools where kids have a positive learning environment. When the
President made this proposal for school construction, it was greeted
with disbelief and disapproval on the other side of the aisle. We have
done nothing in this session of Congress to deal with school
construction.
Campaign finance reform: Is there a more basic issue for the future
of Congress? Will we ever change the current system which has become a
bidding war among special interests where Members of the Senate such as
myself literally have to be on the phone day and night, begging for
money for a campaign that costs millions of dollars? If you are not
independently wealthy and cannot write a big check to sustain your own
campaign in the
[[Page 30556]]
Senate, you spend most of your time begging for money. Is that what
Americans want in the Senate or the House of Representatives? I don't
think so.
A bipartisan bill--Senator John McCain, a Republican, of Arizona, and
Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin--said we can clean up
this system, but this Congress failed to enact meaningful campaign
finance reform. Only 55 Senators--45 Democrats and 10 Republicans--came
forward in support of this most basic change in reform.
As part of the legislative landfill of the 106th Congress,
Republicans were successful in not passing campaign finance reform.
Minimum wage increase? The minimum wage in this country is $5.15 an
hour. When you calculate that out, it means a little over $10,000 a
year in income. Can any of us consider a life on $10,000 a year and
what it would mean? Keep in mind, these are men and women who get up
and go to work every single day and make $5.15 an hour. Inflation eats
away at it, at a wage that was already too low to be livable. We tried
this year to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents an hour each year
over the next 2 years, saying it is only fair that working men and
women have that help from their Government. We were resisted on the
Republican side of the aisle. Ultimately, they came up with their own
package. They do not do it over 2 years; they do it over 3 years, which
costs those wage earners $1,200 a year in income to take that approach.
Mr. President, $1,200? You might say that is not that big a deal. It is
if you are making $10,000 a year; it is a very big deal.
The Republican approach representing special interests in stopping
the minimum wage increase prevailed. They also added in there some tax
breaks that, frankly, cannot be taken seriously because they did not
pay for them. There we have it--the minimum wage issue into the
landfill.
This is one you will remember, the juvenile crime control bill. You
will remember it because it came up right after Columbine High School.
It was an effort by the Senate to pass a sensible gun control law. When
the final vote was cast, it was 50-50. Vice President Al Gore came to
the floor, broke the tie, and we enacted the bill which said as
follows: When people buy guns at gun shows, we want to know if they
have a history of violent mental illness or a criminal record.
In an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids, we
passed a sensible gun control measure, sent it across the Rotunda to
the House of Representatives, where it literally died because the
National Rifle Association and the gun lobby decided they did not want
to pass any gun control bills this session. This Nation, which was
shocked by the occurrences at Columbine and so many other schools, had
a chance to pass sensible gun control legislation and failed. We will
go home now to face our constituents, many of whom live in cities where
gun violence is a commonplace occurrence, and have to tell them this
Congress failed to pass any sensible gun control legislation.
Smaller class size--thank goodness the President prevailed in his
negotiations. The President's goal, and one I share, is to reduce class
size in the early grades so quality teachers can meet with kids right
when they are starting their education and help them along. You take
the kids who are the best and the brightest and you give them the
biggest challenges. You take those who may be suffering from some
learning disability, you diagnose their problem and try to deal with it
at an early age. You take the kids who do not learn as quickly and give
them special attention. For teachers to achieve that, they need smaller
class sizes. If you put 30 kids in a classroom, the teacher is lucky to
maintain discipline, let alone meet the special needs of individual
students.
So the President said, and I agree: We need to focus 100,000 teachers
into reducing class size across America. Until a few days ago, the
Republicans had opposed this. Finally, the President prevailed.
Finally, we are moving forward on this initiative which we started last
year that serves school districts all across America, not just in the
cities but in the towns and suburbs alike.
Look at the efforts to help family farmers. We finally came through
with that on a bipartisan basis. It is one of the things we achieved
this year. But it begs the question, to leave it at that, because next
year if we do not change the basic Federal farm policy, the so-called
Freedom to Farm Act, we are going to see a rerun, unfortunately, of
what we saw this year--farmers literally struggling to survive. As
prices across the world have plummeted, they cannot make a decent
income.
In my home State of Illinois, a State that has a very strong farm
sector, just a few years ago the average net farm income for a farmer
was about $48,000 a year. This year it will be about $25,000. That is
about half. But $13,000 of the $25,000 will come from Federal payments.
The other about $12,000 will come in farm operations. We cannot sustain
a farm economy where half the income of farmers in Illinois and
Minnesota or Nebraska comes from the Federal Treasury. The law has to
be changed, and this year we did not take up a change in the law as we
should have.
The last point I would like to make before I yield to my colleague
from Minnesota is this. The Patients' Bill of Rights is an issue we
have to return to as the highest priority in the next Congress. When
you consider the lives of people who are dependent on this action, you
understand the severity of it. I will tell one quick story.
Take a look at this little girl here. She is Theresa. She lives in
Yorkville, IL. Her dad is a police officer and her mom stays at home to
look after her. She suffers from a rare disease known as spinal
muscular atrophy. It is a very debilitating disease. As you can see,
she is on a ventilator, and I met a couple of kids just like this. This
is what her mother says:
She was hospitalized from September 2nd last year until
February 15 of this year due to fighting the insurance
company for certain provisions we could not do without in our
home.
We had to fight and fight with the insurance company for
things the doctors had said were needed [for Theresa.] So we
fought for 2\1/2\ months. We eventually did get everything
that we needed, except it was a very long battle.
Can you imagine having your family separated that long because the
insurance company did not want to help?
Theresa caught RSV in the hospital while we were waiting
for the appeal to go through. That is why she now has [a
ventilator and tracheotomy.]
That is a real life family. Theresa's dad is a policeman. Theresa and
her family would not be protected by the Republican version of the
Patients' Bill of Rights. They would not have the benefit of an appeals
process in a timely fashion so they could get a good answer, a sensible
medical answer for this little girl. Instead, they are embroiled in
month after month of weary debate with the insurance company. That is
health care in America for too many American families. This Congress
has failed, utterly failed to address this critical issue.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. We
are going from side to side.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I wonder if I can ask unanimous
consent to follow the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I inquire of the Chair, it
is my understanding we had until the hour of 1 o'clock equally divided.
I ask how much time is remaining on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Republican side, there are 22 minutes
37 seconds. On the Democratic side, there are 9 minutes 33 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Minnesota
will be recognized following the Senator from Kentucky.
____________________
THE TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the work
incentives and ticket to work legislation.
[[Page 30557]]
This is a day I have looked forward to for a long time.
It is a great day for the disabled in America. By passing this
legislation, we are going to make it easier for them to return to work
and become self-sufficient. We are going to give those who want to try
to return to work the tools they need to support themselves and to
escape from the dependency on a monthly Government check.
For years, the Social Security disability program has provided a
vital safety net to assist those who fall on hard times and need help
when they become sick or injured and cannot support themselves. It has
done this job well. But for the many disabled people who have wanted to
return to work and could be able to work, the disability program has
not worked as well. It has not properly equipped them to return to the
workforce. It has not given them the tools they need to move off the
disability rolls. In fact, fewer than 1 percent of those who go on the
disability rolls--that is currently 4.5 million people--never return to
work because the program does not provide an adequate support network
or resources for these Americans to move back into the workforce.
For these disabled people, the disability program has become a black
hole. Once they fall in, they cannot escape. The bill we hope to pass
today or tomorrow finally gives these Americans new hope, the ladder
they need to climb out of that hole. The Ticket To Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act modernizes the disability program and moves
it into the modern age and provides more options for the disabled who
want to work. It provides them with a ticket that can be used to help
acquire skills to reenter the workforce.
Under the old system, these workers had only one option if they
wanted to return to work; they had to work through their State
vocational rehabilitation programs. This option will still be open to
them, but now they will also be able to use their ``ticket'' to go to
other provider networks and employers to obtain skills and jobs. In
short, the ``ticket'' expands opportunity for training and choices for
rehabilitation for the disabled, and gives them the ability to tap into
the power of the free market.
This legislation also addresses the most pressing need for most of
those who want to leave the disability rolls and return to work--the
availability of adequate health care. Many of these potential workers
continue to require a high degree of medical care even after they
return to work. Obtaining this care--and paying for it--is often a high
hurdle to cross, especially for those who move back to the workplace in
entry and lower-level positions. Under the bill we are dealing with
today, we expand continued Medicare coverage for the disabled and also
increase Medicaid funding to the States to help them address the
problems.
All in all, this bill is win-win. It is a winner for the disabled
community and a winner for the American taxpayers and all of us who pay
Social Security taxes. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that
for every 1 percent of disability recipients who return to work, the
Social Security disability trust fund saves $3 billion. That is serious
money. If this legislation only works partly as well as we expect, it
will make a tremendous difference for the future of the trust fund and
our ability to look after the neediest Americans.
It's been almost 5 years since Congress began looking into problems
with the disability program. In 1995, when I was the chairman of the
House Social Security Subcommittee, we began holding hearings on
possible changes we could make to Social Security to help the disabled.
After those hearings, former Congresswoman Barbara Kenelley and myself
wrote reform legislation that passed in the House in 1998 by a vote of
410-1. While my bill died in the Senate last year because Senator
Kennedy put a hold on my bill and some shenanigans by the White House,
it is at the core of the legislation we are passing today and I am very
proud of that. We have worked very hard to make sure the ticket-to-work
portion of this reflects the bill that passed the House last year 410-
1.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. It will
truly make a difference for many Americans who need it the most, and I
think it will stand as one of the most significant pieces of
legislation to pass during this Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
____________________
NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in a while--though it is not clear
when--it is my understanding that Congressman Obey from Wisconsin--and
I see Senator Feingold from Wisconsin on the floor right now--is in the
House with any number of different motions to adjourn before this
conference report is acted upon.
We will eventually get this huge omnibus conference report. Those of
us from the midwest dairy States are indignant about what has been
done. It goes beyond dairy. Later on, believe me, we are going to have
plenty of time to talk about dairy farmers. We are going to talk about
what it means to dairy farmers, what it means to our States, and what
it means to the country when, in a conference committee, provisions
that extend the Northeast Dairy Compact and also block what Secretary
Glickman was trying to do with the milk marketing order reform are put
into the overall bill.
What I want to focus on is the process. To focus on the process, one
might say, is a little bit too inside Washington politics, but I do not
think so because actually, I say to my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans alike, this is, in a way, what makes people most
distrustful of what we do.
By the way, I am not going to argue that everything we do should be
looked upon with suspicion by citizens. I am not going to engage in an
across-the-board indiscriminate bashing of the whole political process.
But I will say, if people do not believe in the process, they do not
believe in the product.
Again, what has happened, in all due respect to the negotiators, is
by not getting the work done on these appropriations bills and by
putting all of this into an omnibus bill, we have had a few people
negotiating. If the majority party in a conference committee wants to
roll the minority party, they can do so. That is what they have done in
the House by basically putting in this provision that extends the
Northeast Dairy Compact and blocks the milk marketing order reform.
We had a vote on this in the Senate. We voted against extending the
dairy compact. It was a square and fair debate and vote. Then, in a
conference committee, completely unrelated to the appropriations bills,
completely unrelated to what the scope of the conference committee was
supposed to be, these provisions were put back in the bill in the dark
of night. House Majority Leader Armey announced they had done it, and
Senate Majority Leader Lott announced the provision was in. There was
never debate and discussion. They tucked into the conference report
this huge monstrosity of a bill that hardly any of us have had a chance
to read yet, which will be coming over here sometime.
I come to the floor to say to Congressman Obey in the House: I
applaud your efforts. What we have is raw politics--just get this
through. That is what they have done with this Northeast Dairy Compact.
They could not do it on the floor of the Senate. They stuck it in a
conference report. They did it in the dead of night. They did it
outside any public scrutiny. And now they present it to us in a
conference report as a fait accompli. They set up a continuing
resolution that goes into next week.
They figure out ways of jamming people, and it is unclear as to what
leverage we have left. But, as Congressman Obey is doing in the House,
I am sure those of us who are from Wisconsin and Minnesota in the
Senate intend to speak out. We intend to be very clear about what has
happened, and we will do all we can as Senators. We will go from there.
I say to my colleagues that almost as much as the final product, I
came to
[[Page 30558]]
the floor of the Senate to strongly dissent from the way it was done.
I understand the rules. I understand what it is all about when people
have figured out a way to roll Senators. I think that is what the
majority leader, the Senate majority leader, and House Majority Leader
Armey have done. I think that is what the Republicans have done in this
conference committee. There is no question about it.
But I want people in Minnesota to know that we will continue to speak
out about this, even as we see less and less opportunities for our
leverage. We will fight in whatever way we can. We will certainly not
be silent about this.
When this bill comes over, I would think, I say to my colleague from
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, we can probably expect a considerable
amount of discussion about not only the impact on dairy farmers and
what it is going to mean for a lot of people who are going to go under
who are already struggling enough, but I think also, I say to Senator
Feingold, who has been such a reformer, the way it has been done, the
whole process, which I think is profoundly antidemocratic, with a small
``d''--not up-or-down votes, late at night, tucked into a report; by
whom, when, how, not at all clear, and then design rules in such a way
you can just roll it through--we will certainly be speaking out loudly
and clearly about it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
____________________
A PRODUCTIVE SESSION AND ISSUES FACING AMERICA
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while presiding and listening to some of
my distinguished colleagues talking about the lack of productivity of
this session of the legislature, there are a few things that were very
productive and that we can be very proud of when we go home and say we
were able to get certain things done.
Before doing that, though, and to ensure I get one point out before
using up the time that is allotted, the distinguished Senator from
Illinois named a number of issues that he thought were somewhat
disgraceful--for example, the fact that we do not have more gun control
legislation.
Maybe because of my roots back in Oklahoma, I find it very difficult
to understand this mentality, that somehow guns are the culprit as
opposed to the people, and somehow that honest, law-abiding Americans
should have to be disarmed, should have to give up their guns, while
the criminal element would not be giving up their guns.
Time and time again, every survey that has been done, every study
that has taken place, has come to the conclusion that the problems that
we have are of a criminal element. There are people out there who are
not getting adequately punished, and they will continue to have
firearms.
I will just make one statement. It seems incredibly naive to me
anyone could believe that if we pass a law that makes it illegal for
all citizens to own guns, somehow the criminal element, who by their
very definition and nature, are criminals, will comply with the law.
Also, it seems very frustrating to me that we have a President of the
United States who wants to have all kinds of legislation to take away
guns from law-abiding citizens and at the same time turns 16 terrorists
loose on the streets of America; that we have a President of the United
States who will make speeches--as this President made some 133 times,
including in two State of the Union Messages--that now, for the first
time in contemporary history, the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age, there is not one--I repeat, not one--missile aimed at
American children tonight. When he made that statement, he knew full
well that in at least one country, China, there were a minimum of at
least 13 American cities that were targeted at that very moment. So we
are living in a very dangerous world.
I listened to the concerns that we have on the nuclear test ban
treaty. As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I would like to kind of lead into that to at least
explain to thinking people that we did the right thing by not
unilaterally disarming with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is
not verifiable.
First of all, I can say--and I do not think anyone can challenge this
statement--we are now in the most threatened position that we have been
in, in the history of America. By that, I mean for things that have
happened in the last 7 years in three broad categories.
First of all, we have a President of the United States who, through
his veto messages, starting in 1993 in vetoing the defense
authorization bills, and then succeeding bills since that time, has
done so, so that we would have to cut down the size of our military, so
that we now have ended up having a force strength of one-half of what
we had in 1991 and 1992 during the Persian Gulf war.
It is not a matter of the President vetoing defense authorization
bills and taking money out of our defense system to put into his
favorite domestic social programs, but at the same time he has deployed
our troops to places all over the Earth where we have no national
security interests. So now we have troops in Bosnia.
I remember in December of 1995, when we were on the floor trying to
pass a resolution of disapproval, to stop the President from sending
our rare military assets to places such as Bosnia. We lost it by three
votes. The President said: Let me do this. If we defeat this
resolution, and if we get to send troops into Bosnia, I promise they
will be home for Christmas 1996. Here we are. We are getting close to
Christmas 1999 and the troops are still not home. There is no end in
sight.
We have the same thing in Kosovo. We have had serious problems. I
have gone over to Kosovo, I am sure, more than any other Member has,
only to find out this is a war that has been going on for 600 years, a
war where the two sides alternate in who is the good guy and who is the
bad guy. Ethnic cleansing has taken place historically for 600 years on
both sides; both on the Serbian side and the Albanian side.
So it was a horrible awakening I had when I was over there, right
after we went in there with cruise missiles, where we had refugees in
different places such as Tirana, Albania. I can remember walking
through the refugee camp. The people were well cared for. They were
doing quite well. But then they looked at me and said: When are you and
America going to do something about our problem?
I said: What is your problem?
They said: Well, we're refugees.
I said: Why should we in the United States be as concerned about that
as other countries?
They said: Because it is because of you that we are refugees. It is
because the ethnic cleansing was not accelerated until the time that
the bombs started being dropped on that town.
So we now have a weakened defense system because we have starved it
into a degree of weakness. Yet we are living in a time when virtually
every country has weapons of mass destruction.
And now we find out that in conventional warfare we are not superior
anymore. Wake up America. We are not superior anymore. We found out the
other day that two of our Army divisions are ranked as C-4, which means
they are not capable of combat. And what are these divisions? These
divisions are the 10th Army Mountain Division in Bosnia and the 1st
Infantry Division in Kosovo.
It is not the fault of our troops. They are put in places and they no
longer have combat training, so they are not capable of combat without
coming out of there and training for at least 6 months.
So if we are down to 10 Army divisions because of this President, and
2 of them are rendered incapable of combat, that is 8 Army divisions.
We had 19 during the Persian Gulf war. So that is what has happened to
our military.
Just the other day I was very proud of Gen. John Jumper, who had the
courage to stand up and say publicly that we are no longer superior in
air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. Our strategic fighters are not
superior to
[[Page 30559]]
those others on the market. He stated the SU-35, as made by the
Russians, is on the market right now, the open market. It is for sale.
Anyone can buy it--Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, anybody else--and it is
better than anything we have, including the F-15 and the F-16.
We have to face up to this. It is a threat from the conventional side
as well as from missiles.
I will make one comment about the missiles. Again, we hang this on
President Clinton. In that same veto message in 1993, President Clinton
said: I'm vetoing this bill. And I'm vetoing it because it has money in
it for a national missile defense system, which we do not need because
there is no threat out there. Yet we knew from our intelligence that
the threat would be there and imminent by fiscal year 1998. And sure
enough, it was.
So here we are with the combination of all these countries out there
that have every kind of weapon of mass destruction: Biological,
chemical, or nuclear. Yet we have countries such as China and Russia
and now North Korea that have the capability of delivering those
warheads to anywhere in America right now, when we are in Washington,
DC. They could fire one from North Korea that would take 35 minutes to
get here. There is not one thing in our arsenal to knock it down
because this President vetoed our national missile defense effort.
Now the American people have awakened to this, and we have enough
Democrats who are supporting Republicans to rebuild our system and to
try to get a national missile defense system deployed. Unfortunately,
it couldn't happen for another 2 years, maybe 2\1/2\ to 3 years.
That gets around to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty about which my
distinguished colleague from Illinois was talking. I think probably the
best thing that could have happened to us for our national security was
to defeat that. If we don't have a national missile defense system,
then what do we have to deter other countries from launching missiles
at the United States?
What we have is a nuclear stockpile. We have nine weapons in the
nuclear stockpile. Because of the President's moratorium, they haven't
been tested for 7 years. We don't know whether or not they work. I
suggest it might be better not even to have nuclear weapons than to
have weapons but not know whether they work. That is exactly what we
have right now. If we had passed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
there would be no verification, there would be no way in the world we
would have known whether or not our stockpile was working because they
hadn't been tested.
I can remember quote after quote after quote by the people who were
so much involved in this from our energy labs. They all said--I had the
quotes; I don't have them in front of me right now--that if we can't
test these nuclear weapons, there is no way we can determine whether or
not they work. It is a very unsafe thing for America. These were the
directors of the labs responsible for this nuclear arsenal.
So of the nine weapons we have, which I have listed here, we only
have one we have adequately tested enough to know whether or not it
would work. That is the W-84 warhead that we know would work.
This would have been a real disaster for America. People kept saying
President Eisenhower was for a comprehensive test ban treaty, that
President Bush was, that President Reagan was. That isn't true at all.
This flawed treaty was a zero-yield treaty. We would only have had the
word of our adversaries that they would not test their nuclear
arsenals.
We keep our word in America; we don't test our arsenal. But we don't
have any idea whether or not they are going to test theirs. In fact,
during the course of the debate, both China and Russia said they would
not comply with the zero yield. There is no way in the world we can
detect that, that we would know what our adversaries were doing. That
would, for all practical purposes, be unilateral disarmament.
I am asked back in Oklahoma by people who have good street sense, why
is it the liberals in Congress are so committed to disarming our
country, to taking our money that we are supposed to have to defend
America and putting it into these various discretionary social
programs? I have to explain to them that the people in Washington, and
some of the Senators in this Chamber, are not like the people of
Oklahoma. I think President Clinton honestly believes that if we all
stand in a circle and hold hands and we unilaterally disarm, everyone
will love each other and it won't be necessary to have a defense
system.
That is what we are up against. In a very respectful way, I have to
disagree with many of the things my distinguished colleague from
Illinois stated.
I think we have had a very successful session. We have ensured a
sound Social Security retirement system. We have improved educational
opportunities for our children. Along this line, the major disagreement
we had was that the Democrats thought the decisions should be made here
in Washington; Republicans want to use the same amount of money but not
make the decisions in Washington but send that money to the school
districts. The school board in Tulsa, OK, is much better equipped to
know what their education needs are in Oklahoma than we are in this
August body of the Senate. The Democrats say the answer is not school
buses, not computers, not the physical facilities that are available;
it is 100,000 teachers. I think the more we can send these decisions
back to the local level, the better the people of America will be
served.
I believe we have had a good session. I am not pleased with the way
it is turning out right now. The old saying we have heard so many times
in the past that there are two things you never want to watch while
they are being made--one is sausage and the other is laws--becomes very
true during the last few days of legislative sessions.
I think we have done a very good job. I think we did the right thing
in defeating the unverifiable test ban treaty. I think we have passed
legislation of which America will be very proud. I am anxious to end
all this fun we are having and go home and tell the people in Oklahoma
about it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period
for morning business be extended to the hour of 2 p.m. and that the
time be equally divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the next
quorum call the time be divided for each side equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
15 minutes in morning business.
[[Page 30560]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR THE ELDERLY
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate on a
number of occasions recently to talk about the issue of prescription
drugs for the elderly.
I think there is a particularly relevant point to make this afternoon
given the very extensive press coverage we have seen on this issue in
recent days.
Over the weekend, David Rosenbaum in the New York Times had an
excellent article on the issue. In the last couple of days, Time
magazine had another very lengthy piece on the question of prescription
drugs for seniors. And both of these articles ultimately make the point
that Congress probably is not going to be able to agree on legislation
during this session. The authors offer considerable skepticism about
the ability of Congress to come together on a very difficult issue.
Both of them, to some extent, go off into what I think are secondary
questions--the questions of the role of the Internet, and the question
of patents on drugs. Those are important matters.
But what is central and what the Congress needs to do on a bipartisan
basis is pass legislation that would make it possible for frail and
vulnerable older people to get insurance coverage that would provide
for their medicine.
For example, if you are an elderly widow who is 78, maybe having
early signs of Alzheimer's, and you spend more than half of your
combined monthly income of Social Security and pension on prescription
medicine--those are the kinds of letters that seniors are sending to
me--it is not going to help you a whole lot to get a 10- or 15-percent
discount because you shop over the Internet. Certainly, the role of the
Internet in prescription drugs is going to be important. There will be
a lot of issues. But to provide relief for the Nation's older people,
what Congress needs to do on a bipartisan basis is pass legislation
that provides insurance coverage making it possible for older people to
pay these big bills. Patent issues and the question of the Internet are
matters that are important, but what is needed is legislation that
provides real relief.
Part of the effort to win bipartisan support for prescription drug
legislation is coming to this floor and, as the poster says, urging
seniors to send in copies of their prescription drug bills. Send them
to each of us here in the Senate in Washington, DC.
I intend to keep coming to the floor of the Senate and actually
reading from these letters. I have three today that I think tell an
important story.
One is from a senior citizen in Medford, OR, in my home State.
Another is from a senior citizen from Grants Pass, OR, and a third is
from a senior citizen in O'Brien, OR, all of which reflect the kind of
concerns I know are out there. Hopefully, as seniors learn about our
campaign and see that we are urging them to send us copies of their
prescription drug bills, it can help bring about bipartisan support for
legislation in the Senate.
I am very proud that I have been able to team up in recent months
with Senator Olympia Snowe on bipartisan legislation. I have been of
the view that nothing more can happen in Washington, DC, unless it is
bipartisan. The Snowe-Wyden legislation is a bill that uses marketplace
forces and unleashes the forces of the private sector in an effort to
make medicine more affordable for the Nation's older people.
What is sad is that our elderly are in effect hit by a double whammy.
Millions of them can't afford their prescriptions. Medicare doesn't
cover medicine. It hasn't since the program began in 1965.
On top of the fact that seniors don't have Medicare coverage, when
they walk into a pharmacy--I see our friend from New Hampshire, our
colleague who has a great interest in health care. As he knows, when a
senior walks into a drugstore in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Kentucky,
and can't pay for their prescription medicine, in addition they are
subsidizing the big buyers of prescription drugs. The HMOs and the
health care plans are in a position to negotiate a discount. They get a
break on their prices. The seniors, people who are spending half their
monthly income on prescriptions, are, in effect, subsidizing those big
buyers.
The bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation, fortunately, has been able to
generate a lot of interest in the Senate. Senator Snowe and I are proud
to have the support.
For example, more than 54 Members of the Senate--more than half the
Senate--are now on record saying they would support a tobacco tax to
pay for prescription drug benefits for older people. That strikes me as
appropriate.
Medicare spent more than $12 billion last year picking up the costs
of tobacco-related illnesses, and more than 50 Members of the Senate
are now on record as saying they would be willing to support additional
funding to help the vulnerable seniors from whom we are hearing.
Let me read a little bit from some of these letters because I think
they sum it up. One I received in the last couple of days from Grants
Pass says:
No way can I afford to pay for my medicine. I did get a
refill on Pepcid.
That is an important medication this elderly woman is taking now in
Grants Pass, OR.
I do hope you can do something to help us seniors.
When she writes, ``No way can I afford to pay for my medicine,'' that
essentially sums it up.
We can talk about people buying prescription drugs over the Internet;
we can talk about the patent issue, both involving substantial sums of
money. Whatever that person needs in Grants Pass--and the letter goes
on to say she has no insurance coverage for her medicine--seniors need
legislation that actually provides coverage through the insurance
system to help pay for prescription drugs.
Another letter comes from Medford, OR. We can see the stack of bills
going to a pharmacy in Medford, Southern Oregon Health Trust Pharmacy.
This individual has spent $1,664 recently on prescription drugs in
Medicare. She is sending bills to our office. Unfortunately, she
doesn't get any help through the various insurance coverages she has.
This is representative of what we have been hearing. She also goes on
to point out that this large stack of bills she sent me does not even
include some of the over-the-counter drugs she is taking such as
ibuprofen.
These cases illustrate very well why our country cannot afford not to
cover prescription medicine. All of these articles, including Time
magazine, are always questioning whether the Nation can afford to cover
prescription medicine. I have contended for some time now we cannot
afford not to cover prescription medicine. These bills I have been
reading from on the floor of the Senate show seniors can't afford drugs
that help to lower cholesterol, help to lower their blood pressure.
These are drugs that help older people to stay well.
Prescription drug coverage for seniors has been a priority ever since
my days with the Gray Panthers before I was elected to Congress.
Frankly, it is much more important today than ever because these drugs
that so many seniors write that they cannot afford today help seniors
to stay well. The variety of anticoagulant drugs that help to prevent
strokes, as I have commented on the floor of the Senate in the past,
might cost $1,000 a year for an older person to buy them to stay
healthy. Compare that to the costs incurred if a senior suffers a
stroke. If a senior cannot get an anticoagulant drug to help stay
healthy and avoid a stroke, that senior might incur expenses of more
than $100,000.
The question for the Senate is, Are we going to help frail and
vulnerable seniors with prescription drug coverage that will cost just
a fraction of the expenses that will be incurred through Medicare Part
A, the hospital portion, and Medicare Part B, the outpatient portion,
if the senior cannot get help and ends up getting sick and, very often,
incurring extraordinary expenses?
[[Page 30561]]
The third letter I read comes from a woman in O'Brien, OR. She has
spent more than $2,000 through November of 1999 on her prescription
drugs, and just in recent days she has taken on a job in hopes she will
be able to pay for her prescriptions. She is 78 years old. At present,
she has her Social Security and Medicare. She now has taken on a small
job in hopes she will have the funds to pay for her prescription
medicine. She writes that she hopes the Snowe-Wyden legislation becomes
law.
Other colleagues have different approaches. We appreciate that. What
is important is we move forward together. Let's show the authors of all
these recent articles in Time magazine, in the New York Times, and
various other publications that are skeptical about whether the
Congress can tackle a big issue such as this; let's prove them wrong.
Let's show, in spite of a fairly polarized political climate in America
today, when there is an important program, this Congress can come
together.
I will keep coming to the floor and urging seniors to send in copies
of their prescription drug bills. The poster lays it out: Send their
bills to their Senator in Washington, DC. The Snowe-Wyden legislation,
SPICE, for the Senior Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act, is a
bill that, on a bipartisan basis, can be supported in the Senate. If
other colleagues have different ideas, let's get them out on the table.
Let's come up with a marketplace approach to holding down the costs of
medicine.
These bills show access to coverage is very key, but holding down the
costs of medicine is very key as well. There is a right way and a wrong
way to hold down those costs. The right way is to use a model such as
the health care system for Members of Congress. That is what is behind
the Snowe-Wyden legislation that provides choice, competition, and
marketplace forces for holding down medicine.
There is a wrong way--the various approaches that call for price
controls. The real danger behind price controls is that the costs for
anybody who is not in the price control group will be shifted on to
other Americans who are having difficulty paying for medicines as well.
It would not be a particularly useful thing for the Senate to come up
with a price control regime for folks on Medicare and then have the
costs shifted over to a divorced woman who is 27 years old with two
children who is working her head off to try to help her family and help
them pay for expenses and then her bills would go up because costs
would be shifted to her.
I intend to keep coming back to the floor of the Senate and reading
from these bills. Today I have read accounts from Medford, from Grants
Pass, and from O'Brien. Seniors cannot afford today to cover
prescription drugs.
When public opinion polls are taken, coverage of prescription drugs
for older people is now one of the top two or three concerns in
America--not just for seniors but for all Americans; certainly for the
sandwich generation. Perhaps a young couple in their forties who have
to try to provide some assistance to a parent who could not afford
prescription medicine is following this issue. It is not just a
seniors' issue; it is an issue for families; it is an issue for the
quality of life of our country.
The Snowe-Wyden legislation is a bipartisan bill where more than 50
Senators have already indicated they will support the funding mechanism
in prescription drug coverage as one way to proceed.
I am sure our colleagues have other ways to go. But what is important
is to show the skeptics across this country who are writing in
magazines and saying in news reports that nothing can be done that we
can come together on a bipartisan basis and provide real relief for the
Nation's older people.
I hope seniors will, as this poster indicates, continue to send
copies of their prescription drug bills to us in the Senate, each of us
in Washington, DC, because I intend to keep coming back to this floor
again and again until we can secure passage of this legislation.
I do not want to see the attention of the Senate diverted to
questions of the role of the Internet and patents and the variety of
matters because, while they are important, they do not go to the heart
of what is needed in this country. What is needed in America for the
millions of seniors who are spending half of their income on
prescription drugs--and that is what I have been describing on the
floor of the Senate--is insurance coverage. They need coverage which
will pick up that part of their insurance bill that goes for
prescription drugs. That is what the Snowe-Wyden legislation does on a
bipartisan basis.
We are going to keep coming back to the floor of this body to talk
about the need for prescription drug coverage for the elderly. There
are bipartisan proposals to do it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is conducting morning business
until 2 o'clock.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls 5 more minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
continue for not over 10 minutes in defense of the distinguished
majority leader following an editorial in one of our papers today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RESPONDING TO CRITICS OF THE NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I read an editorial this morning in the
Wall Street Journal that made incorrect statements about both the
distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, and the Northeast Dairy
Compact. In fact, the editorial was totally, factually wrong. If the
editorial writers would have checked their facts, they would have known
that.
Basically, the writers used arguments of opponents of the Northeast
Dairy Compact, and they used those arguments without any determination
of whether they are accurate or not. This time they used the arguments
to go after the distinguished majority leader and others who supported
the compact. They have used the so-called facts other times, but,
again, they have always used them in the same wrong arguments.
I have referred many times to the major GAO study that was issued on
milk prices. I have referred to the detailed OMB study on the compact.
Opponents never offer any proof for their arguments. I am fed up with
the Compact being criticized as a back room deal because I remind
everybody that we actually had a vote on it, albeit in the form of a
cloture motion, but we had a vote on it on the floor of the Senate and
a majority of Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted for it.
The majority voted for it this year. Now those who oppose it are using
filibusters and parliamentary dodges because they know that they lost
the vote.
I am fed up with opponents attacking the compact as a special
interest cartel, a compact which is made up of family farms,
considering the largest opponent of the compact is Philip Morris, the
tobacco giant which owns Kraft. The supporters are family farmers; the
opponent, Philip Morris. It does not sound as if the supporters are
really a cartel.
I am fed up when opponents of the compact say milk prices are higher
in New England when typically milk prices are higher in Wisconsin and
Minnesota than they are in New England. The places that do not have the
compact and who are attacking it the most charge their consumers more
for milk on average than the area that does have the compact.
GAO did a study of this and they looked at milk prices during the
first six months after the Compact was implemented. GAO found that
consumers in New England were able to buy milk considerably cheaper
than in Wisconsin or Minnesota. The editorial writers and opponents of
the compact do not point this out. Why do they not point this out?
Because it points to the success of the compact and does not support
the arguments made by the cartels that are opposed to it.
[[Page 30562]]
Let me read some examples from the GAO report. For example: In
February, 1998 the average price of a gallon of whole milk in Augusta,
ME, was $2.47. The price in Milwaukee, WI, was $2.63, and in
Minneapolis, MN., it was $2.94 per gallon.
Take another New England city, Boston. In February 1998, the price of
a gallon of milk was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis, where the price,
on average, was $2.94 a gallon.
Or let's look at the cost of 1 percent milk for November 1997. In
Augusta, ME, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average price for Boston
and New Hampshire and Rhode Island. But in Minnesota, the price was
$2.82 a gallon, in other words, 45 cents more per gallon in the area
that opposes the compact as compared to the much lower price in the
area that has the compact.
I could go on and on and compare low New England retail prices with
higher prices in cities outside of New England. I invite anybody to
review this GAO report.
There is another report on the compact that was done by OMB. They
issued a report which found the retail milk prices in New England,
after the Compact was in place, were, on average, lower than for the
rest of the Nation.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page writers have ignored both the
GAO report and the OMB report. Why? These are factual and objective
reports that the Journal should have reviewed.
It is clear that our compact is working perfectly by benefiting
consumers, local economies, and farmers, something that is not stated
in the editorial that attacked Senator Lott.
I am especially fed up when opponents say the compact blocks
interstate trade in milk when OMB reports the compact has increased the
sales of milk into New England as neighboring farmers in New York, who
did not have the Compact, take advantage of it. OMB reported that while
the Compact was in force for the first six months, there was an 8
percent increase in milk sales into the region. Instead of blocking
interstate commerce, I would say an 8-percent increase in interstate
commerce is an 8-percent increase in interstate commerce.
I am fed up when opponents say the compact does not help dairy
farmers stay in business, when it greatly increases their income. My
best guess is dairy farmers, just as wheat, corn, or soybean farmers,
when their income increases, they are more likely to stay in business.
I recognize the Nation's major opponent of the compact, Kraft, owned by
Philip Morris, does not want farmers to have the additional income the
compact provides. But opponents of the compact should not argue it does
not give farmers more income when, in fact, it does.
Opponents of the compact say farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota are
going out of business, even though this is comparing apples with
oranges. Even though the compact doesn't have an effect on them, they
say we should not have a compact in the Northeast. Let farmers in the
Midwest set up their own compact. I would vote for a compact for them
or any other reasonable proposal that helps their farmers. Do not
condemn one section of the country that is doing fine and protecting
their farmers when, if they wanted to, they could do exactly the same
thing in their own part of the country.
I wish to mention for a minute what the compact replaces. Opponents
of the compact prefer prices to be set by Federal bureaucrats.
Supporters of the compact prefer pricing to be determined by consumers
and local representatives, not by the Federal Government. The Governors
and legislators in the six New England States had five goals in mind
when they enacted the compact into law in each of their States. They
wanted to assure fresh local supplies of milk to consumers at lower
prices than found in most of the Nation. They wanted to keep dairy
farmers in business. They wanted to protect New England's rural
environment from sprawl and destructive development, and they wanted to
do this without burdening Federal taxpayers.
The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has delivered beyond the
expectations of those Governors and State legislatures. The compact
provided an added benefit. It has increased interstate trade into the
region as neighboring farmers have taken advantage of the compact.
This great idea, coming from those six New England States, has
created a successful and enduring partnership between dairy farmers and
consumers throughout New England.
Thanks to the Northeast Compact, the number of farmers going out of
business has declined throughout New England for the first time in many
years.
It is unfortunate that some still favor Federal bureaucrats running
this farm program. We ought to instead be blessing this compact. Here
is something not run by the Federal Government, not costing the
taxpayers anything, but being done by the people who are affected by
it. Indeed, half the Governors of the Nation, half the State
legislatures in the Nation, asked that the Congress allow their States
to set their own dairy policy through interstate compacts that cost
taxpayers nothing. It costs taxpayers nothing. Let me say it again: It
costs taxpayers nothing. Why do people oppose a program that is not
costing taxpayers anything and affects just the people in the region
who want it?
This dairy compact passed with overwhelming support in almost all
these States--Republicans and Democrats in the legislatures; Republican
and Democratic Governors. Major environmental groups have endorsed the
Northeast Dairy Compact. A New York Times and National Geographic
article discussed the importance of keeping dairy farmers in business
from an environmental standpoint.
Consumer prices are lower, farm income is higher, and no increased
costs to taxpayers. One wonders, why does anybody oppose it?
One asks, why is it opposed? The answer is simple: Huge milk
manufacturers, such as Suiza, headquartered in Texas, Kraft, which is
owned by the tobacco giant Philip Morris, and other processors
represented by the International Dairy Foods Association oppose the
compact because they want to keep the money themselves. They do not
want the farmers to have any of these profits.
Even the most junior investigative reporter could figure out the
answer. All anyone has to do is look up the donations made by these and
other giant processors. All the negative news stories about the compact
have their genesis in the efforts of these giant processors and their
front organizations.
I say this again on the floor, just so people understand, because it
was an unfair editorial in singling out the distinguished majority
leader of the Senate using facts which bear scrutiny. Indeed, one of
the corporation front organizations, Public Voice for Food and Health
Policy, apparently could not continue to exist when it was obvious that
their policies were determined by corporate dollars rather than good
policy. They had to close up shop when they lost their conscience.
I have detailed the close alliances between their lead executive who
handled compact issues for them and the job he negotiated to represent
the huge processors a couple of times on the Senate floor.
I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group
whose funding should be investigated--the Consumer Federation of
America. Indeed, one of their officers--formerly from Public Voice--is
being taken around Capitol Hill offices by lobbyists representing
processors. A glance at who funds their functions and efforts will be
as instruction as investigations of Public Voice.
Why should Philip Morris or Kraft want to use these organizations
instead of directly going to the editorial boards of the New York Times
or the Washington Post to badmouth the compact? The question does not
need me to provide the answer.
What would be the best attack--whether true or not--on the Compact
that might swing public opinion?
It might be to simply allege that milk prices are higher for children
in the school lunch program. Who would the editorial boards more likely
listen to regarding school children: a public interest group or a
tobacco company?
[[Page 30563]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
____________________
INTERNET TAX MORATORIUM
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today marks the 1-year anniversary of the
Internet tax moratorium and the setting up of a commission to look into
the manner in which we tax the Internet. This moratorium was to last
for 3 years, and the commission was to meet and begin the process of
trying to determine how best to deal with the variety of proposals to
place taxes on the use of the Internet, products which are sold over
the Internet, and services which are supplied over the Internet.
Obviously, the Internet represents a watershed mark possibly in
history as to economic activity. It is a period in which we have seen
the Internet become an economic engine of immense proportions for our
Nation and for the world. The Wall Street Journal reported on October
18 that electronic commerce not only positively affects economic
activity but has had a very positive impact on reducing the rate of
inflation.
Products sold over the Internet are actually forcing down prices as
competition occurs and products, such as prescription drugs, have been
found on the Internet to be 28-percent cheaper and apparel 38-percent
cheaper. The overall index found that products generally were about 13-
percent cheaper on the Internet. The Internet has not only been a
wonderful economic engine; it also has been a force for maintaining and
controlling inflation during this period of dramatic prosperity.
Of course, the Internet is growing at an incredible rate. Over the
last 12 months, Internet economic growth has been about 68 percent,
which is a huge rate of growth compared to a national economic rate of
growth which is somewhere in the 3- to 4-percent range, if we are
lucky. The role of the Internet in our society is immense today and is
getting even more significant.
The question is, How do we deal with it in the context of taxes?
There is a large number of communities and a number of States in this
country that wish to assess on Internet transactions their local sales
tax activity, much the same as they attempt to assess catalog sales.
There are something like 30,000 jurisdictions which could assess taxes
on the Internet.
The effect, of course, of having this diffuse and extraordinarily
large group of taxing authorities--50 States and 30,000
subjurisdictions of those States--with a potential of taxing the
Internet at various rates could, quite simply, grind to a halt this
wonderful engine of economic activity and prosperity into which our
Nation has gone.
Literally, if we allow the Internet to be subject to this variety of
taxes and this variety of tax authorities, and the imagination and
creativity we always see from various Government entities when it comes
to taxing, literally we could end up stopping the Internet as an
effective force for economic expansion and prosperity.
Furthermore, the concept of taxing the Internet, which is clearly a
national and really a global instrument of commerce, appears, to me at
least, to fly in the face of our Constitution. The commerce clause of
our Constitution is pretty specific. Section 8, clause 3, of the
Constitution reads:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes.
There can be nothing that is a form of commerce more among the
several States than the Internet as it presently is expanding, growing,
and becoming a force for economic activity.
Thus, the taxing of the Internet by all these different entities
would clearly, in my opinion, raise serious constitutional problems. In
fact, the Supreme Court addressed this issue when it came to catalog
sales in the Quill case, where the Supreme Court essentially ruled that
States, unless they have a nexus relationship with the seller of the
assets, do not have traditionally the ability to tax that transaction.
Secondly, Congress needs to look at the issue of taxation because of
the extraordinary, as I have mentioned, chilling effect it would have
on commerce generally. We, as a nation, as the creators and inventors
of the Internet and, therefore, controllers not only of the initial and
expanding technology, but also of the language which dominates the
Internet, have put ourselves essentially as a nation on a rocket sled
of economic activity. We have expanded and accelerated at an
extraordinary speed past the rest of the world towards economic
prosperity.
I recall, rather vividly, in the late 1980s when the ``woe is me''
crowd was saying that Japan was going to overtake the United States in
all functions of economic activity, and that our economic model for
prosperity simply could not compete with the Japanese economic model of
prosperity, which was intimidating and which remains significant.
But the fact is that it did not work out that way. It did not work
out that way because America's strength is our entrepreneurship and our
inventiveness. We took that entrepreneurship and inventiveness and we
created this massive new vehicle for economic activity called the
Internet. Thus, instead of being overwhelmed by our friends and
neighbors and allies in the industrial world, we have, instead,
exploded past them in the ability to produce prosperity and economic
activity, in large part because of the Internet and the offspring of
technology which it has created.
So we do not want to do anything which jeopardizes the unique and
special international lead that we have in this area. Yet allowing
thousands of different jurisdictions to tax the Internet would do
exactly that. It would jeopardize that lead and undermine and, as I
said, possibly bring to a complete halt the use of the Internet as an
element of commerce.
The third thing we must be sensitive to in this area of the Internet
is the international implications beyond the questions of trade. It has
been suggested by people at the U.N. that the U.N. should start to fund
itself by putting in place a tax on e-commerce and e-mail. At first it
was an outrageous suggestion, but it is the type of suggestion you get
at the U.N. from people who represent nations which maybe do not have
as much of a financial interest in it as we do and know that we would
end up paying the tax, our Nation would end up paying the burden. But
the fact that has been suggested is just a sort of crack of the door
behind which, if it were fully opened, you would see an international
initiative of significant proportions to place taxes on the Internet.
As a result, if we have essentially come to the table, having already
soiled our hands with taxing the Internet, it will be very
extraordinarily difficult for us to resist, whether it is the U.N. or
whether it is some other nation that also tries to pursue this course
of action. It is essential, for the purposes of seeing an expansion of
this technology and this form of economic activity, that we dampen down
and restrict and as aggressively as we can resist having other nations
pursue the path of taxation of Internet transactions.
Obviously, the U.N. has no right to step into this ground. In fact,
as chairman of the appropriating committee that has jurisdiction over
the U.N., I put specific language into an appropriations bill, which
hopefully will pass today, that says the United States will not spend
any money at the U.N. should the U.N. pursue this course of action,
which I am sure they will not. This was some idea put forward by
somebody there, but I do not think it speaks to the majority at the
United Nations.
But those are three core reasons why we have to be extraordinarily
sensitive to what the tax policy is relative to the Internet.
The reason I raise this is because it took 8 months for the Internet
commission to get started. That was not their fault. Really, it was the
fault of those bodies which had the obligation
[[Page 30564]]
of appointing membership to the commission. Actually, under Governor
Gilmore, this commission has done an excellent job of meeting. Governor
Gilmore's position relative to taxation over the Internet is exactly
the position that should be pursued. However, I am not sure he has a
majority position within the commission. I hope he does.
But in order for us to assure this threat to our commerce does not
occur, I believe we should extend this moratorium. Since we had at
least 8 months of delay before we got this commission up and running, I
think we should have an extension which recognizes that the commission
should have the full 3-year period; therefore, we should extend the
moratorium for another year, at a minimum, on the Internet.
I happen to think it should be extended beyond that, well beyond
that, because I believe certainty in the area of taxation is one of the
key issues for maintaining economic activity. If people participating
in an economic activity can predict what their tax obligations are and
what the tax implications will be to an economic initiative, then they
are much more likely to be willing to invest capital and take the risks
necessary to pursue that initiative. But if they cannot predict their
tax liability, then that limits and dampens down the desire to put
capital and take risks in a certain economic activity. We have seen
that historically.
So I do believe very strongly that we should not only be extending
this moratorium for a year but that we should be extending it for a
series of years beyond the 3-year moratorium that presently exists.
Let's face it. The economic benefit which this Nation has seen as a
result of this truly revolutionary event--in the history of economics,
I suspect this is going to go down with the industrial revolution as
one of the most significant turning points in the history of prosperity
and the way nations generate wealth.
The benefits which we, as a nation, have obtained as a result of
this, as a result of being the incubator, the developer, and now the
provider in expertise in the area of the Internet, and the use of the
Internet for commerce, the benefits which we have received, as a
nation, are basically incalculable: the amount of new jobs which have
been created; the number of people whose standard of living has been
increased; the number of people who have been able to purchase goods at
less of a price; and the number of people who have simply had a better
chance to participate in prosperity.
The Nation as a whole has seen economic activity and economic
prosperity that has been a blessing to everyone, in large part because
of this huge expansion in e-commerce and in the Internet as a force.
Those benefits dramatically exceed any benefit which we would obtain by
allowing a large number of different States or municipalities to start
taxing the Internet for the purposes of expanding their local
governments.
It is the classic situation of the goose that lays the golden egg, to
say the least. We have confronted a goose that is laying a lot of
golden eggs for America, and for the prosperity of America, and for the
opportunity of America to create jobs. For America to maintain its
place as a world leader, we should not make the mistake of maybe not
cutting off the goose's head but nicking that goose with thousands of
different taxes which may cause it to, unfortunately, stumble or even
be stopped as a result of allowing the creativity and the imagination
of our various government units across this Nation to begin to tax the
Internet.
So I hope as we wrap up this session we will consider this.
Obviously, we probably are not going to get it in this major omnibus
bill, although I tried to do that and it was rejected in committee--an
extension of the Internet moratorium.
I do hope when we come back next year this will be a priority item--
to make it clear, to make an unalterable statement to the community
which is developing and promoting this incredible engine of prosperity
that we are not going to stop them by turning loose the forces of
government and taxation on them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period
for morning business be extended to the hour of 2:30 p.m. and that the
time be equally divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, or whatever.
____________________
THE NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will take a moment to react to an
editorial which I read this morning in the Wall Street Journal which
had so many errors and erroneous comments that it shocked me to find
out that such a fine newspaper as the Wall Street Journal would carry
this.
I have been in Congress now 24 years, and as a result of unusual
circumstances, for many years I had been sort of the leader of dairy
for the Republicans in the House. That occurred because I was elected
during the Watergate year. During the Watergate year, there were 92
freshmen Representatives who were elected and only 16 were Republicans.
So all of us who came in that year immediately got seniority because
there were not any other Members around.
I got to be the ranking member on the dairy subcommittee my first
year. During that time, some 24 years, one thing I could be assured of
was that any time something was going to come to the benefit of the
dairy farmers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the
Washington Post would all write adverse editorials. Why is that? Well,
do the dairy farmers buy any advertising in these newspapers? Of
course, they don't. Who does buy the advertising? It is those who
purchase milk. What is their motivation? To keep the dairy farmers
getting the least money possible so they can maximize their profits.
And they have done a masterful job.
But they also have a propensity, either because they, without any
checking, believe everything told to them by the processors who pay for
their ads or they just ignore the truth. The Wall Street Journal
article of this morning was a very typical example. I will run through
some of the facts that were utilized in this great paper to point out
the errors.
First of all, they make statements which are just not true. They say
we have to have a compact because our farmers are less efficient than
the Midwestern farmers. Well, that is absolutely not true. Both are
very efficient. The differences in the two areas are dramatic, but they
are not relative to efficiency. Obviously, the Midwest farmers have an
advantage because they are closer to the grain markets. They have more
people producing cheese, and they have soils that are preferable to
many of the other areas of the country, especially New England. So they
have an advantage, not a disadvantage, by being not only efficient--and
I don't think our farmers are any more efficient than theirs --but
having lower costs to start with. So to make the statement that it is
all based upon inefficiency is absolutely ridiculous.
Then this statement: Never mind that this milk costs consumers to the
tune of about 20 extra cents a gallon. This is absolutely false. In
fact, one of the ironic aspects of this whole argument occurred back
when the compact first went into effect and the Midwestern farm
representatives said: We will show them. We will show that this is all
due to efficiency and all those kinds of things. So they asked OMB, not
GAO or whoever else. Why? Because OMB was sympathetic to the
administration at that time and they wanted help from the White House
to try to back up their arguments.
Well, what happened? OMB did an analysis of the impact of the compact
and found out just the opposite. Do we hear them quote that anymore?
No. I
[[Page 30565]]
have to bring it up every time. They still--either their friends in the
newspapers that make the money off advertising or sometimes they do it
themselves--ignore the fact that the study they asked for came back
saying that, contrary to what they were telling people, actually the
consumers in New England, where the compact was in effect, paid 5 cents
less a gallon--not 20 cents more a gallon, 5 cents less a gallon--than
the average in the rest of the country. But they still print something
which they know is absolutely incorrect.
Also, for a conservative newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal--I
wouldn't give that same label to the New York Times and the Washington
Post--the Wall Street Journal should recognize that all of these
States, all six States, are taking advantage of the Constitution which
says that States can, if they want to, ask Congress for permission to
create a commission to allow them to join together to sort of control
or impact interstate commerce.
Well, the States have the right to do that and the States did do it.
The New England States got together and said: Well, let us take a look
and see what we can do to have a more organized pricing system. One has
to understand a little bit about how the farming goes. If you are a
dairy farmer, you have milk and you have to get rid of it. It is going
to last about 3 days before you will have to throw it out. So you are
at the mercy of the market. You can form cooperatives and things such
as that, but no matter what you do, the milk has to go somewhere or it
is going to spoil.
The thought was, instead of leaving ourselves at the mercy --and this
is the basic part of the situation--of the processors, the people who
buy the milk, who can sit there 2\1/2\ days and say: Well, it is going
to be worthless tomorrow; I will give you 5 cents a gallon--well, it
never gets quite that bad, but that is the kind of power they have.
They don't want to lose that power. They want to be able to dictate to
the dairy farmers the price they are going to get. The New England
farmers got together and worked with their various legislators and
decided, why don't we set up a commission that would have consumers
represented, processors represented, farmers represented, and the
general interest of the public represented. We will set what the price
will be, keeping in mind that we don't want to end up with a huge
surplus. We want to make it fair but make sure the consumers don't lose
on this--in fact, maybe even gain--and the dairy farmers will gain
because they will have a stable market situation.
It worked so well that, as I said, the price to consumers actually
went down. I could speak at length on that, but it went down. The
farmers got a significantly better price overall. They were happy. The
processors got a fair price, and they haven't screamed, those that are
participating in it. It is a good system. That is the problem with it.
It is a good system.
Why does that scare the processors? They would rather get the lowest
price possible to pay to the farmers and so they have lost that
control. But to the Midwest, it shakes them up because what was their
dream? Their dream was that all of the dairy farmers in the United
States would go out of business except in the Midwest. And they are so
sure they could provide all the milk the country needs, so why do we
not put them out?
Well, the commission worked. The price to consumers has gone down,
the farmers are getting a fair price, and the processors are not being
injured in any way. That is why 25 States, now a total of 25, including
New England, have said that is a great idea. Everybody is happy. What a
wonderful situation.
The processor is happy, consumers are paying less in price, and
everybody is happy. So why don't we join? Well, that, of course, has
now made it a big threat to the Midwest. Because if the whole country
goes to compacts, the farmers will stay in business, and the market
expansion that the Midwest was hoping for won't occur.
That is why we are here today. The States have recognized that it is
essential to make sure their farmers survive. Why is that? The basic
concept of the law right now, from the 1930s and rewritten in the Farm
Act of 1947, said it is critical that we ensure that every area of this
Nation has an adequate supply of fresh milk. That is basic law; that
is, to make sure that when you go to your store, there is always some
fresh milk for you there. That is the basic law. All these States that
are going into compacts are saying: We want to make sure that our area
of the country has an adequate supply of fresh milk, and we ought to be
able to do that. So that is what the real fight is about.
We have already had the editorial I anticipated in the Post. The Wall
Street Journal came through right on time with one I anticipated.
Theirs is so incredibly inaccurate in what they cite, it was a little
embarrassing, on behalf of the paper, to read that. I expect the New
York Times will follow suit probably in the next couple of days.
I want to make sure these facts are out there. What this Nation needs
is stable farming. We all love our farmers. I can't think of Vermont or
New England without the cows on the hillside. I can't think of what the
Southeast would be without the ability of their farmers to produce
milk. And they have, because of the weather situation and all, special
problems in the Southeast, being able to produce milk at reasonable
prices. But they are doing very well. They want to form a compact. The
same is true in other parts of the country. What is wrong with people
in the region getting together and deciding how to do it?
Another argument raised, which will be one for other editorials, is
that it causes higher prices for WIC--Women, Infants and Children--and
food. That is all taken care of by the commission. Farmers in the
Midwest, right now, on an average, receive significantly more in the
checks they get on a weekly or monthly basis--what they call the
``mailbox price.'' They do better than the rest of the country. So they
are not the ones suffering. They have advantages, as I pointed out, in
cost of production and those things. They are doing well. They just
want to be sure they can perhaps have a better future by shipping more
milk.
Incidentally--and I will leave you with this because the statements
are that this is somehow infringing on commerce and the ability of
people to sell--they can bring their milk down now and sell it in the
New England area. Why don't they? It costs too much to ship it down
there. But the market is open; it is not closed out. There are no
barriers built up to where the farmers can ship milk. In fact, the New
England compact is in place right now, but a great deal of the milk
comes from New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and wherever else anyone
wants to ship it.
The New England area itself is a negative producer. So we depend upon
milk coming from other areas. When you come in, you know you are going
to be bound by the price that is established by the commission. That,
again, represents consumers, producers, the dairy farmers, the
processors, the people who buy it, and it protects programs such as
WIC. It is working so well. That is the problem.
Just remember, the reason for all the controversy right now is that
this program is working so well for consumers, processors, and the
producers, and it is a danger to those who want to do away with our
local farming businesses.
Mr. President, I see no other Member present, so I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed as in morning business for not to exceed 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 30566]]
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization
of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am pleased that it appears Congress
will accomplish this vital task before we adjourn for the year.
The reauthorization of the Compact is more critical now than ever
before. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently predicted that milk
prices for dairy farmers will be reduced 40 cents per gallon in
December as a result of the announced drop in the basic formula price
this past week. This translates into a 30 percent reduction in blend
prices in December and will continue on into next year with additional
declines in prices expected throughout the winter. The Dairy Compact
will blunt the 40 cent per gallon drop in farm milk prices by one-half
and will, by itself, make the difference between continuing in business
and closing down for many small dairy farmers.
The Northeast Dairy Compact is a proven success and is critical to
the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and throughout New England. The
Compact has a proven track record of quantifiable benefits to both
consumers and farmers. The Compact works by simply evening out the
peaks and valleys in fluid milk prices, providing stability to the cost
of milk and ensuring a supply of fresh, wholesome, local milk. The
Compact works with market forces to help both the farmer and the
consumer. As prices climb and farmers receive a sustainable price for
milk, the Compact turns off. When prices drop to unsustainable levels,
the Compact is triggered. The Compact simply softens the blow to
farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile fluid milk
market.
It is important to reiterate that consumers also benefit from the
Compact. Not only does the Compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding
dramatic fluctuation in retail cost of milk, it also guarantees that
the consumer is assured of the availability of a supply of fresh, local
milk. Let's remember that under the Compact, New England has lower
retail fluid milk prices than many regions operating without a Compact.
Moreover, the Compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy
producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven it does not harm
farmers or taxpayers from outside the region. A 1998 report by the
Office of Management and Budget showed that, during its first 6 months
of operation, the Compact did not adversely affect farmers from outside
the Compact region and added no federal costs to nutrition programs. In
fact, the Compact specifically excepts the Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) program from any costs related to the Compact.
The reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact is also important
as a matter of states rights. We often hear of criticism of the inside-
the-beltway mentality that tells states, we here in Washington know
better than you, even on issues traditionally under state and local
control. Mr. President, that is wrong. In the Northeast Dairy Compact,
we have a solution that was approved by all the legislatures and
governors of the New England States. It is supported by every state
commissioner in the region and overwhelmingly--if not unanimously--by
Northeastern dairy farmers. We in Congress should not be an obstacle to
this practical, workable, local solution.
I urge my colleagues to refrain from holding up this critical measure
for Maine and for our Nation's dairy farmers. To small farms in my
State and in states throughout New England, this is not just a matter
of profit margins; it is a matter of their survival.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able
to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is November 18. It has been
almost 6 months since the Senate passed the juvenile justice bill and
more than 5 months since the House followed suit with its own
legislation.
Since that time, the students at Columbine High School went home.
They spent a summer trying to heal the wounds of one of our Nation's
greatest tragedies, and they returned to school more than 2 months ago.
Many of those students touched by the tragedy even came to Washington
to plead for our help. Yet this body has done nothing to stop future
incidents of gun violence and nothing to fix our broken juvenile
justice system.
The Columbine incident shocked this Nation and, I believe, this
Congress. Watching events unfold on television made even the most
skeptical observers realize that something should be done about gun
violence. We have witnessed a number of other instances of gun violence
in the media since then. In Atlanta, we saw a depressed day trader gun
down his family and colleagues. In California, a bigot killed a postal
worker just because he was Filipino, and then wounded five others in
the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. Again, the
pictures of those young children being led away from the scene of the
tragedy were heart wrenching.
But since Columbine, more than 2,000 more children have died from
gunshot wounds, about 12 to 13 a day, in incidents of gun violence that
go relatively unreported and with outcomes not so public. These
incidents will never stop until we do something to stop them. The death
rate will never be diminished unless we stand up and take action.
When will the Congress realize that the time has come to move
forward? The conference committee, which was appointed at the last
minute before the August recess, has met but once, over 3 months ago.
No issues have been resolved. The entire juvenile justice bill remains
in doubt, in limbo.
Democrats in both Houses have been ready and willing to meet for
months. Democrats are ready to discuss the merits of our differences
and to reconcile them. The time has come to stop running away from the
issue of gun violence. The time has come to enact some meaningful
provisions to stem this tide of violence sweeping our schools and to
institute some much-needed change to the system of juvenile justice in
this Nation.
The Senate spent more than a week in May debating and voting on
dozens of provisions to stem the tide of youth violence in this country
and to try to curb the flood of guns reaching children and criminals.
But still we have faced delay after delay, and the delays come in many
forms--political maneuvering, parliamentary tactics; for example, my
clip ban was blue slipped, and other tactics.
Enough is enough. It is time to come together to make some tough
decisions and move forward with the Nation's business. No longer can we
stand by, and I hope the Nation will not let us stand by, to allow the
National Rifle Association to dictate the legislative needs of this
Congress. The future of this bill rests squarely with the Republican
leadership in both the House and the Senate. They have said they want
to make progress with our gun laws, and they have it within their power
to do so.
The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill is not an overreaching
statement of where we want to go with gun control. I, for example,
believe we should have universal registration and licensing of
firearms, and in the next session I will introduce my legislation. I
believe we should allow the Federal Government to set safety and
consumer standards for guns, and I believe we should ban outright
possession of military-style assault weapons. But none of these
measures were even discussed in the Senate debate.
The provisions, rather, are very small in our bill. They are
reasonable, and they can make a difference in the
[[Page 30567]]
lives of our children. None of them are controversial, and every one of
them, by virtually every poll, has a dominant majority of the American
people supporting them. Let me describe what I am talking about.
That bill contains just four commonsense provisions to address gun
violence. Does anyone in this Nation truly believe juveniles should be
able to buy assault weapons? The answer is going to be no. That is one
provision in Senator Ashcroft's bill which would prohibit juveniles
from possessing assault weapons.
Does anyone in this country truly believe the children from Columbine
who went to a gun show and bought two assault weapons as juveniles with
no information, no data check, no nothing--does anyone believe that
loophole should not be closed? I do not believe so.
In Memphis, TN, not too long ago, a 5-year-old took a pistol off his
grandfather's bureau and brought it to kindergarten to kill the teacher
because the teacher had given that child a timeout the day before.
Stories are legion about children mistaking real guns for play guns and
shooting their friends.
The third provision is simple. It would require a safety lock with
every gun sold. Does anyone believe guns should not be sold without
safety locks? I do not believe so.
Finally, there is my provision which would plug a major loophole in
the 1994 assault weapons legislation. That legislation, in fact, says
you cannot today manufacture, transfer, sell, or possess a clip, drum,
or strip of more than 10 bullets manufactured in the United States.
That is the law today. The loophole is to permit the foreign
importation of these clips, and they are coming into this country by
the tens of millions with literally tens of thousands of them in drums
of 250 rounds. They come in, as a matter of fact, from the United
Kingdom, and they come in from 20 different countries throughout the
world.
My provision would simply close that loophole and prohibit the
importation. It actually passed the House by unanimous consent, and
both the Speaker and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have
assured me personally that they see no problem with it and would
support it.
These are the four provisions relating to guns. Other than that, this
bill contains countless provisions to stem the tide of youth violence.
I sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have worked on this bill. I have
worked on it with Senator Hatch. Part of this bill is a gang abatement
act. It provides a Federal helping hand to local law enforcement
agencies to fight criminal street gangs that are now crossing State
lines and moving into so many of the cities of our Nation. You, Mr.
President, were mayor of a great city. You know this to be the fact.
This is an important part of this legislation.
It also contains the James Guelff Body Armor Act which contains
reforms to take body armor out of the hands of criminals and put it in
the hands of police. It is named after a San Francisco police officer
by the name of James Guelff who went to a call at the corner of Pine
and California Streets and came across a Kevlar-clad sniper with
thousands of rounds of ammunition and a number of guns. He had a .38
revolver. As he speed loaded his revolver, this officer was shot in the
head and killed. It took 150 police officers to equal the firepower of
one sniper clad in Kevlar with high-powered weapons.
The Senate bill also establishes a new $700 million juvenile justice
block grant program for States and localities, representing a
significant increase in Federal aid to the States for juvenile crime
control programs. These programs include additional law enforcement and
juvenile court personnel, juvenile detention facilities, and prevention
programs to keep juveniles out of trouble before they turn to crime,
something both of us know, as past mayors, is vital if we are going to
reverse juvenile crime in this country.
The bill encourages increased accountability for juveniles, and it
implements a series of graduated penalties that ensure that subsequent
offenses are treated with increasing severity, so that if you are going
to be a continuing offender, the sentences are going to reflect that.
The bill also reforms juvenile record systems through improved record
keeping and increased access to juvenile records by police, courts, and
schools, so that a court or school dealing with a juvenile in my State,
California, can know if they have committed violent offenses in
Arizona, or a juvenile in your State, Ohio, had committed violent
offenses in another surrounding State.
It extends Federal sentences for juveniles who commit serious violent
crimes.
All of these commonsense provisions now remain in legislative
purgatory. I am here to urge, once again, the majority to proceed with
the conference, come to a compromise, and move this bill. That
compromise should preserve intact the Senate-passed gun control
legislation--four targeted measures--commonsense, reasonable; I call
them no-brainers. Every poll shows a dominant majority of Americans
supporting each of these. And they represent together a bare minimum of
what we should do this year to stem the gun violence that is
increasingly common on our streets and in our schools.
School has now been back in session for several months, and this
Congress is about to adjourn for the year. So far, it looks as if we
are going to be receiving a failing grade from the American people.
There is still time to buckle down, to do the work, to pass the test
that this Nation gave us so many months ago. What a wonderful Christmas
gift it would be for the people of America.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, would
the Senator mind stating how long he wishes to speak?
Mr. BAUCUS. I would be very happy to tell the Senator. Less than 10
minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I have no objection. I thank the Chair and thank the
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
____________________
SATELLITE TV ACCESS TO NETWORK PROGRAMMING
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to make a few remarks about
a serious problem for people in our country who do not live in our
Nation's cities; that is, the loss of satellite TV access to network
programming.
We all know that modern technology has made it possible to broadcast
TV programming directly from satellites. Nationwide, over 11 million
households subscribe to satellite TV. That number increases by over 2
million households every year.
Rural areas have come to depend on network coverage that satellites
provide.
In my State, Montana, where over 35 percent of homes depend solely on
satellite broadcasting for their TV reception, obviously this
development has been a real boon.
While satellite broadcasting has improved the quality of life for
folks in rural America, it has not been perfect. Satellite systems have
not been able to carry local broadcast stations. So local viewers have
not always been able to get local broadcasting.
This is not just a problem for satellite subscribers; it is a problem
for local television broadcasters and for the fabric of local
communities. Local broadcasters play a key role in our communities.
They provide local news, local weather, and public service programming.
Viewers depend on these local broadcasts to find out what is going on
in their community: When the school board, the PTA, and the city
council are meeting, or when there is a parade or a fundraiser for
their church or a civic group.
Local broadcasters are vital to our communities. They provide jobs,
and
[[Page 30568]]
they allow local businesses to grow through advertising. In short, the
importance of local broadcasting is evident in all parts of community
life.
Local broadcasters also provide network programming: NBC, ABC, CBS,
and FOX. Nineteen of the 20 TV stations in Montana are affiliated with
some of these networks or with PBS. These stations air national news,
sports, and entertainment at times of the day when people with jobs and
kids can watch them.
Without local broadcasts, you might miss the evening network news
because it comes on before you get home from work or because it airs
late at night. People want local network coverage because it works in
their own lives and in their local community.
Until now, technology has not provided for rebroadcast of local
signals by satellites. Many rural residents have not been able to get
decent reception over the air.
Of course, we in the Senate cannot change technology or geography,
but what we can do is change the law. We can make local-into-local
broadcasting a reality, and we should.
Last spring, we passed H.R. 1554. At the time, we neglected an
important responsibility. The language we passed would have required
the turnoff of network programing to many rural satellite viewers. It
would have done nothing to help the many local broadcasters in smaller
cities and towns. It was an oversight.
Following the vote, I wrote a letter to the conference asking they
pay attention to the needs of the many viewers, communities, and
stations that had been ignored. Twenty-three of my colleagues, from
both sides of the aisle, signed the letter.
As you know, Madam President, the conference on the satellite bill
has paid little attention to our request. The language of the
conference report, now titled the ``Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999,'' includes some important
new provisions.
It does allow satellite viewers in poor reception areas, the so-
called ``grade B contour'' viewers, to continue to get network
programming from satellites. Without this, many satellite viewers will
lose their network TV at the end of next month.
It also includes a loan guarantee that will make it possible for all
local stations to broadcast on satellite, not just those in the very
largest cities and towns.
Without this, the other local-into-local provisions of the act are an
empty promise to rural and small town America that depends on
satellites.
Last week, the House passed the conference language by a near
unanimous vote. But in the Senate, a few Members--and I might say, on
the other side of the aisle--are blocking a vote on this conference
report. They say: We promise to have more hearings. We should have
another committee look at this.
They might as well say: Let them watch the radio.
The Senate should act now to ensure that the conference report
language becomes law. It is clear the majority of the Senate is ready
to vote to approve the measure, just as the House did. Instead, we are
offered a weakened version attached to the omnibus appropriations bill,
which we will get sometime soon, and a weak promise to do something
next year.
This is a no-brainer. There are many people in rural America who
would like to add satellite TV, network programming from their local
stations. It is that simple. We have it within our power today to very
simply pass a provision and provide for the financing, a loan
guarantee. We all know it is going to pass. We all know we are going to
do it. But there is one Senator who wants it in his committee. And I
say, that one Senator represents a State where there are a lot of
people who I think want local-into-local broadcasting from the
satellites.
There are millions of Americans who depend on their satellites and
want local network coverage--not national network coverage--or at least
the option to get both local and national.
This is a no-brainer. I get more mail on this subject than any other
subject. I daresay, Madam President, you probably get a lot of mail on
this subject, too. I know a lot of Senators probably get as much mail
on this one subject as any other. And we can simply solve it today very
easily. It makes no sense for us not to.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
____________________
NOMINATION OF T. MICHAEL KERR
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I want to make a few comments regarding
the nomination of T. Michael Kerr to be Administrator of the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of Labor. I held up this nomination
until I could secure an agreement regarding the issue of unauthorized
break time from the Secretary of Labor, outlined in a letter I will
submit for the Record.
The need for this agreement with the Secretary was precipitated by a
case pending before the Wage and Hour Division regarding an employee
exceeding the allotted time for a rest/period break, and an employer
deducting from the employee's compensation the time taken in excess of
the break time.
The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to provide
its employees with a rest period/breaks. Nevertheless, many employers
offer short breaks to their employees. Although the duration of a
voluntary break is up to the employer, the breaks generally run between
5 and 20 minutes.
The Department of Labor does recognize that employers have the
flexibility to determine the number of breaks and the length of breaks
that they offer to their employees. The Department of Labor has taken
the position that when an employer allows its employees to take a short
break and an employee abuses the break time policy by exceeding the
time that the employer allotted for the break, the employer must still
compensate the employee for the first 20 minutes of the break.
Further, the Department of Labor has taken the position that if an
employer offers its employees a compensable break of less than 20
minutes in duration, and an employee's break time exceeds the time that
the employer allotted for the break, then the employer's only recourse
against the employee is disciplinary action (such as a reprimand or
termination), or elimination of the rest period.
Under the agreement I reached with the Secretary, the Department of
Labor will conduct a complete review of its policy regarding
unauthorized breaks. That review will be completed by February 1, 2000.
Upon completion of the review, the Department of Labor will submit its
findings in writing to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the relevant
committees in the House and the Senate. The review will include
consideration of what outcome is in the best interest of the employee
if the employee exceeds the allotted time of a rest period/break:
disciplinary action against the employee (such as a reprimand or
termination); elimination of the rest period/break option; or
deductions of compensation for the time in excess of the allotted break
time.
Also, the Secretary committed the Department of Labor will assure
that the resolution of any cases in which unauthorized break times are
at issue, will be consistent with the findings in their review.
This is an important review of what is clearly an outdated policy. I
look forward to the outcome of their review, and I thank the staff at
the Department of Labor for working in good faith with my office, and
the Secretary for working to a quick resolution of this issue so this
nomination can move forward.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary of Labor be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, DC, November 18, 1999.
Hon. Don Nickles,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: This is a follow-up to the meeting of
our respective staffs yesterday. While the Department of
Labor recognizes that employers have the flexibility
[[Page 30569]]
to determine the number and length of breaks they offer to
their employees, the Wage and Hour Division has taken the
position that if an employer offers a break of less than 20
minutes in duration, the time the employee spends on that
break typically is compensable hours worked under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Most of the Wage and Hour Opinion Letters that address this
issue involve authorized breaks. However, on several
occasions, the Wage and Hour Administrator has stated that
short unauthorized breaks may also count as hours worked.
Wage and Hour has taken the position that if an employee
exceeds the time allotted for an authorized break, an
employer may take a disciplinary action against the employee,
or the employer may eliminate the option for rest periods/
breaks.
I am committing the Wage and Hour Division and the
Solicitor's Office to carefully review our policy with
respect to the compensability of unauthorized break time
under the FLSA. Our review will specifically include those
instances in which employees exceed the time allowed for a
rest break. We will also consider what outcome is in the best
interests of the employee if the employee exceeds the
allotted time for a rest period/break, including the option
of deductions of compensation for the time taken in excess of
the allotted break time.
As part of our review, we will consider the statutory text,
relevant legislative history and regulatory material, case
law, previous Wage and Hour Opinion Letters, changing
technology and any information that your office or a member
of the public may provide. We will complete our review of
this matter by February 1, 2000, and transmit our conclusions
and supporting rationale in writing to the Chairman and
Ranking Members of the relevant committees in the House and
the Senate.
It is important that all officials of the Wage and Hour
Division interpret and apply the law in a uniform manner, and
so advise the public. I will instruct the Wage and Hour
Division to assure that the resolution of any cases in which
unauthorized break time are at issue is consistent with the
outcome we reach in our overall review.
I very much appreciate your interest in these important
questions.
Sincerely,
Alexis M. Herman.
____________________
COMPENSATING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WORKERS
Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, yesterday, my colleague from New
Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and I introduced legislation that is,
frankly, long overdue.
For more than 2 years, I have been concerned that the Department of
Energy was not taking seriously the complaints of a number of workers
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee who are ill and who believe that their
illnesses are linked to their employment at the DOE site in Oak Ridge.
In November of 1997, two years ago, I wrote to the then-Surgeon
General, Dr. David Satcher, to request that the Centers for Disease
Control, CDC, come to Oak Ridge to try to determine whether a pattern
of unexplained illnesses was present and, if so, if its cause could be
determined. The CDC study, like others before it, looked at a narrow
sample of individuals and did not produce conclusive results.
Since then, I have been working to get the Department of Energy to
acknowledge that there is a problem, that certain of its current and
former workers are ill, and that they should work with us to address
the situation. This legislation--which we developed in conjunction with
the Department--is an important step in that direction.
It says, for the first time, that if mistakes were made, and if harm
was done to workers who helped this country win the Cold War, we need
to act now to remedy those mistakes. It represents a recognition on the
part of the government that if people have illnesses that are linked to
their employment at a Department of Energy facility, they deserve
compensation. That is progress, and I am proud to be a part of it.
Our bill has three parts. The first section, the Energy Employees'
Beryllium Compensation Act, would provide compensation to current and
former workers who have contracted chronic beryllium disease or
beryllium sensitivity while performing duties uniquely related to the
Department of Energy's nuclear weapons production program. There are
approximately 90 Oak Ridge workers who have been diagnosed with either
chronic beryllium disease or beryllium sensitivity to date, and a total
of 2,200 Oak Ridge workers who were potentially exposed.
The second section, the Energy Employees' Pilot Project Act, would
establish a special pilot program for a specific group of 55 Oak Ridge
workers who are currently the subject of an investigation by a panel of
physicians specializing in health conditions related to occupational
exposure to radiation and hazardous materials. This section authorizes
the Secretary of Energy to award $100,000 each to those Oak Ridge
workers whose illnesses are determined to likely be linked to their
employment at the Oak Ridge site.
Finally, our bill creates the Paducah Employees' Exposure
Compensation Fund, which would compensate those current and former
workers at the Paducah, KY gaseous diffusion plant who were exposed to
plutonium and other radioactive materials without their knowledge, and
who develop one of a specified list of conditions linked to radiation
exposure. I want to note that there are workers at the K-25 gaseous
diffusion plant in Oak Ridge who were exposed to the same contaminants
as those in Paducah, and workers in Portsmouth, Ohio who were similarly
affected as well. It is my hope that these two groups of workers would
be added to this section of the legislation, upon the conclusion of the
Department of Energy's investigation into what happened at these two
sites, if the facts so warrant. Their absence at this time should in no
way indicate that either the sponsors of this bill or the Department of
Energy believe that they were not similarly affected. I strongly
believe that workers at all of the DOE sites must be treated equally in
this process, and I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that that
is the case.
Let me just remind my colleagues who it is we are talking about. We
are talking about workers who participated in the Manhattan Project,
men and women who helped to ensure the superiority of America's nuclear
arsenal, and who directly contributed to our nation's victory in the
Cold War. We owe them a debt of gratitude. And if we put them in harm's
way without their knowledge, it's time for us to make that right. This
bill is a step in that direction. I look forward to its consideration
by the Senate.
____________________
PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, on June 23, 1999, Senator Lieberman and
I introduced S. 1272, the Pain Relief Promotion Act, which addresses
two specific concerns. First, it provides federal support for training
and research in palliative care. Second, it clarifies federal law on
the legitimate use of controlled substances. On October 27, 1999 the
House passed its companion measure H.R. 2260 by the resounding
bipartisan vote of 271 to 156. It is my hope that the Senate will soon
have the opportunity to debate and vote on this important legislation.
In anticipation of that debate, and in light of inaccurate
characterizations of the second aspect of our bipartisan legislation, I
believe it is important for me to ensure that the record reflects
precisely how this bill will--and will not--affect current federal law
with regard to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) oversight of the
use of federally controlled substances.
To understand the effect the Pain Relief Promotion Act will have on
pain control, we must begin with what the law is now. The Controlled
Substances Act, CSA, of 1970 charged the DEA with the responsibility of
overseeing narcotics and dangerous drugs--including powerful
prescription drugs which have a legitimate medical use but can also be
misused to harm or kill. In asserting its authority over these drugs,
Congress declared in the preamble of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 that ``Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic
in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the
interstate incidents of such traffic'' (21 U.S.C. 801 (6)).
In 1984, Congress amended the CSA due in part to a specific concern
regarding the misuse of prescription drugs in lethal overdoses. The
then Democratic-controlled House and a Republican Senate further
strengthened the Act, empowering the DEA to revoke a physician's
federal prescribing
[[Page 30570]]
license if he or she uses it to endanger ``health and safety''
regardless of whether state law has been violated (21 U.S.C. 824,
referencing 21 U.S.C. 823). The chairman of the Health subcommittee in
the House agreed: ``Drugs legally manufactured for use in medicine are
responsible for a substantial majority of drug-related deaths and
injuries'' (Rep. Waxman, Hearing of July 31, 1984, Hearing Record No.
98-168, p. 365). Congress' view was that while the states are the first
line of defense against misuse of prescription drugs, the Federal
Government must have its own objective standard as to what constitutes
such misuse--and it must have the authority to enforce that standard
when a state cannot or will not do so. Congress' 1970 and 1984
decisions have been upheld time and time again by federal courts.
It is clear that federal law is intended to prevent use of these
drugs for lethal overdoses, and contains no exception for deliberate
overdoses approved by a physician. Nowhere in the Controlled Substances
Act has death or assisting death ever been considered a ``legitimate
medical purpose'' for use of these drugs. In the past, physicians who
were involved in the use of these drugs for suicide or other lethal
overdoses have lost their federal authority to prescribe controlled
substances on the grounds that they had endangered ``health and
safety.''
In 1997, Congress passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act
of 1997 without a dissenting vote in the Senate and by an overwhelming
margin of 398-16 in the House. President Clinton stated in signing the
bill that ``it will allow the Federal Government to speak with a clear
voice in opposing these practices.'' He further warned that ``to
endorse assisted suicide would set us on a disturbing and perhaps
dangerous path.'' I would add only that authorizing a federal agency to
endorse the use of controlled substances for assisted suicide would
similarly ``set us on a disturbing and perhaps dangerous path.''
In November 1994, the State of Oregon adopted by referendum the so-
called ``Death with Dignity Act,'' allowing physicians to prescribe
medication for the purpose of assisting patients' suicides. The week of
that vote, Professor George Annas of Boston University pointed out the
inconsistency between the Oregon referendum and the Controlled
Substances Act in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. He
questioned whether such a state law was compatible with existing
federal laws governing federally controlled drugs, ``since the drafters
of the federal statute certainly did not have this purpose [assisting
suicides] in mind.''
However, on June 5, 1998, overturning a previous determination by her
own DEA Administrator, the Attorney General issued a letter carving out
an exception for Oregon so it can use federally-controlled substances
for assisted suicide. She claimed that Congress did not ``intend to
override a state determination as to what constitutes legitimate
medical practice in the absence of a federal law prohibiting that
practice.'' The Pain Relief Promotion Act will respond to the Attorney
General's challenge, by clarifying that the intentional misuse of these
drugs to cause patients' deaths is not authorized by Congress in any
state, nor has it ever been.
On October 27, 1997, Oregon's ``Death with Dignity Act'' became
effective. In the first year at least 15 patients have committed
suicide with doctor's assistance under the new Oregon law. We really do
not know the total number, because all reporting of cases is left
completely in the hands of the doctors themselves, and the Oregon
Health Division admits it has no idea how many unreported cases there
are. But regarding those 15 reported cases we know one thing: Every one
of those patient's deaths was caused by a federally controlled
substance, prescribed with a federal DEA registration number, using
federal authority. Today, without any decision to this effect by
Congress or the President, the federal government is actively involved
in assisting suicides in Oregon.
To hear some of the critics of this bill you might think that the
Pain Relief Promotion Act creates a new authority on the part of the
DEA to revoke doctors' registrations if they use controlled substances
to assist suicide. On the contrary that authority has existed for 29
years and it exists now. Attorney General Janet Reno was very clear on
this matter in her letter of June 5, 1998: ``Adverse action under the
CSA may well be warranted . . . where a physician assists in 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.''
What does this mean for current law and practice? First, the DEA has
full authority to revoke a DEA registration for assisting suicide in
any of the 49 states where assisting suicide is not authorized by state
law. While critics of the Pain Relief Promotion Act have said that
empowering the DEA to investigate physicians in such cases will have a
``chilling effect'' on the treatment of pain, the fact is that such
authority already exists in 49 states.
What about the one State, Oregon, where the Attorney General said the
DEA will not take adverse actions against physicians for assisting
suicide in compliance with the Oregon law? Even in Oregon many cases of
assisting suicide remain illegal under state law. The state law
authorizes assisting the suicide of those who are terminally ill, but
not others. Under the Attorney General's determination, then, the DEA
can continue to review cases of assisting suicide to make sure they do
not involve those who are not terminally ill, and it can scrutinize
whether a given use of pain medication was really intended to assist
suicide. All aspects of the Oregon guidelines for legally valid
assisted suicide are also subject to DEA investigation, since the
Attorney General has only authorized physicians to use federally
controlled drugs for assisted suicides when they fully comply with
those state guidelines.
Thus, as interpreted by the Attorney General, a registration to
prescribe federally controlled substances can be revoked under the
current Controlled Substances Act if these substances are used to
assist suicide in any state in the Nation, with the exception of
certain cases of assisted suicide that Oregon has legalized for the
terminally ill. If DEA scrutiny of doctors' prescribing practices were
going to ``chill'' the practice of pain control, that would already be
occurring under current law.
How does the Pain Relief Promotion Act impact this situation? It
establishes that, for the first time in federal law, the use of
controlled substances for the relief of pain and discomfort is a
``legitimate medical purpose,'' even if the large doses used in
treating pain may unintentionally hasten death. Intentionally causing
death or assisting in causing death remains forbidden. Thus this bill
does not increase the DEA's regulatory authority at all. On the
contrary, its only effect in 49 states (and even in Oregon, in cases
involving those who are not terminally ill) is to provide new legal
protection for physicians who prescribe controlled substances to
control pain.
In Oregon, this bill eliminates the Attorney General's artificial
exception designed to accommodate assisted suicides that are no longer
penalized under Oregon law. The DEA can meet its responsibility here
simply by looking at the reports required by Oregon law, in which
doctors must identify the drugs used to assist suicide. Those records
will make it clear whether federally controlled drugs were used; and
since the physician is clearly reporting that his or her own intent was
to help cause death, there will be no question of murky intentions or
ambiguity. Thus this bill will not lead to any increase in the DEA
trying to ``second guess'' or infer physicians' intentions, even in
Oregon.*****-*****- -Name: -Payroll No. -Folios: J1S/13-J1S/14 -Date: -
Subformat:
What of any unreported cases in which physicians assist the suicides
of terminally ill patients? Those assisted suicides are already a crime
under Oregon law, and thus already subject to adverse action by the DEA
as well
[[Page 30571]]
under the Attorney General's interpretation. Only if a physician
officially reports the case to the Oregon Health Division is he or she
exempted from state criminal penalties. So those cases are already
covered by the same DEA authority that currently applies to assisted
suicides in the other 49 states.
Let me take this situation step by step.
First, removing the Oregon exception to the existing nationwide
policy cannot increase any ``chilling effect'' on pain relief outside
of Oregon, because the bill does not increase one iota the authority of
the DEA to investigate the misuse of controlled substances to assist
suicide outside of Oregon. In fact, in those states its only effect is
to provide a more explicit ``safe harbor'' for the practice of pain
control, which is a significant advance and improvement for doctors and
terminally ill patients. This is also true of assisted suicide cases
within Oregon that do not comply with the state's reporting
requirements or other guidelines. In all these cases, the Pain Relief
Promotion Act gives the DEA no new mandate to investigate cases of
assisted suicide more directly. Rather, it is expected to follow its
longstanding practice of generally deferring to state authorities and
allowing them to take the lead in investigating possible wrongdoing.
Second, no new questioning of physicians' intentions is warranted to
address the cases of assisted suicide that are now permitted under
Oregon law. To be free of criminal penalties under state law in Oregon,
a doctor who assists a suicide must submit a report to Oregon
authorities that includes information on the drugs prescribed to assist
the suicide. The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, can obtain those
reports from the Oregon authorities. It already has the authority to
subpoena them, if necessary; again, our legislation has no impact on
this.
Thus, even in Oregon, this bill will not result in any increase in
DEA oversight or investigations of doctors based on their prescribing
patterns or the dosages they use for particular patients. This is
clearly stated in the House Judiciary Committee report on this bill, H.
Rep. 106-378 Pt. 1, pp. 12-13.
It follows that if this bill is enacted, any doctors in Oregon who
prescribe controlled substances for pain relief need not fear any
increase in DEA scrutiny of their practices, and therefore should not
in any way be deterred from prescribing adequate pain relief.
This bill cannot have a ``chilling effect'' on pain control, but will
have the opposite effect. For the first time, it will place in the
Controlled Substances Act, as the American Society of Anesthesiologists
notes, ``recognition that alleviating pain in the usual course of
professional practice is a legitimate medical purpose for dispensing 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.''
The American Medical Association says this bill, ``provides a new and
important statutory protection for physicians prescribing controlled
substances for pain, particularly for patients at the end of life.'' As
the American Academy of Pain Management observes, this will protect the
ability of ``prescribers to relieve pain without fear of regulatory
discipline.''
Those who are concerned about the possibility of a negative impact on
pain relief if we pass this bill need to answer this question: do they
believe that now the Drug Enforcement Administration is having a
chilling effect on pain relief because federally controlled substances
cannot be used to assist suicide in 49 states and even, in many cases,
in Oregon?
If the answer is ``no,'' then there is no basis to be concerned about
this bill--for this bill will not increase investigations or oversight
into the dosages of drugs used for pain relief, and in fact instructs
the DEA to be even more sensitive to physicians' need to prescribe
large doses of these drugs for pain control.
If the answer is ``yes,'' then there is a great need for this bill--
because for the first time it adds specific protections for doctors who
prescribe controlled substances for pain control--resulting in a
decrease in any ``chilling effect'' that may exist under current law.
Let me quote from the American Medical Association:
The bill would not expand existing criminal penalties in
the CSA for persons whose unauthorized use of a controlled
substance leads to someone's death. . . . The bill would not
expand the DEA's authority concerning jurisdiction,
investigations or enforcement regarding the CSA. In fact, the
inclusion of a recognition of the ``double effect'' in the
CSA provides physicians in all jurisdictions an additional
statutory protection in cases of alleged [physician-assisted
suicide]. The bill has the potential, through its educational
provisions, of sensitizing law enforcement personnel to the
multiple issues of end-of-life care and prescribing.
It is noteworthy that although the Justice Department expressed
concern about the portion of the bill that would prevent the use of
federally controlled substances to assist suicide in Oregon, it agrees
that the bill would aid, and not hinder, pain relief. In a letter dated
October 19,1999, the Justice Department wrote that the bill ``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
[the bill] addressing palliative care.''
This bill makes it easier, not harder, to use controlled substances
to relieve pain. That is why so many major medical organizations,
including the National Hospice Organization, the American Academy of
Pain Management and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, as well
as the AMA, strongly support its enactment.
Some may wish to abolish the Controlled Substances Act altogether.
They may think that the federal government's longstanding insistence on
monitoring the distribution of these powerful drugs is an unwarranted
intrusion into medical practice. I disagree with that stand, but at
least it can be understood as a consistent position. What is untenable
is the claim that this particular bill, which clearly improves the
law's sensitivity to medical judgments on pain control, somehow
mysteriously worsens that situation. Once we understand what the
current law is and what this bill does, that claim simply does not make
sense.
In short, the Pain Relief Promotion Act will foster pain control. It
will improve existing law by adding significant new legal protections
for physicians and pharmacists who prescribe and dispense controlled
substances for pain control. It will reduce, and in no way increase,
any possible ``chilling effect" that could deter adequate pain control.
And by clarifying federal law so the federal government will not
facilitate the medical institutionalization of assisted suicide in any
state, this legislation may help discourage doctors from simply
suggesting assisted suicide instead of working to address their
patients' real problems of uncontrolled pain. As protectors of public
health and safety we should be encouraging doctors to kill the pain,
not the patient.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following two
editorials be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 4, 1999]
Don't Kill the Pain-Relief Bill
(By Wesley J. Smith)
Last week, by a vote of 271-156, the House approved the
Pain Relief Promotion Act, designed to promote effective
medical treatment of pain while deterring the misuse of
narcotics and other controlled substances for assisted
suicide. The bill's passage prompted an outpouring of
hyperbole and misinformation from opponents. Here are the
facts about the act:
It would not outlaw assisted suicide, Critics accuse
Congress of ``overturning'' Oregon's assisted-suicide
referendum. Would that it did. In fact, the act would outlaw
only the intentional use of controlled substances to cause
death. Lethal substances not controlled by federal drug
regulations could still be prescribed legally on Oregon for
use in assisted suicide.
It would not interfere with states' rights. Under the
Controlled Substances Act the federal government, not the
states, has the authority to determine what is and is not a
proper medical use of the drugs specified in
[[Page 30572]]
the act. Thus, as an editorial in the (Portland) Oregonian
noted, it is the Oregon law that ``barges into an area of
long-standing federal jurisdiction.'' Thus passage of the act
would return national uniformity to the enforcement of
federal drug laws.
It merely reaffirms existing federal law. Because the act
declares that assisted suicide is not a ``legitimate medical
purpose'' under the Controlled Substances Act, critics have
wrongly accused supporters of granting new authority to the
Drug Enforcement Agency to punish doctors. In fact, DEA has
had that authority for nearly 30 years. Since 1980 it has
brought more than 250 enforcement actions for violating the
federal legal standard of ``legitimate medical purpose.''
The medical community overwhelmingly favors it. Proponents
of the bill include the American Medical Association, the
National Hospice Organization, the Hospice Association of
America, the American Academy of Pain Management, the
American Society of Anesthesiologists and the American
College of Osteopathic Family Physicians. (True, support
isn't unanimous. Dissent within the medical community has
been led by the Rhode Island Medical Association.)
It has broad bipartisan support. Seventy-one House
Democrats voted for the bill, and its Senate sponsors include
Joe Lieberman (D., Conn.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Evan
Bayh (D., Ind.).
It would enhance pain control. If the act becomes law, pain
control will for the first time be specifically identified in
federal law as a proper use of controlled substances--even if
the use of pain-controlling drugs has the unintended side
effect of causing death. That is a much-needed legal reform,
because many doctors fail to treat pain aggressively because
they fear the government's second-guessing. Several states
have recently passed similar laws, leading to dramatic
increases in the use of morphine and other palliative
medications.
The Pain Relief Promotion Act looks likely to pass the
Senate. If President Clinton truly feels our pain, he will
sign it the moment it hits his desk.
____
[From the Oregonian, July 1, 1999]
Kill the Pain, Not the Patients
Congress should allow doctors to use controlled drugs for aggressive
pain treatment instead of suicide
It's no secret to any reader of this space that we oppose
Oregon's venture into physician-assisted suicide.
But last year, when the American Medical Association and
the National Hospice Organization came out against a bill in
Congress giving medical review boards the power to deny or
yank the federal drug-prescribing license to physicians who
prescribed these drugs to assist in suicides, we took their
concerns seriously.
The groups argued that the proposed law could reverse
recent advances in end-of-life care. Doctors might become
afraid to prescribe drugs to manage pain and depression--
things that, when uncontrolled, can lead the terminally ill
to consider killing themselves in the first place. We thought
then that the problem could be worked out and that it was
possible to keep doctors from using federally controlled
substances to kill their patients without also preventing
them from relieving their terminally-ill patients' agonies.
This Congress's Pain Relief Promotion Act proves it, and
the proposed legislation comes not a moment too soon. A new
report by the Center for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon
Health Sciences University shows that end-of-life care in
Oregon--which fancies itself a leader in this area--is far
from all it should be. Too many Oregonians spend the last
days of their life in pain.
There's no real need for that--and the Pain Relief
Promotion Act of 1999 would go a long way toward addressing
these systemic and professional failures here and elsewhere.
The proposal would authorize federal health-care agencies to
promote an increased understanding of palliative care and to
support training programs for health professionals in the
best pain management practices. It would also require the
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to develop and
share scientific information on proper palliative care.
Further, the Pain Relief Promotion Act would clarify the
Controlled Substances Act in two essential ways.
One, it makes clear that alleviating pain and discomfort is
an authorized and legitimate medical purpose for the use of
controlled substances.
Two, the bill states that nothing in the Controlled
Substances Act authorizes the use of these drugs for assisted
suicide or euthanasia and that state laws allowing assisted
suicide or euthanasia are irrelevant in determining whether a
practitioner has violated the Controlled Substances Act.
Technically, of course, the bill does not overturn Oregon's
so-called Death with Dignity Act. But it would thwart it, for
all practical purposes, because it makes it illegal for
Oregon doctors to engage in assisted suicide using their
federal drug-prescribing license. Suicide's advocates may
think of some other method, but none seems obvious.
Is this a federal intrusion on a state's right to allow
physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia?
To hear some recent converts to states' right talk, you
might think so. But you could just as easily argue that
Oregon's assisted suicide law intrudes on the federal domain.
The feds have long had jurisdiction over controlled
substances, even as states kept the power to regulate the way
physicians prescribe them. At best, it's a gray area.
You'll recall that the Department of Justice declined to
assert a federal interest in all of this when it plausibly
could have, shortly after Oregon voters approved assisted
suicide. It's probably better--and high time--that Congress
asserts that interest explicitly.
This act would establish a uniform national standard
preventing the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted
suicide. That, in itself, should advance the national debate
on this subject in a more seemly way than, say, the recent
efforts of Dr. Jack Kervorkian.
Beyond that, it's high time that Congress made clear that
improved pain relief is a key objective of our nation's
health-care institutions and our Controlled Substances Act.
The Pain Relief Promotion Act will do all this. No wonder the
American Medical Association and the National Hospice
Organization are now on board.
____________________
PRISON CARD PROGRAM
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an
important and highly successful program operated for more than 25 years
by the Salvation Army in conjunction with the Bureau of Prisons. This
program is called the Prison Card Program. Under the program, greeting
cards are donated to the Salvation Army that are then given to inmates
at correctional facilities across the country. This program allows
inmates to keep in touch with family and friends--not only during the
holiday season--but throughout the year. The benefits of this program
to the inmates and their loved ones are clear. However, there are also
benefits to the community as well. Inmates who maintain strong ties
with their families and friends are less likely to return to prison
once their sentence is completed.
I want to commend the Salvation Army, the Department of Justice, and
the Bureau of Prisons for supporting this program. In particular, I
want the Department to know that this program has the support of
Congress. I have spoken to Chairman Gregg, who has indicated that he is
prepared to work with me and other supporters of the program in the
coming months to ensure that this important charitable program is
sustained well into the future.
____________________
THE CARIBBEAN BASIN INITIATIVE AND THE IMPACT ON TRADE WITH ISRAEL
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President. I would like to alert my colleagues to an
issue raised by H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and
the Caribbean Basin Initiative, regarding trade with Israel under the
U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement. Notwithstanding our free-trade
agreement with Israel, the CBI provisions of this legislation would
unfairly discriminate against U.S. imports from Israel.
Under that legislation, most U.S. textile products made with Israeli
inputs, such as yarn, fabric or thread, would not be eligible for duty
free treatment when assembled into apparel in the Caribbean. To
illustrate the contrast with current law, today, if a U.S. company uses
Israeli yarn in manufacturing fabric, the products made from such
fabric would be eligible for CBI benefits. The trade bill creates a
unilateral change from the status quo in our trade with Israel and a
major barrier to U.S. companies using Israeli-origin inputs.
I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the Economic
Minister of the Israeli Embassy that was sent to each of the Members of
the Senate Finance Committee urging Congress to treat Israeli inputs on
par with U.S. inputs in this trade legislation. I ask unanimous consent
that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Embassy of Israel,
Washington, DC, June 15, 1999.
Dear Senator: I am writing to you, as well other members of
the Committee on Finance, to ask for your support during the
[[Page 30573]]
Committee's mark-up of the U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade
Enhancement Act (also known as the ``CBI'' trade parity bill)
to ensure that it does not impose an economic barrier against
U.S. imports of Israeli-origin inputs, such as yarn, fabric
or thread, under the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement
(``FTAA'').
My Government urges the inclusion of a provision in the CBI
legislation that will enable U.S. companies to continue
utilizing Israeli-origin inputs in producing American-made
products without making such products ineligible for CBI
duty-free trade preferences.
The current CBI trade program provides preferential tariff
treatment to apparel made from U.S.-formed components that
are finished in a CBI-eligible country. Currently such
components may be cut from fabric, or formed from yarn,
originating either in the United States or Israel. The
legislation before the Committee incorporates a U.S.-only
fabric and thread forward rule of origin. The CBI bill
recently approved by the House Ways and Means Committee also
incorporates a U.S.-only ``yarn forward'' requirement for
knit-to-shape products. Either bill in its current form would
adversely affect Israeli exports to the United States. Market
conditions would all but require U.S. companies to halt
imports of Israeli inputs so as not to disqualify their
products from the duty-free trade preference to be extended
unilaterally to CBI-eligible countries. The loss of sales to
the U.S. market would harm both Israeli companies and U.S.
companies that supply raw materials used in the manufacture
of Israeli inputs, such as nylon yarn.
I am bringing this matter to your attention because the
legislation to be considered by the Finance Committee should
not damage U.S.-Israeli trade. Protecting against such harm
can be accomplished by providing in the legislation that
Israeli-origin inputs will, for purposes of CBI preferences,
be treated no less favorably than U.S. inputs. Such a
provision would ensure that restrictive consequences of the
proposed legislation would not adversely affect U.S.-Israeli
trade.
The legislative measure that we are asking you to support
is consistent with previous trade measures approved by your
Committee and enacted into U.S. law to preserve U.S.-Israeli
trade under the FTAA. Such a provision would preserve the
status quo in U.S.-Israeli trade, a goal that has been
endorsed previously on a number of occasions by the
Committee. It is not intended to create any new benefit for
Israeli products.
In sum, our objective is to ensure that the CBI trade bill
does not withdraw the practical benefits of the U.S.-Israel
Free Trade Area Agreement and our mutual goal of expanding
bilateral trade. I would very much welcome the opportunity to
review this issue with you.
Sincerely,
Ohad Marani,
Economic Minister.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think that it is the intent of the CBI
legislation to undermine our trade with Israel. Preserving our existing
trade with Israel will not in any way lessen the trade benefits we
extend to the CBI countries. And it is critically important that we
consider our existing trade agreement with Israel as we develop further
trade measures. I urge my colleagues to address this issue as this bill
moves forward, so that we do not prejudice our trade with Israel under
the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, at the time Senate Report No. 623 was
filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask
unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in
the Congressional 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, November 10, 1999.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 623, the Dakota
Water Resources Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Megan
Carroll (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the
impact on state, local, and tribal governments).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
S. 623--Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999
summary
CVO estimates the implementing S. 623 would cost $131
million over the 2000-2004 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. Starting in fiscal year 2002, S. 623
would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however, that changes
in direct spending would not become significant until 2007.
S. 623 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA). The state of North Dakota and local governments in
that state would probably incur some costs as a result of the
bill's enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
S. 623 would amend the existing authority for construction
of the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program, administered by the Bureau of
Reclamation (the Bureau). S. 623 would authorize the
appropriation of about $688 million (in 1999 dollars) for the
Bureau to complete the GDU. Adjusting for anticipated cost
growth, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation
would require the appropriation of $793 million over the
2000-2017 period. Most of the outlays from such funding would
occur after 2004. We estimate that enacting the bill would
reduce offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending)
by less than $200,000 a year between 2002 and 2006, but would
result in increased offsetting receipts of about $7 million a
year starting in 2007.
estimated cost to the federal government
The estimated budgetary impact on S. 623 over the next five
years is shown in the following table. The costs of this
legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural
resources and environment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
---------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
Estimated Authorization Level... 0 24 33 47 31
Estimated Outlays............... 0 16 27 41 47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Most of the costs of implementing S. 623 would occur after 2004. In
addition, to the bill's discretionary costs, it would increase direct
spending by less than $200,000 a year over the 2000-2004 period. (That
estimated annual effect would continue through 2006, but S. 623 would
reduce direct spending by about $7 million a year after 2006).
Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 623 would cost $131 million
over the 2000-2004 period, $450 million over the 2000-2009
period, and $793 million over the 2000-2018 period.
Initially, the bill would have no significant impact on
direct spending, but after 2006, S. 623 would increase
offsetting receipts by about $7 million a year.
basis of estimate
Estimates of funds needed to meet design and construction
schedules were provided by the Bureau. CBO adjusted those
estimates to reflect anticipated cost growth during the
construction period, as authorized by the bill. For purposes
of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 623 will be enacted
during fiscal year 2000 and that the authorized amounts will
be appropriated. Estimates of outlays are based on historical
spending patterns for similar projects.
spending subject to appropriation
Red River Valley Water Supply Project.--S. 623 would
authorize the appropriation of $200 million (in 1999 dollars)
for the Bureau to construct facilities to meet the water
quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley. Based on
information from the Bureau, CBO expects that construction
would begin during fiscal year 2004 and would be
substantially completed in 2007. Assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that design and initial
construction would about $75 million over the 2000-2004
period.
Municipal, Rural, and Industrial Water Systems.--The bill
also would authorize the appropriation of $200 million (in
1999 dollars) for the Bureau to make grants to North Dakota
to construct municipal, rural, and industrial water systems.
The bill would authorize the appropriation of an additional
$200 million (in 1999 dollars) for the Bureau to construct,
operate, and maintain, on a nonreimbursable basis, municipal,
rural, and industrial water systems on certain Indian
reservations. CBO estimates that implementing both of these
provisions would cost about $45 million between 2000 and
2004.
Operation and Maintenance.--During construction of the Red
River Valley Water Supply Project, operation and maintenance
costs of the GDU would be covered by using funds appropriated
for construction. Once the facility is completed in 2007, S.
623 would authorize the appropriation of amounts necessary
for the Bureau to operate and maintain a certain portion of
the facility. Based on information from the Bureau, CBO
expects the facility to be put into use in 2007. At that
time, we estimate that an additional appropriation of about
$3 million would be required each year for operation and
maintenance.
S. 623 also would authorize the appropriation of additional
amounts necessary for the operation and maintenance of
wildlife mitigation and enhancement facilities, including
wildlife refuges. Based on information from the Bureau, CBO
estimates this work would cost about $1 million annually
starting in 2001.
[[Page 30574]]
Natural Resources Trust.--S. 623 would authorize the
appropriation of $25 million for the Secretary of the
Interior to make annual contributions to the Natural
Resources Trust, a nonfederal corporation (currently known as
the Wetlands Trust). The amount to be contributed in any
fiscal year would equal 5 percent of the amount appropriated
in that year for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project
and for non-Indian municipal, rural, and industrial water
supply systems. CBO estimates this provision would cost $6
million between 2000 and 2004.
Recreational Projects.--The bill would authorize the
appropriation of $6.5 million for the Bureau to construct,
operate, and maintain new recreational facilities, provided
that the Secretary of the Interior has entered into
agreements with nonfederal entities to provide half of the
cost of operating and maintaining any such facilities. CBO
estimates that implementing this provision would cost about
$1 million between 2000 and 2004.
Oakes Test Area Title Transfer.--S. 623 would authorize the
Secretary to convey the Oakes Test Area, an experimental
irrigation facility in North Dakota, to the local irrigators.
The Bureau currently spends less than $200,000 annually to
operate and maintain the facility. These amounts are subject
to appropriation and are reimbursed by users of the facility.
Reimbursements are deposited in the Treasury as offsetting
receipts and are unavailable for spending without
appropriation action. Based on information from the Bureau.
CBO expects that the title transfer would occur during fiscal
year 2002. Starting in that year, this provision would yield
annual discretionary savings of less than $200,000.
direct spending
Offsetting Receipts from Repayment Contracts.--Under
current law, the GDU water supply features are not expected
to be put into service, and thus will not generate offsetting
receipts from repayment contracts. According to the Bureau,
under S. 623 the unit would be placed into service during
2007 and the agency would start to collect repayments from
project beneficiaries in that year. Repayments would be
deposited in the Treasury as offsetting receipts and would be
unavailable for spending without appropriation. CBO estimates
that these receipts would total about $7 million a year
starting in 2007.
Oakes Test Area Title Transfer.--CBO estimates that under
the bill, the Secretary would transfer ownership of the Oakes
Test Area to local users in 2002. This transfer would reduce
offsetting receipts that are collected from irrigators under
current law to reimburse the Bureau for operating costs.
Thus, CBO estimates that this provision would reduce
offsetting receipts by less than $200,000 a year starting in
2002.
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. The net changes in outlays that are subject to pay-
as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. For
the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the
effects in the budget year and the succeeding four years are
counted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays............................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 -7 -7
Changes in receipts........................................... Not applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
S. 623 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. Under current law, and under the amendments made by
this bill, the state of North Dakota and local governments in
that state would provide some of the funds necessary to
construct and to operate and maintain the authorized
facilities. All such spending would be a condition of federal
assistance and would be voluntary.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business yesterday,
Wednesday, November 17, 1999, the Federal debt stood at
$5,690,918,151,426.47 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety billion, nine
hundred eighteen million, one hundred fifty-one thousand, four hundred
twenty-six dollars and forty-seven cents).
One year ago, November 17, 1998, the Federal debt stood at
$5,586,021,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-six billion,
twenty-one million).
Five years ago, November 17, 1994, the Federal debt stood at
$4,752,752,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred fifty-two billion,
seven hundred fifty-two million).
Ten years ago, November 17, 1989, the Federal debt stood at
$2,918,126,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighteen billion, one
hundred twenty-six million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an
increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,772,792,151,426.47 (Two trillion,
seven hundred seventy-two billion, seven hundred ninety-two million,
one hundred fifty-one thousand, four hundred twenty-six dollars and
forty-seven cents) during the past 10 years.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
Madam President, what is the matter before the Senate?
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The period for morning business has expired.
The normal business before the Senate would be the bankruptcy bill.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HAPPY BIRTHDAY WISHES FOR THE HON. TED STEVENS
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I want to call attention to the fact that
today, November 18, 1999, is the birthday of the very distinguished
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, my friend. I would
like to say lifelong friend; I just haven't had the pleasure of knowing
him all of my life. The day after tomorrow, I will be 82 years old, if
the Lord lets me live. So I can't say he is my lifelong friend, but he
has been my friend over all the years he has served in the Senate.
I wish him a happy, happy birthday. He is a Senator who doesn't look
up to the rich. He doesn't look down on the poor. He is a good man on
the inside and on the outside. And he is a man who sticks by his
principles.
He is a Republican. I am a Democrat. But neither he nor I puts
political party above everything else. We know that political party is
important, but there are other things in this life that are even more
important. He recognizes that. His handclasp is like the handclasp of
our ancestors. His word is his bond, as was the word of our ancestors.
I could say much more. I will simply say he is a Christian gentleman,
a gentleman first, last, and always. My wife Erma and I extend to him
our very best wishes on his birthday and our prayers and hopes that he
will enjoy many, many more happy birthdays.
He is rendering a tremendous service to his country and to his State.
I hope the people of Alaska realize what a treasure this man is. He
works for Alaska every day in the Senate. We know that. He is
effective. He is forceful. He is genuine.
Erma and I join in wishing him a happy birthday and expressing our
good wishes also to his lovely wife, Catherine, and to his children.
I yield to the distinguished majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank Senator Byrd for yielding me the
time. I join in wishing a very happy birthday to our friend from
Alaska. He makes the Senate a better place. He keeps us lively. He
works hard. He makes sure we get our job done, and he does it with a
lot of alacrity sometimes. He will get right up in your face and make
sure
[[Page 30575]]
you understand. That helps to clear the subject up in many instances.
He is a great guy. I am honored to be able to serve in this
institution with the great Senator from Alaska who does so much for our
country and certainly for his State of Alaska. I will not tell his
wife, the lovely, charming wife to whom he is married, what his age is
today because I assume she doesn't know what his actual age is. We will
keep that a secret. But happy birthday to our great friend.
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield because I think this is
the most appropriate time to add my wishes as well.
Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DASCHLE. I wish to identify with the warm and generous remarks
made by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I agree
entirely with his comments and with the views he has expressed. I think
he and I speak for our caucuses in our admiration collectively for the
Senator from Alaska. We may not always agree, but there isn't anyone
who cares more deeply about this institution, about his State, and
represents himself more effectively on the Senate floor and with his
colleagues than the Senator from Alaska.
It is an honor for me to be one of those who have had the good
fortune of working with him. I respect him immensely, and I, too, join
in wishing him the happiest of birthdays. I wouldn't be surprised at
all if Catherine knows exactly how old he is today.
____________________
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
Motion to Proceed
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to the short-term continuing resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I speak
on behalf of 11 million Americans, at least, many of them residents of
the State of Alaska. We haven't solved the satellite home viewer
matter. I don't see why we can't. It is very simple. All we have to do
is put that loan guarantee in, which is very simple. If there are any
wrinkles, they can easily be worked out. It makes no sense for us to go
home without passing the loan guarantee provision so that the satellite
viewers can rest assured and so that those who are going to put up
satellites and develop satellites for local-to-local coverage are able
to do so. I cannot understand, on behalf of those 11 million Americans
who can't understand, why in the world we don't do something that is
pretty simple.
Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield to me to respond?
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. LOTT. I have not propounded a unanimous consent request other
than to proceed to the short-term continuing resolution so that Senator
Byrd may begin to discuss an issue of concern to a number of Senators.
I intended to talk to the Senator from Montana and others about trying
to enter into an agreement with regard to time.
On the issue to which he referred, I think it is very important that
we do take action in this final bill we will be taking up in the next
day or so, or today, that will make sure the satellite bill is passed
so that people across this country will continue to receive service
from the networks on their television sets in the future in order to
have this so-called local-to-local service where you get your local
station on your local satellite. We are going to have to have some
process, some way to get that service into rural areas and smaller
areas such as those in Montana, Alaska, and in Mississippi. I am
committed to getting that done. So is the Senator from Alaska, Mr.
Stevens. We are going to get that done.
We are going to have to have a very carefully thought out loan
guarantee system that will get the satellites up, to get the towers
that are necessary to make sure that that is done. The problem we have,
as with so many other issues we have been dealing with in the last
week, is getting all of that done in the last few hours to make sure we
get it done right without the whole process being held up as we go
forward.
I will talk to the Senator privately, but he has my assurances--
Senator Daschle and I will put a colloquy in the Record--that we are
going to get this done. We are going to get it done early next year. If
there are dilatory tactics, we will have a bill that has been carefully
massaged by all of the relevant committees, not just one. We will
either get it done straight up or we will look for another vehicle.
This is something to which we are committed, to which I am committed,
and I know the Senator from Alaska is committed.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senator from Montana--
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska
without losing my rights to the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I certainly won't make a long statement. I still am very
committed to the loan guarantee provisions that were in the Satellite
Home Viewer Act. But I am also convinced that we would have a period of
time to get the regulations ready to proceed with that guarantee
program. It would take roughly 6, 7 months.
I am going to ask the FCC to start preparing those regulations now.
We have the commitment that we will have a loan guarantee bill before
us, and we will be voting on it sometime in April. We will not delay
the loan guarantee program for rural America by what we have done. I
was assured of that, and I am assured in my own mind that it will work.
We will be right on time by the time we get this bill.
We have a commitment coming that we will either have an improved
authorization for a loan guarantee or we will vote what was in the bill
we took out last night. I urge my friend to understand that we have not
abandoned the loan guarantee program. Coming from where I do, I would
never abandon it.
When I came to the Senate, the Army ran the communications system of
Alaska; the U.S. Government owned all of the telephones in Alaska. Now,
when you look at the distance we have come in a relatively short time
of my service in the Senate, we are going to do the same thing with
satellite communications in a very short period of time, in a new way,
consistent with private enterprise, on a guarantee program rather than
a Government loan program.
We need to have certainty to what we are doing. I know it will take a
long time to get the regulations ready. We did not agree to delaying
the loan guarantee program last night; we delayed the authorization for
it, and we will have that authorization by April of next year.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I hear my
good friend from Alaska and the majority leader. They have States that
have the same concerns as do we. Not for a moment do I doubt the
intentions of both of the Senators. They are two of the most honorable
men I have had the pleasure to know. They are wonderful people.
But I also know how the Senate operates. I also know that the best
intentions often don't materialize and something happens. I also know
that some of the regulations I suspect the Senator talked about--it is
a lot easier for the FCC to write regulations than not knowing in the
abstract what the regulations are. I don't know what they can really do
that is substantive or effective in the next several months, or
whatever it takes.
I also know that the only objection to us proceeding really is one
Senator who, for some reason, thinks he should have jurisdiction over
this. It is an ``inside baseball'' objection. It is not a substantive
objection in any great way.
I also know there is a lot in this omnibus bill that was written
pretty quickly, where many minds got together to get something done. I
also know that necessity is the motherhood of invention. If we want to
do this, we will find a way to get it in.
I am suggesting that a vast majority of Members of this body want to
do it.
[[Page 30576]]
I suggest that 90 percent want to do it. There is an objection not
based on substance but based on another reason.
I very much appreciate the desire of the Senator from West Virginia
to speak. But I might say that my objecting to proceeding here does not
deprive the Senator from speaking. He will find ample opportunity, and
I support his right to be able to speak. This is so black and white, so
much of a no-brainer, and there are millions of Americans in rural
America who want this thing, and there is so little reason not to do
it.
So I will object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield the floor. I believe the Senator
from West Virginia was prepared to proceed to discuss his issue. I
think he probably will do that. We will see what might be done to
address concerns Senators may have, and we will be back later.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I checked with my office. TEA 21, the
highway bill, had a loan guarantee program. It took 16 months for the
regulations to be drawn before there was one guarantee made. We have
the process to be started on the Satellite Home Viewer Act to create
regulations for a new loan guarantee program, and I said it could be
done in 6 months. My staff tells me I was very conservative; it will
take much longer than that. We will have the law for authorizing the
loan guarantee done by the end of April.
I do not believe that those who agree with me that there should be a
loan guarantee program should be worried about the deletion of that
authorization now. The problem on the loan guarantee program is to
commence the drafting and, really, the presentation of the new program.
It will be entirely new. It is not similar to any conduct of a loan
guarantee program in history. So it will take a considerable amount of
time.
I want the Record to note there is no reason to oppose this bill and
particularly to oppose this continuing resolution on the basis of the
deletion of the loan guarantee program from the Satellite Home Bureau
Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
____________________
MOUNTAINTOP MINING
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in the rush to complete work on an omnibus
appropriations bill that will attract enough votes to pass both
Chambers of Congress without incurring a veto from the White House, a
number of important measures that should have been in the conference
report have ended up on the cutting room floor. One of those issues is
mountaintop mining.
I am extremely disappointed at the shortsightedness of the White
House, as well as some Members of Congress, on this issue. We had a
chance on the omnibus package to right a wrong, to remedy the crisis in
West Virginia's coal fields that was triggered by a recent Federal
court ruling. But the White House blocked that effort, leading the
charge to exclude the proposed legislative remedy from the omnibus
bill. As a result, thousands of coal miners in West Virginia, and
throughout Appalachia, are facing a bleak and uncertain future.
Particularly troubling to me is that the ammunition used to defeat
this proposal, the ammunition used to keep it out of the omnibus
package, was, in large part, a campaign of misinformation, led by the
White House.
My proposal is not antienvironment. The White House would have you
believe otherwise. My proposal would not weaken or in any way alter the
Clean Water Act. Let the White House hear! The White House would have
the people believe otherwise. Let me say it again. This amendment which
is cosponsored by Mr. McConnell, the senior Senator from Kentucky; Mr.
Rockefeller, the junior Senator from West Virginia; and Mr. Bunning,
the junior Senator from Kentucky, would not weaken or in any way alter,
modify, change, repeal, amend, or undermine the Clean Water Act.
I know the White House has tried to mislead people into believing
that it would. It would not. Fie on the White House! fie for attempting
to mislead the people. Now, one can honestly believe what he is saying
and can mislead or one can mislead with the intention of misleading.
All the Byrd-McConnell amendment would do is preserve the status quo
until an environmental impact assessment, which is already underway, is
completed and regulations resulting from it are issued. That
environmental impact assessment was not put in motion by the White
House; it was put in motion by a court action last December.
No laws would be weakened by the Byrd-McConnell amendment. No
regulations would be discarded. The legislative remedy that is proposed
by this amendment is not an either/or proposition. This amendment would
permit carefully controlled mountaintop mining while allowing work to
continue on a broad environmental study that could spur better
oversight and more environmentally friendly mining practices nationally
in the years ahead. In my book, that is a win/win situation.
This mountaintop mining proposal is an effort to stand up for
America's coal miners--and the railway workers, and the truckers, and
the suppliers, and all who are involved directly or indirectly with
mining. This proposal is an effort to stand up for the coal miners and
the hundreds of thousands of jobs and the scores of other industries
they support. Allowing this opportunity to slip through our fingers
would be a grievous mistake.
We can't control what the people at the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue say. We can't control how they treat America's coal miners. But
we can speak up for what we believe here in the Senate. We can send our
message to the White House.
To get that message across, I hope to offer an amendment. I could
speak at length on the omnibus appropriations bill when it comes before
the Senate. We could be here another week. We could be here another 2
weeks.
They say time is running out for the continuing resolution. Madam
President, time is running out for the coal miners and their families,
and for the retired coal miners, and their wives, or their widows, and
their families. Time is running out for them. The President wants this
Appropriations Bill sent to him, in Greece. Indeed! What are we going
to send to the coal miners who have been working for this country
before he was born? What are we going to send them?
I have seriously considered this matter. This issue merits the time
and the attention of Congress. I am prepared to give it some time.
I don't want to hold this measure up interminably. I want to see
action on it. I want to vote. I want to vote on this amendment--the
Byrd, McConnell, Rockefeller, Bunning, et al. amendment.
So, I take these few moments to speak the truth, to try to set the
record straight on the impact of this amendment, of which I am the
chief cosponsor, and to give this body, and hopefully the other body,
one more chance this year to protect the jobs and the livelihoods of
thousands of working men and women in West Virginia and throughout
America, and to give the White House one more chance to reverse its
current position and protect the jobs of the coal miners.
We are not just talking about coal miners; we are also talking about
the coal industry; we are talking about other laborers--the truckers,
the railway operators, the barge operators who go up and down the Ohio
and other rivers. It isn't just the coal miners union that is
concerned. The AFL-CIO is concerned. Take another look! Take another
look at those who are opposed and who work against legislation that
will benefit the working men and women of America.
On October 20, a Federal district court in West Virginia issued an
opinion in a lawsuit involving Federal regulatory agencies that
virtually set off an explosion in the coal fields. Mining companies
immediately announced that there would be hundreds of coal miners who
would be cut off, and new mines which were in the plans by companies to
be built, would be scuttled.
[[Page 30577]]
In some instances, a new mine costs $50 million; it costs $75 million
in some instances; and in some instances it costs $90 million, or more,
to open a new mine. What mining company is going to invest $90 million
in a new mine when the Federal judge issues a ruling such as this?
There is no predictability at all in the future.
Before the court issued its opinion, as part of a settlement the
mining industry in West Virginia was operating under two memoranda of
understanding--two memoranda of understanding that had been agreed
upon. Hear this: Two memoranda of understanding. I didn't have anything
to do with those memoranda of understanding. Who agreed? Who entered
into agreements concerning mountaintop mining? Who entered into
agreements concerning mountaintop mining? Who entered into the
memoranda of understanding? These were agreed upon by the Federal and
State regulatory agencies. Hear me now! These were entered into and
agreed upon by the regulatory agencies--both State and Federal--that
oversee mining permits.
What are those agencies that entered into this agreement? The Federal
Office of Surface Mining, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
State Division of Environmental Protection, the Environmental
Protection Agency. These are this administration's regulatory agencies.
This administration's regulatory agencies entered into those
agreements.
Let me say that again. Hear me.
Who entered into those regulations? Who were the parties to those
agreements? This administration's regulatory agencies, the EPA, the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior through the
Office of Surface Mining, and the West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection--Federal and State agencies--created these
agreements, devised these memoranda of understanding. They weren't
created by me. The administration's own Environmental Protection
Agency, the great Federal protector of our land, water, and air, helped
to write and signed onto these memoranda of understanding.
Do you, my friends, really believe that the EPA signed agreements
that weakened environmental protections?
Let me say to the White House: Do you believe that your own
Environmental Protection Agency signed onto agreements that weakened
environmental protections? No. No. These memoranda of understanding--
called MOUs--put into place stronger environmental protections in West
Virginia.
Listen to this: These MOUs put into place stronger--get it, now--
stronger environmental protections and regulations in West Virginia
than exist in any other State in the Union. Hear me, environmentalists;
you ought to be fighting for this amendment. You ought to be urging us
on in our fight for this amendment. I am an environmentalist. Who was
the majority leader of the Senate when SMCRA was passed in this body,
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act? Who was the majority
leader of the Senate then? Who stood up for you environmentalists then?
West Virginia at one time was the only State in the United States
that had no wildlife refuge. I put money in Appropriations bills, to
bring the first wildlife refuge to West Virginia, the last State among
the 50 that got a wildlife refuge. Hear me, environmentalists. Who put
the money in for the Canaan Valley Wildlife Refuge--that West Virginia
refuge was the 500th in the nation? I did.
I am an environmentalist. Who put the $138 million in for the fish
and wildlife's national conservation and training facilities at
Terrapin Neck, three miles out of Shepherdstown, WV? Who fought 5 years
in the Senate Appropriations Committee for that $138 million? Who
fought for it in the House-Senate conferences? This Senator; this
environmentalist fought for it.
Nobody wants a cleaner environment than I do. But I hope I also have
some common sense. We know that in West Virginia the great core
industries have fueled the powerplants of the Nation, have fueled the
war machine of the Nation. The coal industry, the steel industry, the
glass industry, the chemical industry, these and other core industries
have employed hundreds of people in West Virginia. The core industries
are still there, but they are diminishing. There were 125,000 coal
miners in West Virginia when I first ran for the House of
Representatives in 1952. Today, there are only 20,000, give or take, in
West Virginia.
These core industries cannot always be what they once were. But there
are those who want coal mining stopped now. They want it stopped
tonight. They want it stopped tomorrow. Shut it down! That is what they
want. But we can't do that. It can't be done overnight. People have to
work. Children have to eat. Widows have to live. We have to continue to
operate the mines. We are trying to develop other industries in West
Virginia--high-tech industries. I have tried to encourage Federal
agencies to look to West Virginia for a better quality of life, for a
safer life, where the people who work can at last buy a home, where
people want to work and will turn in a good day's work.
We are trying to diversify our industries. It takes time. I have put
appropriations into the corridor highways of West Virginia, so that
other industries will be encouraged to come into West Virginia and to
expand. They won't come where there are bad roads. They need an
infrastructure that will support their industries and their people. It
takes time. It can't be done overnight. Those environmentalists who
want it done overnight, it can't be done overnight.
Those MOUs established stronger environmental protections and
regulations in West Virginia than exist in any other State in the
Nation, bar none. I say to the Administration, your own regulatory
agencies agreed and worked out those regulations, and now you, the
White House, want to turn your back on your own environmental agency,
on your own Army Corps of Engineers, on your own Office of Surface
Mining.
Peter heard the cock crow three times, and then he hung his head in
shame. He denied his Lord thrice and then hung his own head in shame
and walked away.
White House, hang your head in shame!
But the court's opinion, throw all these things out the window. The
MOUs, the agreements that have been entered into by this
administration's regulatory agencies, are all thrown out the window.
The court ruled that the way in which the agencies were operating did
not follow the letter and intent of the law.
Hear that. I helped to create those laws. I supported the Clean Water
Act. I supported the Surface Mining and Control Reclamation Act. I
supported it. But the court ruled that the way in which these agencies
were operating did not follow the letter of the law and intent of the
law.
Congress passed the law. The court disagreed with the way in which
the Federal regulatory agencies and the State regulatory agency
interpreted the law. But the court was wrong. There are 20,000 miners,
20,000 voices that come from the coal fields who say that the court was
wrong. Its decision was completely contrary to the intent of Congress
in passing those two laws, the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining
and Control and Reclamation Act.
While I disagree with the court, the ball is here. It is in our court
now because the judge in his ruling said if application of Federal
regulation prevents certain activities in the Appalachian coal fields
``it is up to Congress.'' That is this body and the other body. He said
. . . ``it is up to Congress''--and the legislature--``to alter that
result.''
So we have accepted the responsibility. The judge said it is up to
Congress. We, who are supporting this amendment, have accepted that
responsibility and we are trying to do something about it. We are being
impeded and we are being undercut by the White House, by my own White
House.
Almost immediately after the judge issued his ruling, confusion
reigned.
[[Page 30578]]
There was chaos in the coal fields. Layoff notices went out. Mining
companies announced that they might not make significant investments in
the State that had long ago been planned. That is real money that has
to be spent. Those are real risks they take on. As a result of the
court ruling, coal companies, truckers, barge operators, railroads--
none of them had any certainty that the investments they might make
today would be justifiable tomorrow.
Some say, it's just a West Virginia problem. You tell the people of
Kentucky that. Tell the people of Pennsylvania that. Too bad for West
Virginia. But I am here to say to my colleagues it is a national
problem. Look out. Look out. That cloud that is over West Virginia is
headed your way next, Kentucky. And Mitch McConnell knows that. That is
why he is a cosponsor of this amendment. That cloud just over the
border, that cloud is just over the horizon in West Virginia. You will
be next. And they know it. Look out, it is coming your way next. But if
you want to head it off, the opportunity is here with this amendment.
This is the time to head off this dragon. Beat it back. Take the sword
that I offer, that Mitch McConnell offers, that Jay Rockefeller offers,
that Senator Bunning offers, and all the other Senators whose names are
on this amendment offer--take this sword. Take this sword, and fight
for the working men and women of this Nation, and do it now.
Some may say, ``I would like to. I would like to sign up. I am
willing to put on the suit of armor--but what about the environment? We
can't upset the environment.''
Let me assure my colleagues and the people who are watching out
there--let me assure you, this amendment is not the toxic monster it is
purported to be by some of the environmental organizations and by this
White House. It is not the toxic monster they purport it to be. In
fact, this amendment puts into place in West Virginia--get this--this
amendment puts into place in West Virginia the tougher environmental
standards prescribed by the very MOUs that this administration's own
EPA helped to negotiate. But you certainly would not know that from all
of the frothing at the mouth by people who either have no idea what
they are talking about, or who, for some reason, are deliberately
trying to mislead the people of this country. They either have no idea
of what they are talking about or they are deliberately and dishonestly
trying to mislead.
Those who have expressed opposition to this amendment, including the
White House, claim it would harm clean water protections under both the
Clean Water Act and SMCRA. There is not a word--not a word--of that
true, and they ought to know it, the people who are saying it. As a
matter of fact, as far as I am concerned, they do know it. But they
certainly ought to if they don't.
This amendment would not harm the Clean Water and the Surface Mining
Reclamation Acts, would not harm those protections. This amendment
would not lay a hand on those protections. It would not touch--not
touch them. It would not even brush up against them. This amendment
specifically states --now hear this, hear this Senators--this amendment
specifically states:
Nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines,
displaces or amends any requirement of or regulation issued
under the Federal Water Pollution Act commonly known as the
Clean Water Act, or the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977.
What could be plainer? What could be clearer? What could give greater
assurance than these words that are in the amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a
question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to my friend, Senator McConnell. Yes, I do.
Mr. McCONNELL. So the Senator from West Virginia is referring to the
sentence in a letter from John Podesta, the Chief of Staff of the
President, which says:
As you know, this is consistent with the President's
opposition to appropriation riders that would weaken or
undermine environmental protections under current law.
I say to my friend from West Virginia--I ask him, that is simply
incorrect, isn't it?
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
Mr. McCONNELL. They are not telling the truth, are they?
Mr. BYRD. They are not telling the truth.
Mr. McCONNELL. They either know it, in which case they are not
telling the truth, or they are woefully uninformed, aren't they?
Mr. BYRD. They either know they are not telling the truth or they are
woefully uninformed; exactly, preeminently precise.
Mr. McCONNELL. The President came to Hazard, KY, this year, and he
bit his lip, and he felt our pain. And he said: What can we do for you?
I am here in Appalachia to find out what I can do for you, to make life
better.
This is it, isn't it? I say to my friend from Virginia. This is what
they can do for us to make life better?
Mr. BYRD. That is it, that is it, and it has my fingerprints on it,
and it has your fingerprints on it, may I say to my dear friend from
Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. And we have 20,000, 15,000 coal miners jobs in
Kentucky, and 65,000 additional jobs that would not be there but for
coal. And the only impression we can get from this is, they don't care.
Mr. BYRD. Exactly.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend.
Mr. BYRD. What other impression could one get?
Mr. McCONNELL. Because we have made it clear to them, haven't we,
what this is all about? It does not change current law at all?
Mr. BYRD. It does not change current law at all. It doesn't touch
current law.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from West Virginia.
(Mr. ROBERTS assumed the chair.)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the White House has pressed for changes in
this amendment. The White House, according to Mr. Podesta's letter to
the Speaker and Mr. Podesta's letter to me, wants a ``time limited
solution.'' This amendment is limited to 2 years or to the completion
of the ongoing Federal study which was ordered by a court in December
of last year and the issuance of any regulations resulting from that
study.
The White House argues that because the district court has stayed its
ruling, the jobs of thousands of miners in West Virginia and hundreds
of thousands of workers in mining and related jobs on the east coast
are no longer threatened. The White House is wrong.
The court, when it ordered the stay, said this stay has no legal
basis. In other words, he said: The only reason I am issuing this stay
is to pour a little oil on troubled waters, let the waters calm down a
little bit. All this chaos and confusion flows from my decision; I am
going to put a stay on that. You can have a little time to get your
breath.
But he said there is no legal basis for it, which means that the
court could lift the stay. When Congress gets out of town, who knows,
the court may lift that stay. The court itself, as I say, noted that
there is no legal basis for the stay, but, in fact, that the stay was
issued in response to the uproar created by the court's ruling. That is
why we have a stay.
The administration, whose representatives had been working with me on
the language of this amendment, said to me there is no need now for any
legislation. Do not believe it.
The White House argues that because the district court has stayed its
ruling, the jobs of thousands miners in West Virginia and hundreds of
thousands of workers in mining and related jobs on the east coast are
no longer threatened. The court could lift its stay. Let me say again,
the court itself noted that there was no legal basis for the stay.
We have no assurances as to how long that stay will remain in place.
It provides no comfort for coal miners. It provides no comfort for
mining companies who want to invest in new mines to employ more miners
than their sons. It provides no comfort to others whose jobs rely on
coal, such as the trucking
[[Page 30579]]
industry, the barge industry, the railroad industry, the suppliers. To
them, the stay is a stay. It is more like a weekend pass. That stay has
placed a cloud of uncertainty, a cloud that hangs over the mining
industry in West Virginia, a cloud that is sprouting long, gray
tentacles that will stretch across the skies of other States.
I ask my colleagues and those who are watching--and I hope the White
House is watching--just how many companies do you think are going to
sign up to any real commitment of financial resources and invest the
millions of dollars that it takes to operate? How many of them are
going to sign up with this stay hanging over their heads? Why would
they want to?
The permitting process was going along swimmingly before the judge's
decision. It was going along under the regulations that were agreed to
and created by the White House's own regulatory agencies: the EPA, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Interior Department through the
Office of Surface Mining. Fifty-nine of 62 pending permits could not be
approved under that stay. There are 62 pending permits; 59 of these
could not be approved under that stay, according to the West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection as of Monday of this week.
If this amendment is not adopted, there are those who will point to
this day and call it a victory for environmental protection, but those
individuals have not lifted a finger--they have not lifted a finger,
have not lifted the smallest finger--to help the many residents of
Appalachia who do not have safe water piped into their modest homes for
their little children to drink. They do not carry banners. They do not
carry banners and placards and write letters and lobby Congress about
the fact that those same streams they applaud themselves for protecting
from rock and dirt are being polluted by the wastewater of communities
that are too poor to build sewage plants.
These head-in-the-clouds individuals peddle dreams of an idyllic life
among old growth trees, but they seem to be ignorant of the fact that
without the mines, jobs will disappear, the tables will go bare, the
cupboards will be empty, schools will not have the revenue to teach the
children, and towns will not have the income to provide even basics.
But what do they care? They will have already thrown down their
placards and their banners and gone off somewhere else.
These dreamers--I know, I have been down there. They have been
carrying their banners around some of the meetings that I have
addressed. They might as well talk to the trees. I am speaking for the
coal miners. I lived in a coal miner's home. I grew up in a coal
miner's home. I ate from a coal miner's table. I slept on a coal
miner's bed. I lived under a coal miner's roof.
Loretta Lynn sings the song ``I'm a Coal Miner's Daughter.'' I
married a coal miner's daughter more than 62 years ago. My wife's
brother died of pneumoconiosis. He died of black lung, contracted in
the coal mines. And his father died under a slate fall--under a slate
fall. He died in the darkness. He died in the darkness.
Many times I have gone to the miners' bath house and pulled back the
canvas cover and peered into the face of a coal miner whom I knew and
who had been killed under a slate fall or killed by being run over by
an electric motor.
Many times I have walked those steep hillsides and helped to carry
the heavy--and I mean heavy--coffins of miners who died following the
edict of the Creator, when he drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of
Eden, saying: In the sweat of thy brow shall thou eat bread. And those
coal miners know what that means.
But this court ruling will take away the right of thousands of coal
miners and truckers and railroad workers and barge operators to earn
their bread in the sweat of their brow.
Hear me, coal miners! If you do not know now who your friends are,
you soon will know. These dreamers would have us believe that if only
our mountains--if only our mountains--remain pristine, new jobs will
come. ``Or,'' they suggest, ``perhaps coalfields residents should
simply commute to other areas for employment.'' To these individuals I
say, ``Get real!''
Those of you in the White House, who have been working behind my back
on this amendment, go down there and talk to those coal miners. Tell
them what you have done.
You do not have to drive the dangerous, winding, narrow roads over
which these workers would have to commute each morning and evening.
When the picket signs are gone, when the editorials in the big city
papers are lining bird cages, the people of the small mining
communities will be left. You will be gone. You have thrown down your
banners. You have thrown down your placards. You have thrown down your
candles. But those people of the small mining communities will still be
there. They will be left to repair the economic damage.
Mining will be part of the economic base of my State for the
foreseeable future, and new ways must be explored to make mining
practices more environmentally friendly. And I am for that. At the same
time, we have to recognize that the amount of coal reserves in West
Virginia is finite. We must continue to broaden our State's economic
base. But such change cannot happen over night.
A new economic base cannot spring from the ocean foam. It cannot
emanate from the brain of Jove, like Minerva, fully clothed and in
armor. That effort requires time. And it requires money. And if you
want to know the worth of money, try to borrow some. It requires the
development of improved infrastructure, better highways, more modern
highways, up-to-date highways, safer highways, like those Appalachian
corridors that I have been trying for years to build, and for which I
have been horse whipped orally and with the pen. I do not mind. I know
for whom I am working. I am working for the people of West Virginia,
and always will as long as the Lord lets me stand.
Water and sewer systems, accessible health care, safe schools--these
are the kinds of basic facilities and programs that I have been
promoting for many years. I do not carry my banner today and throw it
down when the speech is over and go on somewhere else. Those coal
miners are still there. And they are going to still have my attention,
my respect, my reverence.
In a letter threatening a veto of legislation containing this
amendment, the White House claimed to be prepared to discuss a solution
that would ensure that ``any adverse impacts on mining communities in
West Virginia are minimized.'' Well, talk is cheap. But any real
solution to minimize economic impact on these West Virginian
communities won't be cheap.
Back in July, the President of the United States appeared in Hazard,
KY, where he delivered an address to the people of Appalachia.
Appalachia is my home. I was married there. Our first daughter was born
there. Our second daughter was born there. I went to school there. I
graduated from high school there in Appalachia.
The President of the United States expressed great sympathy for the
economic distress in these mountainous States. It was an uplifting
speech. He is very capable of giving uplifting speeches. It was a
speech that reached out to the human spirit and built great
expectations. Calling on corporate America to invest in rural America,
President Clinton said: ``This is a time to bring more jobs and
investment and hope to the areas of our country that have not fully
participated in this economic recovery.'' And I say: Amen, brother!
Amen.
I agree with that message. It is the right thing to do. We should be
bringing jobs to Appalachia. We should be bringing new businesses, too.
But how can one peddle hope while undercutting the real jobs and
businesses that do exist in Appalachia? If we don't act now, if the
court lifts its stay, we will be back here a few months from now
battling this issue all over again. It may not just be West Virginia
then. It may be your own States, Senators. It may be your people,
Senators. It may be your families.
There may be an appeal of the judges ruling, and that appeal may lead
to a more equitable outcome. However, that
[[Page 30580]]
appeal may simply maintain the judge's decision and put us squarely
back where we have been in recent weeks, trying to address the matter
Congressionally--trying to reaffirm well-established Congressional
intent that has been followed for the past 20 years while striving for
improvements in the way mining is conducted.
In the meantime, with the scales tipped against them, mining families
must hold on to a crumbling ledge. The heel is poised above their
fingertips, ready to mash down.
We have a pretty good idea who the opponents of this effort are. But
what of the supporters? Let me tell you who is standing by us: The
United Mine Workers of America; the National Mining Association; the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Bituminous Coal Operators Association;
the AFL-CIO--hear that, White House, the AFL-CIO--the National
Association of Manufacturers; the Association of American Railroads;
the United Transportation Union; the Norfolk Southern Railroad; CSX
Railroad; the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; the International
Union of Operating Engineers; the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the Transport
Workers of America; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the Utility Workers
Union of America; American Electric Power.
You see, the environmentalists sent a letter to the White House, and
they listed a few organizations that were supporting their opposition
to this amendment. But listen to this list, too. This amendment has its
friends.
I continue with the reading of the list: the Southern States Energy
Board; the Southern Company; the United Steelworkers of America; the
Independent Steelworkers Union--it isn't just coal miners, you see;
these are brothers--the Laborers International Union of North America;
the American Truckers Association; the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters; the American Waterways Operators; the International Union of
Transportation Communications; the American Federation of Teachers; the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the
American Federation of Government Employees--White House, it isn't just
Robert Byrd and Mitch McConnell and Jay Rockefeller and Senator
Bunning, Pete Domenici, Larry Craig, and Phil Gramm, and the fine
Senator who sits in the Chair, Pat Roberts. It isn't just these. It
isn't just the House delegation, the three Members of the House from
West Virginia. These are not alone.
It is also the National Council of Senior Citizens.
These groups--representing millions of citizens--agree with us that a
legislative remedy is needed, and is needed now. They agree that there
must be a balanced approach. What this amendment does is simple. It
establishes a fair, moderate balance between jobs and the environment,
while also providing for additional review and regulation once the
environmental impact study is complete.
It is time to put aside whatever animosity exists between the coal
mining industry and the environmental movement.
I am not much for making predictions, but I can make this one: the
coming years will bring us more challenges like this, when the
environment and the economy must be harmonized. Today is a test of our
ability to deal those challenges ahead.
This nation can put a man on the moon. Surely, we can adopt a
solution to this problem that protects the environment and protects
jobs of the coalfields.
This amendment seeks to go back to the regulations and the agreements
that made up the status quo ante before the judge's order--that is all
we ask--the status quo ante agreed upon by the administration's EPA, by
the administration's Army Corps of Engineers, by the administration's
Department of the Interior, the Office of Surface Mining. That is what
we ask. And we ask not only for justice, but we ask also for mercy for
the coal miners and the other working people of America.
I ask unanimous consent that the names of the cosponsors and sponsors
of this amendment be printed in the Record, and they are as follows:
Senators Byrd, McConnell, Rockefeller, Bunning, Reid, Craig, Bryan,
Hatch, Bennett, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi, Burns, and Kyl. I have not put
forth any big effort to shop this around. I also add Senators Breaux,
Shelby, Gramm, and Grams, as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is
recognized.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of
morning business until the hour of 5 p.m. and that the time be divided
in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
BYRD-McCONNELL MINING AMENDMENT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I first thank my friend from West
Virginia for his leadership on this extraordinarily important issue to
my State and to his and, for that matter, to all the people of
Appalachia where coal is mined.
Thanks to my friend from West Virginia, I had a unique experience
last week. As the proud possessor of a zero rating from the AFL-CIO, I
had never been invited to a rally by the United Mine Workers of
America. Thanks to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who I
assume warned the crowd to say nice things or at least to refrain from
throwing anything, I joined him on the west front of the Capitol last
Tuesday and had an opportunity to watch Senator Byrd in action in a
different environment. I have seen him many times on the floor, always
persuasive and always effective, but never before a rally largely of
his people and my people who make their livelihood mining coal.
I must say, it was a memorable experience. If I ever do my memoirs, I
say to my friend from West Virginia, that experience will be in it. We
have joined together today. And there are many others on this side of
the aisle, and I hope we will have some on that side of the aisle, who
have had enough of this administration declaring war on legal
industries engaged in an honest effort to keep the engines of this
country moving forward. We have a number of Republican Senators from
the West, and they all informed us over the years about the war on the
West. Senator Domenici and Senator Craig have educated some of us
southerners about the problems they have had. And I am pleased to say I
have supported them over the years, without exception, in their efforts
to preserve those jobs in the mining industry out west.
Well, I would say the war on the West is moving east, and we are
beginning to feel the sting. Even though this amendment was generated
by a very poorly reasoned district court decision in the Federal court
in West Virginia, let me say that is just the beginning, as the Senator
from West Virginia has pointed out; it is just the beginning.
All the Byrd-McConnell amendment seeks to do--not just for coal
mining but for hard rock mining as well--is to restore us to the
existing law, at least with regard to coal mining, as the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia has pointed out. The letter from the White
House, from Chief of Staff John Podesta to the President, either lies
or is woefully ill informed.
It is clear to this Senator that the people downtown don't care what
the facts are. They don't care about the 20,000 coal miners in West
Virginia and the 15,000 coal miners in Kentucky. They really don't
care. I don't think they have bothered to read the amendment of the
Senator from West Virginia because, as he pointed out a few moments ago
with regard to coal mining, we are seeking to reestablish the status
quo, agreed to and entered into by the most radical EPA in the history
of the country. There is no question in my mind that whenever any
environmental group in America hiccups, it is
[[Page 30581]]
felt downtown. Anytime they object to anything, the administration
falls in line.
It has been fascinating to watch this issue develop because it pits
the environmentalists against the unions--truly a Hobson's choice for
the administration. When they had to pick a side between the
environmentalists and the coal miners in West Virginia and in Kentucky,
it is pretty clear whose side they chose. They don't care about these
jobs. They are not interested in reading this amendment. They really
don't care what is in the amendment. They are willing to sacrifice the
20,000 coal-mining jobs in West Virginia and the 15,000 coal-mining
jobs in Kentucky in order to score points with a lot of
environmentalists--who, I assume, enjoy having electricity all the time
so they can read their reports--decrying the people who work in the
industry so important to our States. Clinton and Gore are determined to
put the agenda of the fringe environmental groups and Presidential
political concerns ahead of the needs of coal miners in Appalachia.
As I said earlier in a colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia,
and as he referred to in his speech, the President came to Appalachia
last summer. He happened to have picked my State. He came to Hazard,
KY. It was a large crowd. They were honored to have him there. The
mayor of Hazard is still talking about it. It was one of the high
points of his life. The President looked out at the people in Hazard,
many of whom make a living in the coal mines, and he said, ``I am here
to help you.''
Well, Mr. President, we need your help. I assume the whole idea
behind coming to Kentucky was not to increase unemployment. My
recollection of what that visit was about was how the Federal
Government could actually produce new jobs for the mountains--something
a lot of people have talked about and few have been able to deliver.
Well, we would like to have new jobs, Mr. President, but I can tell you
this: We would rather not lose any more of the few jobs we have
remaining. That is not a step in the right direction.
We don't have as many coal jobs as we used to. The production is
about the same. The employment is much smaller. Every time there has
been an improvement in the coal-mining industry--whether on top of the
mountain or underneath the mountain--safety has gone up, and that is
important. But employment has gone down. We are not yet ready to walk
away from coal in this country. We have not built a new nuclear plant
in 20 years and are not likely to build any more. These people are
engaged in an indispensable activity. They would like to have a little
support from down on Pennsylvania Avenue. Where is the compassion?
Where is the concern about these existing jobs in a critically
important industry for our country?
Senator Byrd has really covered the subject, and there is not much I
could add, other than just to read once again what this amendment is
about. Nothing in our amendment modifies, supersedes, undermines,
displaces, or amends any requirement of or regulation issued under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act, or the Surface Mining Act of 1977. So in response to this
outrageous and ridiculous court decision, we have not proposed changing
the law. The judge, in his decision, has made it clear that he expects
us to clear this up. He is inviting us to legislate. That is what we
are hoping to do.
The EPA, the Office of Surface Mining, the Corps of Engineers, and
other relevant agencies are in the process of conducting a thorough
environmental impact study. At the conclusion of this process, if any
of these agencies believe it is necessary, they may create new
environmental regulations addressing the practice of mountaintop
mining. Some might say that Senator Byrd and I and others are trying to
delay the inevitable. I argue just the opposite. I argue that, by
maintaining the status quo and allowing the EIS to move forward, you
allow coal operators the ability to make the long-term plans essential
to the viability of this industry.
So there are only two things you need to remember about our
amendment: No. 1, it doesn't alter the Clean Water Act. No. 2, it
doesn't alter the Surface Mining Act. It seeks to preserve the status
quo.
I say to all of you who you are going to be down here asking us
someday to help you save jobs in your State because of some outrageous
action on the part of this administration--and some of you have done
that already--we need your help. We need your help. This is an
extraordinarily important vote to our States. The honest, hard-working
people who make their living in the mines are under assault by this
administration, and we would like to call a halt to it. We hope we will
have your help in doing that.
Let me conclude by thanking again the Senator from West Virginia for
his extraordinary leadership on this important issue to his State and
to my State and, frankly, we believe, to a whole lot of other States
because the principle is very sound. We call on our colleagues from the
West--even those of us who have been voting with you over the years
weren't quite sure what it was all about, but we have figured it out.
This whole thing is moving its way east. We need your help.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is
recognized.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
statement, Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia be allowed to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning
business be extended until 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
BYRD-McCONNELL MINING AMENDMENT
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I forgot to mention the specific names of
two Senators cosponsoring this amendment. The two are Nevada Senators,
Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan. I wanted to mention their names for the Record.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from West Virginia
has included our two colleagues from the State of Nevada. Today, Nevada
is probably the lead mining State in our Nation as it relates to the
production of gold.
For the last hour you have heard probably some of the most eloquent
statements spoken on this floor on the issue of coal mining. The Byrd
amendment does not deal only with coal, although it is extremely
important, and the public attention of the last week has been focused
on a judge's opinion about coal, coal mining in West Virginia,
Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and up and down the Appalachia chain of this
country.
But the amendment also has something else in it that my colleague
from West Virginia and I agreed to some time ago: When we talk on this
floor about mining, when we talk about the economy of mining, the
environment of mining, and the jobs of mining, we would stand together;
that we would not allow our political differences to divide us. Because
if you support the economy of this country, you have to stand together.
I am absolutely amazed that the Speaker of the House or the senior
Senator from West Virginia would get a letter from the White House of
the kind to which both he and the Senator from Kentucky have referred.
Lying? I hope not. Uninformed? I doubt it. Here is the reason I doubt
their lack of information.
For the last 7 years, this administration has been intent on changing
current mining law. I am referring primarily to the law of 1872. I am
referring primarily to hard-rock mining on public lands, because the
laws that the
[[Page 30582]]
Senator from West Virginia referred to that were passed in 1977, the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, have become law, and
established the principles and the policies under which we would mine
the coal of America.
Then, on top of that, came the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
and the National Environmental Policy Act--all of them setting a
framework and a standard under which we could mine the minerals and the
resources of this country and assure our citizens it would be done in a
sound environmental way.
As the laws of West Virginia, which are the laws of America, which
are the laws this Senate passed, apply to coal mining, at least in the
instances of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, they, too,
apply to the mining of the west--to hard-rock mining, to gold mining,
to silver mining, to lead and zinc mining, and to open-pit gravel
operations of America.
Yet there is an attorney--not a judge, not an elected U.S. Senator,
but an attorney--who sits at a desk at the Department of Interior and
upon his own volition 2 years ago decided he would rewrite the mining
law of this country--a law that had been in place since 1872, tested in
the courts hundreds of times, and that in every instance one principle
stood out and was upheld. That was the principle of mill sites and how
the operating agency, primarily the BLM, could, upon the request of a
mining operation under a mining plan uniform with its processes, ask
for additional properties under which to operate its mine.
Consistently, for over 100 years, the Federal agencies of this country
have granted those additional mill sites.
The attorney I am referring to, prior to his job with the Secretary
of Interior, was an environmental activist. In the late 1980s, he wrote
a book. His book decried the tremendous environmental degradation that
the mining industries of America were putting upon this planet. In that
book, he said there is a simple way to bring the mining industry to its
knees. ``If you can't pass laws to do it, you can do it through rule
and regulation.'' Those are his words. He wrote it in the book, which
was well read across America.
When I asked that solicitor to come before the subcommittee I chair,
which is the Mining Subcommittee, I quoted back to him his own words
and said: If that is not what you said, then what are you doing now? He
didn't say yes, but he didn't say no. Here is what he did say. He said:
I have reached out to every State director of every BLM operation in
this Nation, and I have asked them if the process I have overruled by
my decision is a process that has been well used by the agency. He said
they responded to him: Not so--very lightly used and only used in
recent years.
The tragedy of that statement is that it was a lie because the
Freedom of Information Act shows that every State director wrote a
letter to the solicitor a year before I asked him the question and
every State director of every State office of the Bureau of Land
Management said this is a practice in our manuals and has been used
consistently since the 1872 law was implemented.
What did solicitor John Leshy do before the Mining Subcommittee of
the Senate? He perjured himself. That is what he did. And the Freedom
of Information Act shows that.
I would say to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from
Kentucky, my guess is that the informational mind that wrote the letter
that John Podesta sent to you came from an agency that had already
perjured itself before the U.S. Senate. I know that as fact. I give
that to you on my word and with my honor.
Therefore, in the Byrd-McConnell amendment is a provision that said:
Mr. Leshy, you cannot arbitrarily or capriciously overturn over 100
years of mining law. That is not your job. You are a hired attorney.
You are not an elected Senator or a President. That is our job--to
change public policy and to do it in a fair and sound environmental
way.
We are all environmentalists. The senior Senator from West Virginia
said it so clearly. I say what I mean. And we all know as politicians
and public people that none of our colleagues have ever run on the
dirty air or the dirty water platform. We are all proud of our
environmental records. We want the air and the water to be clean.
But have you ever driven to the mountains of the west or the
mountains of West Virginia? They are rugged and steep. We must craft
unique policies and procedures to mine the wealth from underneath those
mountains. It is a tough struggle. We know it. We have learned in the
last decades to do it in a much better way than our forebears. That is
called good environmental policy and good stewardship.
Every one of us is an environmentalist. But we are not radical
preservationists who would deny the thousands of working men and women
in West Virginia and Kentucky no food for their table, no money in
their pocket, or no education for their children. If you don't like the
environment here, get in a car and drive down the road. To heck with
your job and to heck with you.
I understand the young person in urban America today sitting at his
or her keyboard, working the high-tech economy of our country, saying
to the Senator from Idaho, West Virginia, and Kentucky: What are you
talking about? Does it make much sense? We want a clean environment.
Save the mountains of West Virginia, Idaho, Nevada, and Kentucky, and
the plains of Texas.
Let me say to that marvelous young American sitting at his or her
keyboard: As you touch that keyboard tonight, and it lights up for you
and it energizes, it is the electricity generated by the coal of West
Virginia that gave you the power to reach the Internet and to reach the
stars beyond. That power surge through connections created of gold and
silver came from the mines of Idaho, from the mines of Nevada, and from
the Western States.
Please, America, broaden your vision of what it takes to make the
leading economy of the world work so well.
It is our clean air, it is our clean water, and that we are proud of.
But 60 percent of America's electricity is generated out of the coal
mines of America, and the connections that create the fluidity of the
flow of that electricity so there is less restriction is the gold and
the silver of the West. That is what makes our country work so well.
That is what makes our country the cleanest country in the world.
Our leadership, our policy, our clean coal technology, our ability
not to tear up the Earth anymore--but when we do, we replace it, we
reshape it, we change it--that is our law that causes it to happen.
That is the law that this Senate crafted. So, no, we cannot be extreme
nor can we be radical. We have to offer balance and we will offer that
in the context of the best environment we can create.
I will not forget, when I asked Alan Greenspan to come before the
Republican Policy Committee this spring to talk about surplus and how
we handle them, afterwards I said: Mr. Greenspan, you watch our economy
everyday; why is it so good? Why is it literally pulling the rest of
the economy of the world with it? Last month, unemployment in this
country was 4.1 percent; average wage, $13.39 an hour, the highest
average wage ever and the lowest unemployment rate in 29 years. And we
do it with the cleanest of the environments of the developed nations of
the world. Why do we do it? Mr. Greenspan said it well: We just know
how to do it better than anybody else. We know how to mine better than
anybody else. We know how to create economies better than anybody else
and, in almost every instance, we do it with the minimal form of
government regulation.
The Senator from West Virginia makes a very clear case. It isn't that
West Virginia was trying to do it better. They were. It is that this
White House won't support this effort. They have not chosen to follow
the route of the environmental community. They have chosen to follow
the word of a few radical preservationists who would ask young
Americans to turn on their computers tonight to the light of a candle.
If it is the light of a candle that will lead this world, computers
will not
[[Page 30583]]
turn on, the economy will not energize, and the men and women of West
Virginia will go hungry.
I support the Senator from West Virginia because he supports mining,
as I do. It is time our Senate and the House bring balance to this
issue. I hope they support attaching this critical amendment to the
continuing resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The distinguished Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I note the presence of the Senator from Louisiana on
the floor. I inquire if the Senator wishes to speak at some point on
this subject.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I do wish to speak. I am happy to
wait until the Senator has completed his remarks, if he could let me
know how long he will be.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will speak, then the Senator from Texas will
speak, and then I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana
be permitted to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my distinguished senior colleague who has
been daunting and relentless in his pursuit of his amendment, which is
a very good amendment, an amendment which deserves to be passed.
What is fascinating to me has been said before by others. I will go
back to the letter from John Podesta at the White House, the Chief of
Staff to the President. He said that any solution that would undercut
water quality protection under the Clean Water Act, or under SMCRA, the
Surface Mining Control and Recreation Act, simply is unacceptable, and
that the President's opposition to appropriations riders that would
weaken or undermine environmental protections under current law would
be unacceptable.
I emphasize as strongly as I possibly can he is wrong in that
statement. The fact that he is wrong in that statement is of the utmost
importance to our colleagues if they or their staffs are listening as
they come to a decision about this amendment. If he were right, that
would be an entirely different matter. However, he is not right. To
make it perfectly clear, we have included that in the legislation that
Senator Byrd and Senator McConnell put forward. I will read it again
for those who may not have been listening before: Nothing in this
section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces or amends any
requirement of or regulation issued under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act or the Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act of 1977.
It would be law. It is the case, in any event. We added this not
because we thought it would be fortuitous to add it, not because we
needed to add it, but because it was true at the outset. We did it to
make the point even clearer for those who would raise this point.
Senator Byrd made the points most clearly and most powerfully. This
amendment, on which we are asking for support, simply puts into law the
memorandum of understanding which I hold in my hand, which has been
signed off by the Environmental Protection Agency, by the Office of
Surface Mining in the Department of Interior, and by the Corps of
Engineers. The signatures are here--the signature from the
Environmental Protection Agency, a very high senior official, the
signature from the Regional Director at the Office of Surface Mining,
the signature from the brigadier general of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the signature from an official in West Virginia.
The point is the Environmental Protection Agency has approved, and
the OSM and the Corps of Engineers have approved and given their
official written stamp of approval in writing, right here. This equals
this amendment. There is no difference therein. I am not one who either
baits or ridicules the environmental movement nor do most of my
colleagues.
This country is constructed under the republican nature of its form
of government as a system of checks and balances. I have a tremendous
interest in health care public policy. I spend a lot of time being
upset with the Health Care Finance Administration called HCFA. There
are people, obviously, who are upset by EPA. By and large, I think EPA
tries to do within its own understanding the best job it can. By and
large, I think one of the reasons the environmental condition of our
country is gradually improving, although slowly, is because some of
those people take positions which are not popular with members of this
body or the other body or with Governors or with the public. I do not
ridicule what they do.
However, I do think they know in their hearts that what Senator Byrd
and Senator McConnell and some of the other Members are trying to do is
completely consistent with the intent of Congress, in fact, in the case
of SMCRA, for over the last 20 years.
Let me say this before I talk about the importance of mining in West
Virginia and the problems of simply potentially eradicating coal
mining--not just across West Virginia and Kentucky but, if this were to
be extended and this were to catch fire, eradicating the potential for
the 57 to 60 percent of electricity which is fueled by the use of coal
across this country--that there is a balance. I recognize, sometimes
when people say that, people say that is a word they use to get out of
this situation or that situation. But this country has to run on a
balance. One cannot simply say to southern West Virginia, to central
West Virginia, to northern West Virginia, to other parts of our
country: We are going to make these enormous changes, very radical in
their content today because tomorrow will be a new day, because
transition in America somehow just simply happens, and we move from one
sort of a core industry type of economy in West Virginia to a modern,
totally smokeless type of economy, and there does not need to be any
interruption. So we will come in and we will stop this business called
mountaintop mining.
In the process of that, we are probably, unless this amendment is
agreed to, going to stop much of the underground mining of West
Virginia and Kentucky and the 13 to 16 States in this country that
produce coal because the effect under the law, under the judge's rule,
says this can happen.
I want my colleagues to understand something about my State of West
Virginia. We are not on the coasts. We do not have the advantage of the
trade that flows to the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast. We do not
have the advantage yet, entirely, of the access that comes from the
interstates that cut through our mountains and would allow us to become
part of the flowing economy that so much of the rest of the Nation
simply takes for granted. But most importantly, let me say to my
colleagues, and let them hear this, please, with understanding: Only 4
percent of the land of West Virginia is flat. Only 4 percent of the
landmass of West Virginia is flat. All of the rest of it is going
uphill or going downhill, either at great steepness, very great
steepness, or somewhat lesser steepness; it is not flat. Only 4 percent
is flat.
Imagine, then, trying to construct an economy, an economy developing,
much less the life of schools, the life of families, the life of
recreation, the life of a State, on 4 percent of the land and then
moving up the side of hills, where one can do that, and hoping the
winter will pass quickly because it is very hard to plow those roads.
It becomes a very difficult situation in the southern part of our
State.
You cannot simply say we mine coal today and we do biotechnology and
information technology tomorrow. You cannot walk across the Grand
Canyon in one step.
Senator Byrd and the junior Senator from West Virginia, together, in
different ways, have been trying very aggressively, over the last
number of years, to modernize the economy of West Virginia. We have
been doing so with a respect for our basic industries--steel,
chemicals, coal, wood, natural gas, et cetera--but also understanding
that the world is changing, that we are globalized. This Senator has
spent the last 15 years making trips back and forth to various Asian
countries, trying to globalize the economy of West Virginia through
reverse
[[Page 30584]]
investment and through the increase of exports. Indeed, the increase of
exports in the last 5 years has gone up by 50 percent in West Virginia.
So we are making progress.
But we do not start from the base that so many other States have. So
what happens in southern West Virginia if the Senate or the Congress
turns its back on this amendment is something I would like people to
think about. We would lose approximately $2 billion in wages. Senator
McConnell, in his very good remarks, mentioned 4.1 percent of people
are unemployed in this Nation. That is not true in the part of the
State that we are talking about, in West Virginia. The counties I would
mention would be six. In McDowell County there is over 14 percent
unemployment today. The reason it is not higher is because so many of
the people who were there have left. If they had stayed there, the
figure would be much higher.
In Mingo County, which has a lot of coal reserves of very high
quality--that is high Btu, low-sulfur-content coal--it is over 14
percent, over 14 percent. The national average is 4.1 percent--that is
terrific, in Connecticut, Colorado, other places. I am proud of that,
happy for that. But in Mingo County it is 14 percent. In Boone County
it is less than that; it is 13.9 percent. A lot of our low-sulfur, high
Btu, highly desirable for the making of steel coal is produced in that
county; Logan County, 13.5 percent; Lincoln County, almost 11 percent;
Wyoming County, almost 11 percent.
Can one understand what that means to me as a human being, much less
as a U.S. Senator, when one struggles in land which is so steep, so
desperately steep, land which used to be, many millions of years ago,
higher than Mt. Everest? Because that is what the Appalachians were;
they were the tallest mountains in the world. Over these millions of
years, they have been ground down, but they have not been ground down
to a level where economic activity is readily accessible. We cannot put
the great big highways so easily into that kind of terrain.
Senator Byrd has done a remarkable job in trying to do that. But not
all those roads have been built, and only a couple of those have been
built in southern West Virginia because the cost per mile is so
prohibitively high. Even if the Federal Government provides the money,
the State can't match it. So progress is slow.
I also want to say something that is very important to me personally.
This Surface Mining Act goes back to when I was Governor. The Senator
from Idaho made those comments. I did not agree with everything the
Senator from Idaho said, incidentally, about either the Environmental
Protection Agency or other things, but I agree with the thrust on what
he wants to do with this amendment. But I was Governor of West Virginia
at that time. We were faced with this question of what we were going to
do about surface mining and the Federal act.
I will say two things. One is that I have known for a long time, and
I have been told by many people in and out of government, that a good
deal of the Federal act was based upon what it was that we were doing,
what it was I was causing to happen as Governor in West Virginia, in
the way that surface mining was carried out. In other words, West
Virginia, I will then say from that statement, has a higher level of
requirements of surface mining than do other States and higher, in
general terms, I might say, than the Federal Government.
But I also want to say Cecil Andrus, who is from the West and was
tough--he was a tough Department of Interior Administrator, Secretary
of the Interior--gave West Virginia something called primacy on surface
mining.
All of this we are talking about--surface mining being the opposite
of underground mining; anything that is not underground is surface;
whether it is mountain mining or surface mining, it is all up above the
ground--he gave us primacy. We were the first State in the Nation and
the only State for quite a period of time to receive primacy.
What he was saying by that is that you in West Virginia do your
surface mining reclamation so well that we are going to give you the
authority to go ahead, and we will back out of it completely; we have
no jurisdiction anymore; you have jurisdiction unless you start to do
things which are wrong. Then we will take it back.
I was very proud of that. That caused me to have some of the views I
have today.
When we talk about not gutting the Clean Water Act or not gutting
SMCRA, we in West Virginia cannot afford to gut, so to speak, those
Federal acts in a far more intense way than most other States because
if we do, we are hurt by them much more than other States because of
the enormously mountainous, hilly nature of our State, with only 4
percent of it being flat. All the rest of it goes up or it goes down at
one level or another. We have to respect the laws.
Mountain mining has changed a bit over the years in the sense that it
has gotten rather larger in the area it covers. Most of us in Congress
understand that mountaintop mining in West Virginia is never going to
be the same. In fact, the congressional delegation in the House and the
Senate wrote an article in the West Virginia papers in which we said it
is true, it never is going to be the same.
It may be possible we cannot afford to have, as far as the mountains
are concerned, these enormous areas that are mined all at once. But
when somebody comes along and says, oh, you should do that, you should
restrict the size because you can't fill valleys, they are wrong. Under
the Federal law, they are wrong. The Federal law specifically provides
for that. I will not read it. I will simply hold it up. Here it is in
SMCRA. It specifically provides for being able to do valley fill.
If the Federal judge who made this decision in West Virginia wants to
eliminate that--but then again, in his opinion recently, he said:
Nothing I am saying here is anything on the basis of merit; it is all
on the basis of saying we want a little peace and calm so that the
Federal Government, the Congress, can litigate on this matter and
decide what needs to be done, which is why Senator Byrd, Senator
McConnell, and a number of us went ahead with this amendment.
We did have a system whereby the two sides--I do not even like to use
the words ``two sides''--the environmental community and the industrial
community, could come together and work together. We had a system in
which one of the people who works with me spent 5 weeks in the coal
fields working with the environmental people, working with the State
people, working with the mining people, working with the union people.
They came very close to almost a total agreement on what should be
done. There was only one area on which they could not reach final
agreement. It was something called a buffer zone. They could have
reached a final agreement. Then the Corps of Engineers came along and
blew the whole thing out.
I appeal to my colleagues to understand there is a role and a place
for reason, compromise, balance, and sensible action in all of this.
This world is not divided between people who are strictly environmental
in their purposes and people who are strictly for jobs in their
purposes. There has to be that balance.
Global warming is a fact. I do not dispute the science. I look around
me; I feel the temperature; I understand what is going on. On the other
hand, at the same time I have those feelings in my bosom, having to
speak grown up as an adult, as a VISTA volunteer in the southern coal
fields of West Virginia, that these people who are mining coal--the
coal miners Senator Byrd talks about so eloquently--are doing what they
know how to do and doing it the best way they possibly can.
If we are not able to get our amendment accepted, if the judge lifts
the stay, if his decree goes into effect, mining will more or less
cease to exist in West Virginia because nobody will invest; nobody will
say: All right, let's just wait for a couple of years and then we will
come back and look at West Virginia. That will not happen. It will be
more or less the end of mining in West Virginia, not just in southern
[[Page 30585]]
West Virginia, but it will probably be all over West Virginia because
everywhere there are effects of the judge's opinion.
We have to have both. We have to have a way for people to provide the
electricity the Senator from Idaho talked about to turn on those
computers. We have to have a way to light up this Senate and to light
up the homes of people all over America. As I indicated, 57 to 60
percent of all the electricity in this country is made by coal. It is
not made by nuclear power. It is not made, at this point, by natural
gas. It is made by coal. It is a fact of life. Reasonable people
understand that.
You cannot just obliterate that and pretend there are not going to be
consequences. Nobody wants economic devastation. I do not think any of
our colleagues want economic devastation on the State of West Virginia.
I do not think that is in their hearts; I do not think that is what is
in their minds; but that is what is in the process of happening unless
this Byrd-McConnell amendment is, in fact, agreed to and becomes part
of the national law. All it will do is put into law precisely what the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Surface Mining, and the
Corps of Engineers have officially signed off on as policy.
The stakes are tremendously high in West Virginia, and the stakes are
tremendously high not only in Kentucky but all across this country.
This is kind of a watershed decision we are about to make. Are we going
to find some kind of a compromise, a way of working things through, or
are we going to deem each other to be enemies, one to another, one on
one side, one on the other--one environmentalist, who either feels or
is deemed to feel they have no interest in jobs--which I doubt because
environmentalists are people, too--or on the other side coal miners who
then turn on environmentalists as being totally hostile people. All
that does is degrade the content of public discussion and degrade the
possibility of a reasonable resolution.
I hope very much this amendment will be adopted. I regret very much
the White House has been so difficult on this whole matter, having
given their word to the senior Senator from West Virginia and then
reversed it the next day, having given their word on matters of steel
during the course of a campaign in the northern part of our State and
then reversed their view on that. One almost wonders whether or not
there is an assault that is taking place on West Virginia.
But we are struggling. We know that along with two or three other
States, we have more economic problems than any other State in the
country. We live with that. We live with that every day. We try our
very best. Senator Byrd, and this Senator, and our congressional
delegation, try our very best every single day to try to improve the
economic situation of our State, bringing in new industry that does not
create any kind of pollution or industries that are entirely smokeless
and entirely of a new order. But it cannot be done, as Senator Byrd
said, overnight.
So you cannot have a crashing decision which descends on the good
people of southern West Virginia and northern West Virginia that
deprives them not only of their self-respect but of their ability to
eat, to get medical care, or to exist as human beings.
We have not distinguished ourselves in this country in taking men or
women in their 40s or 50s or 60s, and saying: All right. You are
finished as a coal miner. Now we are going to train you to do something
else. We talk about it all the time, but we do not do it. We do not
know how to do it. The Canadians do; we do not.
So to banish people into oblivion is not something which is common
with the practices of the soul of America, any part of the soul of
America, or any part of the soul of this body. That is what would
happen, however, were this amendment to fail.
I commend to my colleagues the integrity of the Byrd-McConnell
amendment; I commend to my colleagues the honesty and the environmental
soundness of the Byrd-McConnell amendment; and I commend to my
colleagues the enormous crisis which potentially will take place if it
fails because, as has been said, what starts in West Virginia--because
this has now been picked up by the national movement--will move from
State, to State, to State, to State.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would my distinguished colleague briefly
yield for a comment in connection with something he said?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I certainly will.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, when I went up to Rhode Island on Saturday,
a few weeks ago, to attend the funeral services of the late Rhode
Island Senator John Chafee, the national press people--the Washington
Post, the New York Times--who were right on that plane indicated that
the administration was supportive of that amendment. That was on
Saturday.
I had run the language by the administration's representatives, who
come to this hill often. I hoped the administration would support the
language. So I was quietly running the language to the administration
and certainly getting the support of the administration--if not openly,
at least they were not opposed to it. We were working with them
tacitly.
The very next day the tune changed, and the newspapers announced the
administration was against the Byrd amendment. So they flip-flopped
over night; they made a 180-degree turn over night. One day I had the
confidence of them. They were looking at the language, making any
responses they wished to make to express their viewpoint. The next day
they were 100 percent on the other side.
So I say this amendment is a test. I say to the working men and women
of America, do not believe the pretty words you may hear. Pretty words
are easy. And I have heard pretty words myself. Watch what happens with
this amendment, I say to the working men and women of America. Watch
what happens to this amendment. See if the actions of those who say
they are your friend do match those pretty promises.
I thank my distinguished friend and colleague. I am pleased to
associate myself with his remarks. Well done, my friend.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my senior colleague and I yield the floor,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Texas is recognized.
____________________
SOMETHING IS OUT OF BALANCE IN AMERICA
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is easy when you come to work every day
in the most historic and important building in the world to forget you
are part of history--to forget you are in a sacred place where history
has been made in the past. But it is even easier to forget you are
making history now.
But I am reminded that we are making history now when I listen to
Senator Byrd speak with righteousness on behalf of the working people
of West Virginia. And might I also say, I have never heard a more
eloquent speech in the Senate than Senator Craig's speech that he gave
earlier.
Having heard those speeches--including Senator McConnell's and
Senator Rockefeller's--I do not want to rise to talk about the
substance. I do not think you can improve on what they had to say. But
there is an important point, at least in my mind, that I want to make;
and that is, something is wrong in America. Something is out of balance
in America.
If tomorrow in West Virginia a sub-species of crickets develop that
have legs 6 millimeters longer than crickets as we know them, or that
have brown or white specks on them, they would be protected before the
law. They would be protected by the Endangered Species Act. There would
literally be thousands of people who would be willing to troop to West
Virginia and hold signs and demand that this new sub-species of
crickets be protected.
But yet when the livelihood of people who hear that alarm ring at
4:30 a.m. in the morning--and if you grew up in one of those houses--I
know Senator Byrd did--the next sound you would hear is those two feet
hitting the floor. It is
[[Page 30586]]
predictable. You know what is going to happen, whether it is raining or
whether it is not raining. These are people who get up every day, who
work hard, who struggle to make ends meet, who sit down around the
kitchen table on the first day of the month and get out that stub they
got with their paycheck. Then they take the back of an envelope, or a
piece of paper, and they try to figure out how they are going to be
able to pay their bills, and who they can get by without paying this
month. They contribute to America by producing things America needs.
I think something is out of kilter in America when our laws are more
focused on protecting sub-species of crickets than they are focused on
protecting people who earn a living with the sweat of their brow and
with their hands.
I think something is very wrong in America when there does not seem
to be much focus on working men and women. And what was moving to me
about Senator Byrd's speech is he was speaking on behalf of the people
who work with their hands, and who work for a living, and who often do
not have much of a voice in American Government.
I am not here to criticize people who have focused, in some cases,
their lives, their civic activity, and their leisure time activity on
the environment. But I think something is wrong when, in focusing on
the environment, we forget about people who work for a living and are
affected.
I think, in some cases, environmentalism has gone too far. I think,
in some cases, that it has become anti-growth. Maybe that makes sense
if you live in a fancy air-conditioned house and if your children have
gone to college. If you have boundless opportunities, it makes sense to
say we need to protect the environment at all costs and that there is
no burden that is too great to bear. After all, the person saying that
already has a piece of the American pie and has already generally lived
the American dream.
But I think what Senator Byrd has reminded us of is that not every
American has lived the American dream. Not every American has gotten a
piece of the pie.
I think when we have focused so much on a sub-species of crickets, it
is about time that people in the Senate stand up and say: What about
people who make a living in the mining industries of this country--
people who have had placed on their livelihood less weight by American
law than we place on the assumed well-being of subspecies of crickets?
I think something is out of balance in America. I think we need to
bring it back into balance. I think we need to remind people who are so
concerned about one particular element of the environment that there is
no more basic part of the environment than the ability of the people in
West Virginia, or Kentucky, or Texas, or any other State in the Union
to make their house payment, or their ability to earn a livelihood, or
their ability to have self-respect in their own worth of what they do.
We are not talking about tearing down America's environmental laws.
No country in history has a better environment than we have. No country
has spent more resources and legitimate effort on their environment
than we have.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning
business extend until 6 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I
shall not--there are some of us who would like to speak on this debate
concerning this particular issue and who have been waiting for a while.
Could we get some sequence of order perhaps?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Landrieu is
to follow, and Senator Kohl is to follow Senator Landrieu. There is no
UC. Senator Landrieu was the last covered.
Mr. GRAMM. As far as I am aware, we have gone back and forth from the
Democrat side to the Republican side. I have listened to five other
people speak. I have been well served by hearing their speeches. I will
be as brief as I can.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be in
order of sequence on the Democratic side as we move back and forth.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if we could
simply accommodate every speaker, while realizing that we are waiting
for the omnibus bill to come over from the House, may I suggest we
amend that unanimous consent request so that the Senator be recognized
in the order of the sequence we have, but that when the omnibus bill
comes over from the House, it continue to take precedence?
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding the Senator appropriately asked for
an extension until 6. It is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana
wants to speak for only 10 minutes, or less. The Senator from Minnesota
wants 5 minutes. I think if we could get an order, we could contain it
within the time and everybody would be satisfied. I ask the Senator
from Alaska how long he wants to speak.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. In responding to my friend from Massachusetts, about 6
minutes. I am satisfied if we go back and forth, as suggested, it would
concur with the unanimous consent agreement pending.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from
Texas, the Senator from Louisiana be recognized for 10 minutes;
following that, the Senator from Alaska be recognized for 5 minutes;
the Senator from Minnesota for 5 minutes; and I would like to follow
the Senator from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. To clarify that, when the District of Columbia
appropriations conference report and its parts arrive, that will be
taken up at that point regardless of the order. But then, of course,
when that is completed, we can go back to this order.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, may I ask the distinguished majority
leader: I think we have such a tight containment here, there are some
who have some problems off the floor. So it may be that he would be
held up by about 5 minutes, I think, in total.
Mr. LOTT. If it is something like that, it should not be a problem.
But they are voting in the House at this time, so the papers will be
headed this way. Rather than holding up the debate getting started, I
think with the order we have lined up, we should be all right. I think
we could extend the colloquy to the point where we couldn't do the
business of the Senate.
Mr. KERRY. Would the majority leader then permit us to put in place
the request we have made?
Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is obvious that there are a lot of
people who want to speak. Let me sum up by saying that in an era where
I think we have gotten Government out of balance, where extremist
elements are determined to impose their will and their values--often at
the expense of the jobs of people who work with their hands and who, in
the process, contribute to America--when we become callous to the needs
of working people by catering to people who are often quite well off
and quite successful and quite comfortable, who, in some cases, would
put their interests and their hobbies ahead of working people, it is
very important that we have someone such as Senator Byrd who pulls us
back to reality.
I think Senator Byrd mentioned my name as a cosponsor. But just in
case he did not, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 30587]]
Mr. GRAMM. I am proud to support this amendment. I think the
administration has become dominated by people who are more concerned
about specific elements of the environment, as they define it, than
they are concerned about the environment based on good science. I think
they are more concerned about their values than the well-being of the
people who do the work and pay the taxes and pull the wagon in America.
It is easy for a planner or an idealist to set out a policy and act
as if destroying the livelihood of a coal miner is as irrelevant as
simply overturning a regulation. But we know the difference between a
regulation and the livelihood of a coal miner. It is because we know
the difference that we are here.
I hope this amendment passes. I hope it sends a clear signal that the
Clinton administration has become an extremist administration in terms
of the environment. This is a bipartisan effort. I think it is
important. I think it pulls us back to the center in recognizing we
want a better environment. But we want to look at costs and benefits.
We want to look at science. When we are putting thousands of people out
of work, we ought to stop and reflect on what we are doing. Senator
Byrd is asking us to do that today. I am proud to join him in this
effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
____________________
NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am appreciative of the 10 minutes
granted to speak on a different subject. I understand that mining is an
important issue and deserves our attention. Until it is resolved, we
will probably be working for many days. I know that the Senior Senator
from West Virginia feels very passionately about this issue, and other
Members may want to add their remarks as the evening goes on, so I will
try to be brief.
A week from tomorrow, many of us will head home to be with our
families and celebrate Thanksgiving. In my mind, it is extremely
appropriate that Thanksgiving falls in this month, which many of you
know is National Adoption Month. For like Thanksgiving, National
Adoption Month is a time not only for celebration but also for
reflection.
So let me begin with some facts about adoption that people may find
interesting in hopes that this would be something the American people
will embrace. In 1992, the last year for which adoption statistics were
available, there were 127,000 children adopted in the United States.
Forty-two percent of these children were adopted by step parents or
relatives; 15 percent of these adoptions were from foster care; 5
percent adopted children from other countries; and 37 percent of these
children were adopted by private agencies.
The poster behind me is a collage of just a few of the 130,000
legally freed children awaiting permanent families. Some of them are
only children and some are sibling groups, some are younger children
some are older. Although they are all different, all of these beautiful
children are looking for someone to love and care for them and to make
them a part of their home.
The fact remains that there are half a million children in foster
care. By way of comparison, allow me to refer to a hometown landmark,
the Superdome. The Superdome has hosted several superbowls--the Saints
have never been to one there, but other teams have. We can seat about
80,000 people in the Superdome. To get an accurate vision of the number
of children, picture 5 superdomes filled with children, one in every
seat. That is a lot of children--if you think about one in each seat in
five Superdomes--in need of homes in America.
The average age of children in foster care is 9.5 years. The problem
is many children spend the average of 3 years in foster care. Three
years is too long to live without the love and security of a permanent
family. We need to shorten that time. If a child has to be removed from
their biological parents because of terrible, unfortunate
circumstances, they should spend a short time in foster care and then
be placed permanently with a loving family. Seventy percent of the
children available for adoption and foster care are under the age of
10. They should not spend their tender years without a home.
True, we are making progress and we should be proud. In 1996, 28,000
children in foster care were placed in permanent homes. It is projected
that, in 1999, the number will be 36,000, an increase of about 30
percent.
In celebration of those who made this progress possible, the
Congressional Coalition on Adoption instituted a wonderful idea that we
hope will go on year after year, The Congressional Angels In Adoption.
We asked all of our colleagues to send in recommendations for
individuals in their respective States and districts who had done
something extraordinary in the area of adoption. I would like to submit
for the Record a list of the 55 families who have been nominated and
selected for the first 1999 Angels In Adoption Awards.
I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
1999 Angels in Adoption
Freddie Mac Foundation, Virginia, Nancy Kleingartner,
Bismarck, North Dakota, Jeff and Earletta Morris,
Marshalltown, Iowa, Earl and Judy Priest, Caldwell, Idaho,
Dave Thomas, Dublin, Ohio, Peter and Mary Myers, Sikeston,
Missouri, James and Denise Jones, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Fletcher Thompson & Jim Thompson, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, Carol McMahon, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Lori and
Willie Johnson, Russellville, Arkansas, Candice Mueller,
Ewing, New Jersey, Joan McLaughlin, Morristown, New Jersey,
Carol Stoudt, Fargo, North Dakota, Bill and Laura Trickey,
Kansas City, Missouri, Tom and Debbie Ritter, Warrentown,
Missouri, Debbie Breden, O'Fallon, Missouri, Senator Gordon
and Sharon Smith, Hope Marindin, Chevy Chase, Maryland,
Doreen Moreira, Cabin John, Maryland, Sky Westerlund, of
Lawrence, Kansas.
Doug and Mary Spangler, Kansas City, Vivian Robinson,
Harrisburg, Illinois, Reverend George Coates, Eldorado,
Illinois, Ms. Gloria King of Oakland, California, Becky and
Mike Dornoff, Williamsburg, Michigan, Steve and Cherie
Karban, Rapid River, Michigan, James L. Gritter, Traverse
City, Michigan, Ms. Sidney Duncan, Detroit, Michigan, Anne
Pierson, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Jane Sarnes, Lexington,
Nebraska, Peggy Soule, Rochester, New York, Laurence and Jane
Leach, Raleigh County, West Virginia, Judge Gary Johnson,
West Virginia, Hays and Gay Town of Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
David and Jane Zatz Redmond, Washington, Dennis and Shirley
Smithson, Nashville, Tennessee, Anne Desiderio, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, Francis Ann Mobley, Daytona Beach, Florida, Kurt
and Stacy Stahl, Lake Oswego, Oregon, Sallie Olson, Lake
Oswego, Oregon.
Ruth Ann Gaines, Des Moines, Iowa, Larry and Jackie Bebo,
Berthoud, Colorado, Gary Cerkvenik and Kim Stokes, Britt,
Minnesota, Aimee Oullette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Bill and
Brenda Baker, Redfield, South Dakota, Richard and Karen
Butler, Faith, South Dakota, Reverend Ed and Diane
Nesseslhuf, Vermillion, South Dakota, Debbie Hoffman, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, Melvina and Louie Winters, Pine Ridge,
South Dakota, Geraldine Bluebird, Pine Ridge, South Dakota,
Scott and Val Parsley, Madison, South Dakota, Mrs. Brenda
Edusei, Bedford, New Hampshire, Debra Klopert, St. Louis,
Missouri, Jessica Dennis of Rosedale, New York.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Here are some examples from around the country. I will
read into the Record just a few. First of all, the Congressional
Coalition on Adoption has recognized the Freddie Mac Foundation of
Virginia, nominated because of countless contributions to the promotion
of adoption. In this year alone, Freddie Mac has donated millions of
dollars to help fund programs for adoption and foster care. Their
commitment and dedication demonstrates their unique understanding that
there is more to a home than four walls. We thank the Freddie Mac
Foundation for their effort.
I will read a few more brief entries to give an example of some of
the people that were honored. My friend, the Senior Senator from
Arkansas, submitted a family from Russellville, Arkansas, Lori and
Willie Johnson. In an increasingly self-absorbed world, Lori and Willie
Johnson remind those around them of the meaning of the word
``selfless.'' They are the proud parents of 17 children, 13 of whom are
adopted and have special needs. Because of their
[[Page 30588]]
love and dedication, these children have a family to call their own.
From Spartanburg, South Carolina, we have selected Fletcher Thompson
and Jim Thompson, nominated by our colleague in the House, James
Demint. Having practiced adoption for over 25 years, they are rightly
considered adoption experts. They place over 100 children a year. They
practice law in a way that helps build families and brings hope to
children and joy to parents. We thank them for their great work.
I would also like to mention, the Angel from Idaho--since the Senior
Senator from that State was on the floor earlier speaking about the
important mining issue,--as Co-chair of the Congressional Coalition he
nominated Earl and Judy Priest from Caldwell, Idaho. For over 25 years,
the Priests have opened their hearts and home to children of all ages
and abilities. They are parents of five children, three of whom are
adopted. In addition, they have fostered 160 other children.
Hays and Gay Town, from my own home State of Louisiana, founded and
personally funded an agency that has placed over 200 children. They
have also reached out to help young mothers in crisis.
There are many examples, from California to New York to Louisiana to
Michigan. There have been examples of judges, attorneys, parents who
have adopted children, advocates in the community, agencies, who are
really contributing to making our goal of finding a home for every
child in America and the world a reality.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues, of several pieces
of pending legislation concerning adoption. First, we look forward to
passing, with Senator Helms' and Senator Biden's leadership, the Hague
Convention on Intercountry Adoption. This treaty will, for the first
time, lay out a framework for international adoption. Mr. Chairman, as
a lawyer and a former prosecutor, you most certainly know the
importance of laying out a legal framework to prevent fraud and abuse,
reduce costs and make the process easier for families adopting abroad.
Together with Senator Abraham, I have introduced the Adoption Awareness
Act to fund a nationwide campaign promoting adoption. Through this
campaign, we hope to encourage potential adoptive parents to open their
homes to a waiting child.
Finally, we hope to be able to increase the present adoption tax
credit from $5,000 to $10,000.
As you can see, there is a lot of work we have to do when we come
back. I want to take this opportunity, once again, to recognize all of
our ``Angels in Adoption,'' and to thank my colleagues for all the good
work they have done on this issue. I look forward to working with them
when we return to make the reality of a permanent and loving home real
for so many children who need it.
Thank you.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________
BYRD-McCONNELL MINING AMENDMENT
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we all owe a tremendous debt of
gratitude to the senior Senator from West Virginia.
What we have now is a situation concerning mining in the U.S. where a
crucial decision is either going to be made to maintain an atmosphere
where mining can continue or through the prevailing attitude within the
Clinton administration to simply drive this industry offshore.
The Clinton administration, by its actions, evidently opposes the
working people of America who are involved in mining.
Those opposing Senator Byrd's proposal basically are destroying the
entire coal industry which exists west of the Mississippi--the mine
workers whose jobs depend on that industry, the railroad workers, the
barge men, and the truck drivers.
I think it is important to note that Senator Byrd's amendment directs
the application of the Clean Water Act to be returned to the way it was
at the beginning of October of this year.
Senator Byrd's amendment does not change the law. It does not change
any practice that has been followed over the years. It is our job to
change the law--not the White House and not the courts.
Senator Byrd's amendment gives the Congress and the Federal agencies
time to apply existing law without destroying the coal mining industry
of this country--time to apply the law, or make such adjustments that
are necessary in a way that protects the environment, the coal mining
industry, and all those who depend upon that industry for their well-
being.
We are looking for a balance. The administration's proposal throws
this out of balance.
The amendment goes further. There are two additional issues involved.
One deals with the recent Solicitor's opinion that would throw out
127 years of precedent on the size of mill sites--only 5 acres per
claim, if followed through with, this would make mining on public lands
absolutely impossible.
I do not know how many Members have an idea about what it takes to
make up a mine. The mine needs a mill site, grinding and crushing
facilities, shops, processing plants, tailings disposal, headquarters,
a water plant, parking lots, and roads. This simply cannot fit on the
space provided within the 5-acre mill site per claim. It simply can't
be done. This is how they propose to eliminate mining. In my State of
Alaska, we would not have a new mine developed, nor could we.
You are depriving us and this country the right to produce minerals
from the rich resources we have.
Make no mistake; the Solicitor wrote the opinion to end mining in the
West, to drive mining offshore, to drive the jobs offshore, and to
drive the dollars offshore.
The provision in this amendment would allow mining operations that
have been submitting plans prior to a recent Solicitor's opinion to
continue under the law and the precedent that was relied on the
developed plan.
The second issue is also a simple provision that would require the
administration to follow sound science for a change--not emotion.
The provision would limit the ability of the Secretary of the
Interior to propose new hard rock mining regulations for those areas
where the National Academy of Science found that there were
deficiencies. Why not give science a chance instead of emotion?
Finally, the National Academy of Science found that State and current
Federal regulations on hard rock mining sufficiently protected the
environment and needed only a few changes to bring it up to current
standards.
What is wrong with the objective of the National Academy of Science?
There are two simple provisions: One that provides fundamental
fairness by allowing companies that have relied on 127 years of
interpretation to continue while the courts sort out whether this new
interpretation is legal; and one that requires the administration to
follow and comply with sound science.
We are calling for fundamental fairness and sound science. But the
White House, in its single-minded determination to end the domestic
mining industry, seems to have denied us both.
I certainly appreciate the support of the senior Senator from West
Virginia. He has a sympathy and an understanding for the needs of the
mining industry.
Unfortunately, we have seen these differences of opinion between the
West and the East. But we certainly now have a common interest.
There is going to be little for the domestic mining industry to
celebrate this Thanksgiving.
The White House, to serve its environmental constituency and the
aspirations of, I guess, the Vice President, has abandoned the call for
sound science. They are appealing to emotion.
We need fairness. We need to meet the needs of the men and women who
labor in our mines.
This Nation will pay the price as coal mines in West Virginia, mining
sites throughout the West, and in my State of Alaska close. Good,
honest jobs that
[[Page 30589]]
built this Nation will be lost. Union and nonunion workers will join
the bread line that this administration will leave as its legacy for
the mining industry.
I yield the floor.
I thank the President for his patience and perseverance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator Kohl
was seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be
allowed to speak for 5 minutes after Senator Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak with some mixed feelings
because I have heard several of my colleagues, and I specifically want
to talk about the remarks of Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller for
whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I know when they speak
about miners, they speak from their hearts, and they speak from their
souls.
I haven't looked at the specific wording of the amendment. But I want
to raise some questions, if this amendment comes to a vote. I will look
at the amendment and then decide.
But I think I heard some of my colleagues trivialize this question.
Just looking at it from another very important point of view, I can say
that I have spent a considerable amount of time in eastern Kentucky.
That is where my wife's family is from. I spent some time years ago
with an organization called ``Save Our Cumberland Mountains'' in east
Tennessee.
When my colleagues come to the floor and talk about this as saving
some exotic species, they are not talking about what I have seen with
strip mining. What I have seen with strip mining in east Tennessee and
east Kentucky is a situation where, first of all, the coal mining
companies came to the region and took an awful lot of the wealth, and
then they left an awful lot of the people poor.
But one of the things people had was their streams, rivers, and their
creeks. They had the outdoors, and the land that they loved.
I want to say to my colleagues that when you take the tops off these
mountains with the strip mining as opposed to deep mining, and you let
the left-over rock and earth get dumped into the adjacent valleys and
bury or pollute streams, it raises a big question.
Again, I say, in deference to my colleagues, that I know what they
are saying. We will have a chance to analyze this and then decide how
to vote.
But I do not believe this is a trivial question at all. I have seen
communities ravaged by this strip mining. I have seen courageous people
who have lived in the mountains their whole lives speak up. So I want
to speak up by raising this question on the floor of the Senate.
I also want to say to my colleague, Senator Byrd--and others--who, as
I said, from his heart cares about the miners, that when I hear some of
my colleagues talk about the miners, I hope there will be equal concern
for the miners in east Kentucky when they don't have the unions. Right
now, they can't see 6 inches in front of them because of the coal dust
level. I hope we will have the concern for the health and safety of the
miners. When I hear speakers on the floor, I hope we will have the
concern on raising wages; I hope we will have concern for civilized
working conditions; and I hope we will have a concern for the right of
miners and other people to be able to organize and bargain
collectively.
When I hear about the President's trip to Hazard, KY, where is the
concern for poverty? I hope we will also see the same kind of
commitment to health care, to education, to affordable child care, to
economic development, and all of the rest.
It is a little bit too much to hear some colleagues frame this debate
in these terms given this broader context.
It is a difficult question. I said to Senator Byrd earlier I have not
looked at the specific amendment yet. I will do that. But I don't want
any Senator to come to the floor and act as if there isn't some
question--again, the Senator can clear this up for me--as to whether or
not, given section 404 of the Clean Water Act, we are or are not
creating a loophole. That is a terribly important question for me to
resolve before a final vote on the issue.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator has mentioned my name. The word
``waste'' has been used. The newspapers have repeatedly used the word
``waste,'' saying this amendment that I am sponsoring is to let coal
companies continue to dump their waste into the streams.
As to the use of the term ``waste,'' the Clean Water Act, section
404, governs the disposal of ``dredged and fill'' materials into waters
of the United States. Excess material from coal mines has always been
regulated in this fashion as ``dredged and fill'' material under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Judge Hayden in West Virginia, however, determined that excess
material from coal mines is ``waste'' and, as such, could not be
disposed of in valley fills.
For 20 years, the stream buffer zone regulation has not been
interpreted as preventing the disposal of excess material from coal
mines into streams. Rather, Congress relied on the Clean Water Act to
govern this activity.
I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
I ask unanimous consent Mr. Shelby be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Minnesota has
expired. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
____________________
GRATITUDE TO JEANETTE BOONE SMITH
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to share with all of my colleagues,
particularly with the citizens of Massachusetts, the deepest sense of
appreciation I have for the longest serving member of my staff, someone
I have been privileged to have work with me since I entered elective
office in 1982. Jeanette Boone Smith is leaving my staff after serving
all of that time, since 1982, both in the Lieutenant Governor's Office
of Massachusetts and in the Senate. Throughout those years, Jeanette
has symbolized the values and the priorities I have tried to represent
in the Senate. I am, indeed, extraordinarily fortunate to have had her
friendship and her counsel throughout my public life.
Jeanette embodies the fight for equality and for social justice that
defines the entire second half of this century. Her life is filled with
stories of personal struggle, public struggle, and of triumph, of
sacrifice, and of victory. She was born in Englewood, NJ, and she
remained in that State throughout young adulthood. For Jeanette, public
service and political action came very early. She became president of
Englewood's Fourth Ward Democratic Club, where she worked for local and
national Democratic candidates. Her commitment to ensuring equality of
opportunity and access to resources led her to fight tirelessly for the
integration of the Englewood schools and for public housing. The
success of the campaign in which she was involved opened up education
and affordable housing to the whole community, and it serves as just
one example of the countless times Jeanette sacrificed her time and her
energy to help provide a better life to people who had traditionally
been denied the full measure of the American dream.
Jeanette interviewed with me in January 1983 when I was putting my
staff together for the Lieutenant Governor's Office. From that time on,
through those early years, she served as my executive assistant,
performing the endless and thankless tasks that all here understand are
so vital to our ability to be able to manage our schedules and our
State operations. As the years passed, she took on greater
responsibilities as the director of constituent services where her
warm, generous,
[[Page 30590]]
open personality, and remarkable compassion for people in need allowed
my office to advocate successfully to open and to successfully complete
the work on more than 100,000 individual cases throughout
Massachusetts.
As my colleagues well know, constituent services are critical in
serving the people of our States and they are sometimes the most
thankless and the most difficult tasks we confront. Jeanette assembled
and managed a team that continues to help people in search of housing,
education opportunities, and nutritional assistance. She has also
overseen many complex housing partnerships with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and State agencies, helping to bring
quality, affordable housing to thousands of people throughout the
State.
Jeanette is leaving to enjoy more time with her husband Perry, her
son Tracey, and his sons, and the South End community she loves so
dearly. Within the South End, she formed the Four Corners Neighborhood
Association, which led to the construction of the Langham Court
Apartments. This complex is a wonderful example of Jeanette's abilities
and her commitment to improving her community. It has been recognized
with awards for its architecture and innovative program of mixed-income
housing. She is also deeply involved in the Roxbury Presbyterian Church
where she serves as an elder, a trustee, a member of the choir, and a
member of the renovation committee.
These words today--and I know my colleagues will share this sense for
any long-term staff person who departs--cannot fully recognize
Jeanette's contributions to the people of Massachusetts or the full
extent of my personal appreciation for her time with me. Although she
departs my staff tomorrow, the principles she has represented in her
work will never leave; rather, they will do as Jeanette has done, which
is to serve as a moral compass pointed toward a better world where a
bright future is open and available to everyone in this country.
I am deeply grateful for her time with me, and I extend to her and
Perry my very best wishes as they begin a wonderful new chapter in
their lives.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
____________________
THE NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the omnibus package that will be brought
to the floor sometime this evening, there are two pieces of legislation
on dairy that I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing because I
think they are unfair and very much not in the spirit of the American
economic system.
One is the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact is an
arrangement in which the New England States literally fix the price of
milk in those seven States and no one can tamper with that price. It is
the only price at which milk can be distributed from the farmer to the
processor. In effect, it takes all the competition out of that product
in that State, in all the New England States. We have never done that
before in this country. It is contrary to everything that is
represented by the economic system in the United States.
The reason why we have such a great country in part is because our
economic system provides that anybody with a good idea to develop a
product or a service has an unfettered opportunity in all 50 States to
market that product. That is what has made America great: competition.
That is why we have full employment, the best economy in the world, and
an economy that can compete anywhere in the world and succeed. That is
because in this country we say: In order to get your share of market,
you have to be able to provide the best product at the best price and
market it in the best way. There are no restrictions in the 50 States
to do that. That has been true since the United States of America was
originated.
The northeast dairy cartel is in contrast to that. There is nothing
about the cartel that is American in terms of how we do business. There
is something else about that. They say, and I have heard this from some
of the leaders in the northeast: Can't we just have our cartel? After
all, it represents only a fraction of the milk market in the country.
Why can't we just have our cartel? But, obviously, if they can have
their cartel, then everybody can have a cartel. What stops us from
having a Southeast cartel or a Southwest cartel? What stops us from
having a Southern cotton cartel? What stops us from having a Midwest
corn cartel or a Plains States wheat cartel? If a cartel makes sense in
any form, then it makes sense not only in the New England States and
not only for milk; it makes sense anywhere, conceivably, and for any
product.
Now I ask the question: Does the Senate want to go on record as
favoring this type of economic policy? I think we all know the answer
is not yes. Nobody has defended this to me, even though it is coming
tonight. Nobody has defended it to me. I talked with the leaders in the
Senate. I asked them to explain why we should have this kind of
legislation in the omnibus bill. I tell you, not a leader, not a single
Senator, has explained to me and defended in any way that makes sense
the idea of price-fixing cartels. Yet here it comes.
I am told it is coming because promises have been made and
arrangements have already occurred, and so on and so forth. On
something as important as this, which is price-fixing cartels, it seems
to me that saying ``promises have been made,'' and ``it has been passed
in the House,'' or ``it is too late,'' or whatever, does not make any
sense. May I also say I have been in dialog with the leaders in the
Senate for months on this, so this is not a surprise. So here we are
with this piece of legislation.
Then we also have this milk pricing policy which, as you all know,
arbitrates that the farther you are from Wisconsin in this country, the
more you get for your milk if you are a dairy farmer. We all know,
again, this was set up 50 or 60 years ago when there was no
refrigeration to transport milk and they wanted to encourage the
development of the dairy industry. So we provided incentives for dairy
farmers at points distant from Wisconsin to develop the dairy industry
and to circumvent the need for refrigerated transportation. That is no
longer true.
So what we are trying to do is not to eliminate that price
differential because that would be too big a step to take at once. We
are trying to reduce the price differential--not eliminate it, reduce
it. USDA has come up with a program and 97 percent of the farmers in
this country have voted for the change in the present milk pricing
program. I am not suggesting we need to eliminate the price
differential at this time. But let's accept the reduction of the price
differential in view of the fact that the present system is archaic and
makes no sense.
Again, coming over from the House is legislation that continues to
mandate that the old Depression-era pricing system be continued. May I
also say the present system, both with respect to the Northeast Dairy
Compact and the pricing system, was mandated to conclude on October 1,
and we would put in a new system. But before October 1, there was a
Federal judge in Vermont who challenged that kind of outcome. So right
now it is tied up in the courts and nothing is going to happen. The
present system will stay until at least the courts rule on the validity
of a new system.
So I suggested, and many have suggested, there be no dairy language
in the omnibus; just don't say anything and let's let this thing roll
because it is tied up in the courts now anyhow, and we can discuss it
next year.
No, promises have been made. People have been won over in one way or
another. Other agendas are on the table. So today it comes in an
omnibus bill,
[[Page 30591]]
with the Northeast Dairy Compact renewed. Price fixing cartels, does
any Senator want to vote for that? Price fixing cartels, not just for
the Northeast, because if you accept it in the Northeast you accept it
elsewhere; not just on milk, because a cartel is not uniquely suited to
milk. It can be on any other commodity anywhere.
Does the Senate want to go on record as supporting price fixing
cartels in this country? Do we want to tear up the American economy in
that way? That comes in the omnibus tonight. We are going to vote on
that.
We are also going to vote on going back to the old milk marketing
price system which, again, is totally outmoded. The USDA has come up
with a new system. I am very upset, obviously, and I am obviously going
to fight that omnibus bill to its conclusion in any way I can, to
filibuster it and to require everything be done to demonstrate to us
and to the American people that there is a giant bill coming down the
pike which has at least an element in it which is not acceptable, in my
judgment, to how America is supposed to function.
We are also considering a continuing resolution that will be brought
to the floor momentarily, I understand. Of course, one of the options
we have is to vote against a continuing resolution, which would, in
effect, shut down the Government at midnight tonight. I could object to
the CR and the Government would shut down. That is something I had
considered. But if we do that or if I do that, obviously, it is a huge
step, and there are many tens of thousands of people who would be out
of a job, with enormous dislocations all across our country. It is a
huge step one does not take easily. It is not a step I want to take. It
is not a step I am going to take because I do not think it represents
responsible action on my part. If some of the other people in this body
want to act in a way I consider to be irresponsible and challenge me to
be irresponsible--I am not an irresponsible person. Shutting down the
Government is a huge, huge decision. One does not take it lightly. I am
not going to make that decision over this issue.
But I do want to point out to my colleagues that some strong-arm
tactics are at work here. Allowing price fixing cartels is a bad thing
for this country. I very much hope we can and will find a way to undo
the damage of price fixing cartels in an outmoded milk marketing system
in the very near future.
Having said that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there are a number of issues we are working
on, but we have one unanimous consent request with regard to the loan
guarantee for the satellite local situation we have worked out.
I ask unanimous consent that no later than March 30, 2000, if no
Senate committee has reported a bill limited to providing loan
guarantees to establish local television service to rural areas by
satellite and other means, the Republican leader, or his designee, or
the Democratic leader, or his designee, be recognized to introduce a
bill limited to sections 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006 of the conference
report accompanying H.R. 1554 providing such loan guarantees, and that
the Senate immediately begin consideration of the bill with relevant
first-degree amendments in order and second-degree amendments that are
relevant to the first-degree amendment proposed to be amended. Further,
that if legislation is reported that is limited to such loan
guarantees, it be considered on or before March 30 and be open to
relevant amendments as provided above. Further, that upon disposition
of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and passed, with no
intervening action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the majority leader. This is
the result of ongoing discussions we have had for some time. I
appreciate very much the involvement and the work done by the
distinguished Senator from Montana. This accomplishes much of what we
hoped we could do. It is not everything. I am very hopeful we can get
this done before April 1, but the majority leader has made as strong a
commitment to me personally, and I am sure he is prepared to do it on
the record, that he will work with us to accomplish the objectives laid
out in this unanimous consent agreement.
I appreciate, as well, the cooperation of the distinguished Banking
Committee chairman, and I believe as a result of the effort we have
been able to demonstrate in getting to this point, we will achieve our
goal. We cannot leave rural America out. We will have an opportunity to
provide service to them. This will give us the vehicle to make that
happen. So I do not object.
Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before the Senator reserves the right to
object, I want to add my own personal comments rather than just the dry
UC that I gave.
I, too, commend and thank the other Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns,
for his efforts in this area and for his tenacity. In fact, this very
day, he ruined my lunch talking to me about this issue. I know Senator
Baucus believes very strongly in it.
It is not just a Montana issue. This is important in South Dakota and
this is important in Mississippi. This is important nationwide. If we
are going to get this satellite local-to-local service in these smaller
markets, we have to have this opportunity, but we want to make sure it
is a loan guarantee that will work, that is actually going to do the
job, that is not in some way going to improperly benefit any one
individual or group of individuals, for that matter, and that it has
been carefully thought through.
Again, I am absolutely determined to get this done. I will not only
live up to this UC, which I have to, but I will do it with a great deal
of vigor and activity.
I thank the Senator from Texas for his willingness to focus on this
and get it done by a date certain and make sure he and other committees
have added to it to make sure we do it right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I earlier objected to bringing up the
continuing resolution because I felt it made much more sense to include
the loan guarantee along with the other provisions in the omnibus bill
that will be taken up later providing for local-to-local satellite
network service.
I thank the Senator from Mississippi, as well as my colleague from
Montana. I have been working with my colleague today to figure out some
way to lock in even more having loan guarantees passed by this body and
by the other body.
The other body has made a similar commitment in a colloquy about 2
hours ago to make sure this is passed so rural viewers of America have
the opportunity to have local satellite service.
I compliment my friend from Montana for working so hard on this. He
has worked very hard, as well as others. I am not going to hold up the
continuing resolution to shut down the Government. In the whole scheme
of things, we have our own priorities and know what the priorities
should be. But it is important to get this provision in here because it
does make it even more certain we are going to get this loan guarantee
provision passed in the next year.
I thank the majority leader. He has been very gracious in working
this out, as well as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who
I know wants to work this out as well, and my good friend from Montana.
I also thank the Banking Committee chairman. He has been very helpful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request before
the Senate. Is there objection?
Mr. BURNS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, this
is a compromise to facilitate the passage of this omnibus bill. We have
worked a
[[Page 30592]]
long time on this. We are working up to a deadline where we could see
some blue screens after December 31. But one cannot ignore the fact
that even our satellite viewers should be able to receive local
broadcasts or network stations in their local areas. The only way we
will ever provide any competition for the cables under the rules they
live by, under must carry, and still have a viable satellite service
that will compete with cables is through this method.
I appreciate the commitment of the Senator from Texas, the chairman
of the Banking Committee. I thank my friend from Montana. He has worked
hard on this. I thank the majority leader. Without their commitments,
we would be talking a different tune now. I also commend the leadership
in the House of Representatives for making the same commitment that
this legislation be passed early next year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A unanimous consent request is before the
Senate. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas yield to the
Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I was going to speak on this subject of the
satellite bill, but I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized
as one of the managers of the continuing resolution. I am entitled to
that recognition. I ask I be recognized immediately after the
distinguished Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has propounded
a unanimous consent request. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. This has obviously
been a very difficult issue. We passed the satellite bill in the Senate
unanimously. I think every Member of the Senate realizes the ability to
receive television signals in America is critically important. On
Saturday, you want to watch Texas A&M. On Sunday, you want to watch the
Dallas Cowboys. And one's life is diminished if you cannot do either
one of those things.
The problem we had was we passed a bill in the Senate to set up the
legal structure to get that job done. They passed a bill in the House
to do the same. Neither bill had any loan guarantee language in it. The
conferees realized there was a problem, but in their haste to get it
done, it is my opinion that we ended up with language that was as good
as anybody could have written during that short period of time.
Under the agreement we have reached, we have an opportunity to have
representatives of the television stations, the satellite companies,
and potential Internet suppliers come in. We have the ability to look
at the technology.
We have the ability to look at loan guarantees we have given in the
past. We have the ability to get the input of the Treasury. Hopefully,
we will have the ability to put together a bill that will maximize the
chances that every American will have access to their local television
station.
I want my colleagues to know, as I have said many times as this
debate has evolved, I intend, by the 30th of March, to report a bill
from the Banking Committee. It is my goal not only to write a bill that
will deal with this problem, but I hope we can develop a prototype for
the future, where we recognize that there are some social goals that
are not necessarily met by market forces, and that the market by itself
might not provide this service which we have deemed to be important.
The question then is: What can you do to provide this service at the
lowest possible cost and in the most efficient manner? It is my goal to
put together a bill that will achieve that goal and perhaps be a
prototype for similar problems in the future.
So I thank my colleagues. Probably as much effort has gone into this
one little issue as anything throughout this whole process. It is an
important issue. It involved an important principle. I think we have
reached a good conclusion. I am happy about it. I believe, when we
complete it, that every Member of the Senate and every Member of
Congress and, hopefully, everybody who has a satellite dish or wants
one will be happy about it as well.
I thank my colleagues.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I yield to the majority leader first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is yielding to
the majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the majority leader yield?
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue to call the roll.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded so that the Senator from Minnesota can----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object until I can read this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.J. RES. 82, H.J. RES. 83, AND H.R. 3194
Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleagues for not objecting.
Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that has been very
carefully worked out, and after it is agreed to, we have three
colloquies that Senator Daschle, Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, and I
would like to enter into.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to H.J. Res. 82, the
continuing resolution, and following the reporting by the clerk, there
be two first-degree amendments in order, and no second-degree
amendments or motions to commit or recommit be in order. Those
amendments are the following:
The Byrd-McConnell amendment regarding mining;
The Helms-Edwards amendment regarding disaster funds.
I further ask consent that following the disposition of the
amendments, the joint resolution be read a third time and passed and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
[[Page 30593]]
I further ask consent that when the Senate receives H.J. Res. 83, the
joint resolution be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.
Finally, I ask consent that when the Senate receives the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3194, the reading of the conference report
commence immediately following the motion to proceed made by the
majority leader, to be followed by a vote on the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, could I ask the
majority leader, following the motion to proceed by the majority
leader, it says ``to be followed by a vote on a motion to proceed.'' Is
this going to be read?
Mr. LOTT. This is after the reading has been completed.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is our understanding.
Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority
leader a question, if I could. We had an understanding prior to
removing the quorum call that there is no time limitation.
Mr. LOTT. Correct, there is no time limitation in this agreement.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we do have a colloquy we will enter into. I
don't know how much debate time will be required since there was no
time limitation. It is safe to say there will be a period of time for
debate, so if Members want to take this time to get something to eat
they will probably have the time to do so. However, I do expect after
some reasonable period of time there will be a vote or votes, and, of
course, we will proceed to the conference report that has been
delivered to the Senate at an appropriate time so it can be read, and
for a motion or votes on that.
One important thing I want to emphasize, the Senate can only do what
the Senate can do, and then our action has to go to the House. The
House must act. With regard to these continuing resolutions, they have
a number of options. I personally am going to vote for the Byrd
amendment. I think the Senator is entitled to make his case. I hope the
House will accept that. If they don't, it will be back in another venue
in another way.
The same thing with regard to the Helms-Edwards disaster funds. An
oversight occurred, as I understand it, in the final hours last night
with regard to disaster funds for North Carolina. There were about
three tranches of money that had been requested for disaster
assistance. Two of those were included, which come to a total of around
$800 million. However, $81 million, an important tranche, was not
included. Hopefully, the House will accept this and hopefully the House
will see fit to accept them both. I will talk to the Speaker and
encourage him to do that.
I want to also emphasize, as has been the case in the past when my
State has been involved, when South Dakota or North Dakota has been
involved, when any place is involved in a disaster, they should get the
assistance they need from a caring American people. That is the way we
have been doing it for all the years I have been in the Congress. That
is the way it is now and the way it should be.
If for whatever reason in this waning hour of the session this money
is not made available, I am committed publicly, along with Senator
Daschle and the chairman of the committee, that this money will be
provided. It will be provided in the first available vehicle after the
first of the year, and I presume that will be in a supplemental because
there will be a supplemental available, and with the commitment of the
chairman and the commitment of the leaders and also the commitment of
the American people, those funds will be available. I want to make that
part of the Record at this point.
I yield the floor for others to respond.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say I agree wholeheartedly with
the comments made by the majority leader. I don't know if there is a
State right now that is hurting as badly as North Carolina. Senator
Edwards has made that point over and over and over again to me, and I
know that Senator Helms has worked with Senator Edwards to try to
provide the most comprehensive response to the situation as we can.
We have come a long way and made a great deal of progress in the
legislation pending, the omnibus bill. As things happen when we work
late into the night with a lot of different people working, there is
always the possibility something will fall through the cracks. I truly
believe that is what happened. I believe it was an honest mistake.
As the majority leader has indicated, whether it is fixed tonight,
whether it is fixed before the end of the session, or whether it is
fixed immediately when we come back, I don't know how one can get a
stronger commitment than the one given by the majority leader or the
one I am prepared to give and the one I know the chairman will be
prepared to give to accommodate North Carolina.
I appreciate their willingness to work to do this. This should
resolve this matter successfully once and for all, either tonight or at
some point in the not too distant future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, I regret this error. It was an error. We have put together
several bills in one bill and it has been a rather difficult week in
many ways. This error occurred because some of the Members of the House
who are involved and should have been involved were not notified of the
final decision that was made with regard to a request that came from
the Senators of North Carolina.
Senator Helms called me several times on the matter. I talked on the
floor and on the phone with Senator Edwards before the final
arrangement was reached. Frankly, they sought more money than is even
in the amendment that was left out of the bill. However, we said we
would have to take up the further money in the supplemental that comes
before the Congress in the early part of the next year.
Last evening when this bill was being read out, I did receive a call
concerning the fact that some of the Members of the House were
disturbed by the changes that were proposed. It was determined then
that had not been properly conveyed to the Members, although some of
the staff, I believe, were notified and were part of it. It is just one
of those things that a staff member's interaction did not take place,
and I personally did not go over and tell the House Members--I probably
should have--but it was one of the final items on the discussions we
had, including those that involved the White House representatives who
were before our committee yesterday.
As a consequence, I want to assure the Senators from North Carolina,
I do believe that once we have reached a decision such as that, and we
felt it had been cleared out, it is our responsibility now to make
certain this commitment is made good, and we will do that. This bill
will do it if the House will accept it and send it to the President. If
that does not happen, we will, without any question, take the matter up
in the first supplemental that comes before the Congress next year. We
will have the supplemental bill for Kosovo coming. That was another
request we received which was not fulfilled in this series of bills
that are before the Senate now.
I want to assure Senator Edwards and Senator Helms on this side--and
both have been very diligent in seeking these moneys--that we will put
this money in the next bill if this is not accepted by the House. I
have every reason to believe it will be accepted by the House. I intend
to get on the phone and talk to my friends and make sure they
understand. If there was an error, it was one that was caused by the
intensity of the work that was going on by the staffs of five different
subcommittees trying to put a bill together, along with all the other
bills that were being
[[Page 30594]]
considered, many of which were rejected and are not in this bill that
we all considered over this last week.
I do hope the Senators from North Carolina will accept that
assurance. I can assure them this is an $81 million item and it is, in
my judgment, small compared to the amount of money that will be in the
next supplemental for the people who were affected by Hurricane Floyd
anyway, so we will make up for this problem. We will make up the money,
and we certainly will see to it that it is there.
I plead with the Members of the House to pass the bill tonight. In
any event, we will take care of that error as quickly as we can.
Second, with regard to my good friend from West Virginia and his
amendment and that of Senator McConnell and the Western Senators, I
think there is a clear, growing understanding of the provisions of this
amendment. I have been saying, as Senator Byrd has been saying for some
time, this does not change existing law. It is an amendment to try to
preserve the status quo until Congress has a chance to review the
changes that would take place if decisions of the Solicitor's Office
and decisions of one Federal judge were followed, which would affect
the mining industry of the whole Nation. I hope the House will
certainly see fit to send that measure to the President, so we can see
what the White House is going to do with that.
But for now, I hope the Senators involved will let us get on with the
major bill, which is going to take some time. I again express my regret
to the Senators involved that this incident has taken place, and we
will do our best to see it does not happen. But the distinguished
minority leader reminded me, on an amendment that we had on a bill
earlier this year, a similar thing happened when there were just too
many things going into one bill. Our provision was left out, but it got
back in the next bill, I assure you.
Mr. President, I do hope the Senators involved will give us the
courtesy now of permitting the Appropriations Committee to present, at
last, the omnibus appropriations bill that will fulfill our commitment
to pass 13 appropriations bills this year.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the Senator from North Carolina might
want to make a comment or ask a question at this point. I will be glad
to yield the floor to him, or yield for him to do that while retaining
the floor.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the human suffering and devastation we
incurred in North Carolina is absolutely unparalleled. Our people have
never suffered and struggled the way they are suffering right now. This
storm has completely devastated us. Our farmers are in the worst shape
they have ever been in.
I appreciate very much the majority leader's commitment, Senator
Stevens' commitment, and the minority leader's commitment. We have
talked throughout this process on a daily basis. We had an agreement, a
commitment to two things, basically. One was a loan forgiveness
program, which has been talked about, and, second, some language that
would help the payment for structural damage on farms in North
Carolina.
I appreciate very much the commitment we have received today. I do
have to say I am counting on my colleagues' commitments--the majority
leader's commitment, Senator Stevens' commitment, Senator Daschle's
commitment--to do everything in their power to get this thing passed in
this Congress; that it will be included in the CR we are discussing
right now and that, when it goes to the House side, the majority leader
will speak to the Speaker. We will do everything in our power, Senator
Helms and myself, to make sure that happens. But it is critical to
Senator Helms and me that we not need to rely on the commitment to do
something after the first of the year, that we get this done tonight or
tomorrow.
With that, I thank the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. I will say on behalf of Senator Helms, he has been
following this very closely. I have spoken to him, and Senator Edwards
has been in constant conversation with him, as has Senator Stevens. He
understands what we are doing here, and we have made a commitment to
him, which we certainly are going to honor, and to Senator Edwards,
that we will pursue this aggressively with the other Chamber. This
money is going to be available, hopefully in this CR; if not, the first
available vehicle next year.
____________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate
the conference report to accompany the DC appropriations bill, H.R.
3194, and the conference report be considered as having been read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the reading.
Mr. LOTT. Is there objection?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. I ask that the Senate now proceed to the conference report,
and before the clerk begins reading, I announce to my colleagues,
Senator Kohl has indicated to me, following the conclusion of the
reading, he will insist on the conduct of a rollcall vote on the motion
to proceed to the conference report.
Therefore, a procedural rollcall vote will occur at approximately
9:30 this evening.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the conference report.
The legislative clerk read the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of November 17, 1999.)
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Is there a sufficient second? There
appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MACK. 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. 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.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the regular order is for the vote
to begin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Ashcroft), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the
Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from New York
(Mr. Moynihan), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 369 Leg.]
YEAS--80
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Gramm
[[Page 30595]]
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--8
Byrd
Conrad
Dorgan
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Grams
Kohl
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--12
Ashcroft
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Frist
Gorton
Hutchison
Lautenberg
McCain
Moynihan
Schumer
Smith (OR)
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the
pending conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant 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 conference report to accompany the District of
Columbia appropriations bill:
Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Larry E. Craig, Judd Gregg, Tim
Hutchinson, Don Nickles, Mike Crapo, Connie Mack, Slade
Gorton, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Arlen Specter, Pat
Roberts, Chuck Hagel, Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran, and
John Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this cloture vote
occur at 3 p.m. on Friday, November 19, and the mandatory quorum call
be waived.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Unfortunately, our colleague from Wisconsin has chosen to
object to what I think is a reasonable request, which would give us an
opportunity to have a full debate and then get to a final vote on this
issue. It would be a few hours to do that. However, that is his right.
Therefore, Senators should expect this cloture vote to occur at 1:01
a.m. Saturday, November 20; 1:01 a.m., Saturday, November 20. I just
want to make sure everybody understands. That is early morning.
At that time, when we invoke cloture, then we can, in a relatively
short period of time, go to a final vote.
____________________
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 235--ADJOURNMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES OF
CONGRESS
Mr. LOTT. I now ask the Senate turn to the adjournment resolution, H.
Con. Res. 235, the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 235), was agreed to, as
follows:
H. Con. Res. 235
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legislative
day from Thursday, November 18, 1999, through Monday,
November 22, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,
it shall stand adjourned until noon on Thursday, December 2,
1999 (unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate
transmitting its concurrence in the conference report to
accompany H.R. 3194, in which case the House shall stand
adjourned sine die), or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of
this concurrent resolution; and that when the Senate adjourns
on any day from Thursday, November 18, 1999, through
Thursday, December 2, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it shall stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 2. When the House convenes for the second session of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress, it shall conduct no
organizational or legislative business on that day and, when
the House adjourns on that day, it shall stand adjourned
until noon on January 27, 2000, or until noon on the second
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the
Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the
Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and Senate,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
Sec. 4. The Congress declares that clause 2(h) of rule II
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of
the Senate of January 6, 1999, authorize for the duration of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress the Clerk of the House of
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate,
respectively, to receive messages from the President during
periods when the House and Senate are not in session, and
thereby preserve until adjournment sine die of the final
regular session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress the
constitutional prerogative of the House and Senate to
reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections of the
President, since the availability of the Clerk and the
Secretary during any earlier adjournment of either House
during the current Congress does not prevent the return by
the President of any bill presented to him for approval.
Sec. 5. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall
inform the President of the United States of the adoption of
this concurrent resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1999.
____________________
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 2000
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate
resume the consideration of H.J. Res. 82 and there be 5 minutes of
debate on each of the two amendments in order to the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Therefore, at least one further vote will occur yet
tonight. In addition, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 10 a.m., and
hopefully process some legislative items that have been cleared and
that would be considered by the House.
The Senate could also consider the Work Incentives conference report.
Therefore votes can be expected to occur during the session of the
Senate on Friday. We will stay in close touch with both sides of the
aisle to see when the best time might be for that. We will try to
accommodate as many Senators as possible and stack them if we need to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000 and for other
purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
Amendment No. 2780
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Reid, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Bryan, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
Gramm, and Mr. Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 2780.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any regulation or court ruling), hereafter--
(1) in rendering permit decisions for discharges of excess
spoil and coal mine waste into waters of the United States
from surface coal mining and reclamation operations, the
permitting authority shall apply section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and the section
404(b)(1) guidelines pursuant to section 404(b)(1) of the
[[Page 30596]]
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(b)(1))
and implementing regulations set forth in part 230 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on October 19,
1999);
(2) the permitted disposal of such spoil or waste meeting
the requirements of the section 404(b)(1) guidelines referred
to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to satisfy the criteria
for granting a variance under regulations set forth in
sections 816.57 and 817.57 of title 30, Code of Federal
Regulations, and applicable State regulations; and
(3) Federal and State water quality standards shall not
apply to the portions of waters filled by discharges
permitted pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraphs
(1) and (2); all applicable Federal and State water quality
standards shall apply to all portions of waters other than
those filled pursuant to the permitting procedures set forth
in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Duration of Effectiveness.--The permitting procedures
specified in subsection (a) shall remain in effect until the
later of--
(1) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(2) the effective date of regulations promulgated to
implement recommendations made as a result of the
environmental impact statement relating to the permitting
process, the preparation of which was announced at 64 Fed.
Reg. 5800 (February 5, 1999).
(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section modifies,
supersedes, undermines, displaces, or amends any requirement
of, or regulation issued under, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'') (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), as applied
by the responsible Federal agencies on October 19, 1999.
(d) Period of Effectiveness.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law repealing or terminating the effectiveness
of this Act, this section shall remain in effect until the
date of termination of the effectiveness of the permitting
procedures in accordance with subsection (b).
SEC. __. HARDROCK MINING.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of section 1000(a)(3) of
division B of the Act enacting H.R. 3194 of the 106th
Congress, in lieu of section 357 of title III of H.R. 3423 of
the 106th Congress, as introduced on November 17, 1999,
regarding the issuance of regulations on hardrock mining, the
following shall apply:
(1) Hardrock mining.--None of the funds made available
under this Act or any other Act shall be used by the
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate final regulations to
revise subpart 3809 of 43, Code of Federal Regulations,
except that the Secretary, after the end of the public
comment period required by section 3002 of the 1999 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31; 113 Stat.
89), may issue final regulations to amend that subpart if the
regulations are consistent with--
(A) the regulatory gap findings identified in the report of
the National Research Council entitled ``Hardrock Mining on
Federal Lands''; and
(B) statutory authorities in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this section expands the
statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior in
effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Period of Effectiveness.--This section--
(1) takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of the
Act enacting H.R. 3194 referred to in subsection (a); and
(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law repealing or
terminating the effectiveness of this Act, shall remain in
effect unless repealed by Act of Congress that makes specific
reference to this section.
SEC. __. MILLSITES.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of section 1000(a)(3) of
division B of the Act enacting H.R. 3194 of the 106th
Congress, in lieu of section 337 of title III of H.R. 3423 of
the 106th Congress, as introduced on November 17, 1999,
regarding the millsites opinion, the following shall apply:
(1) Millsites opinion.--No funds shall be expended by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture,
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, to limit the number or
acreage of millsites based on the ratio between the number or
acreage of millsites and the number or acreage of associated
lode or placer claims with respect to--
(A) any patent application excluded from the operation of
section 112 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, by section 113 of that Act
(108 Stat. 2519);
(B) any operation or property for which a plan of
operations has been approved before the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(C) any operation or property for which a plan of
operations, or amendment or modification to an existing plan,
was submitted to the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest
Service before May 21, 1999.
(2) No ratification.--Nothing in this Act or the 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31)
shall be construed as an explicit or tacit adoption,
ratification, endorsement, approval, rejection, or
disapproval of the opinion dated November 7, 1997, by the
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior concerning
millsites.
(b) Period of Effectiveness.--This section--
(1) takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of the
Act enacting H.R. 3194 referred to in subsection (a); and
(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law repealing or
terminating the effectiveness of this Act, shall remain in
effect unless repealed by Act of Congress that makes specific
reference to this section.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, there is 5
minutes equally divided for debate at this time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber,
please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Will the Senate please
come to order?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I had earlier planned to speak at least 2 weeks on
this amendment. We are getting a bargain. I am only going to speak 3
minutes, not 2 weeks. Let me just say this: I made my speech earlier
today. I will not make it again now. I urge my friends to vote for this
amendment. When God drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, he
pronounced an edict: ``In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread.''
The coal miners of West Virginia and Kentucky and other States of
this country earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. But not only
the coal miners have been affected by this court's jurisdiction, by its
ruling; the truckers, the railway workers, the men and women who
operate the barges that go up and down the rivers, the suppliers--these
people, their families are affected by this judge's order.
This amendment does not seek to undercut, undermine, alter, modify,
amend, or repeal the Clean Water Act or the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act. I say that on my honor. The other cosponsors and I do
not seek to do that. We only seek to put the situation back to where it
was prior to the U.S. District judge's order, the status quo ante,
which at that time made West Virginia the most strictly controlled
State in the Union environmentally as far as mountaintop mining was
concerned, mountaintop mining--the strictest in the Union.
We want to go back to that, and the regulations that controlled then
were agreed upon and devised by the administration's own regulatory
agencies--the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Interior Department
through its Office of Surface Mining.
This amendment states, so there can be no doubt about it:
Nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines,
displaces, or amends any requirement of, or regulation issued
under, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly
known as the ``Clean Water Act'') . . . or the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 . . . as applied by the
responsible Federal agencies--
Which are the agencies of this administration--
on October 19, 1999.
So there it is. The amendment has been misrepresented. There has been
much misinformation about this amendment.
Mr. President, I close by thanking those who have cosponsored this
amendment with me. Their names are on the amendment.
How much time have I used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield myself another minute and a half.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time was 5 minutes equally divided, which
is 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak another minute and
a half.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
The amendment is proposed by Mr. Byrd, for himself, Mr. McConnell,
Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Reid, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burns, and
Mr. Kyl--I thank all those Senators who supported this amendment and
others who will vote for it. Particularly I want to
[[Page 30597]]
recognize the efforts of my chief cosponsor, the distinguished senior
Senator from Kentucky, whose early and strong support was given to this
amendment, for which I am extremely grateful. I thank both leaders for
making this vote possible. I could speak longer, but I have said enough
already.
I urge all Senators to vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West
Virginia. I appreciate his leadership not only on behalf of the coal
miners of Kentucky but miners all across America.
The President of the United States came to Hazard, KY, this summer.
He bit his lip; he felt our pain. He said he wanted to help us. We
said: We need jobs. And when the opportunity came to support the Byrd
amendment which would at least keep the jobs we have now, the President
would not support him.
This administration is trying to destroy the mining industry in
America, make no mistake about it. That is what this amendment is
about.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership, and we
hope very much our colleagues will be able to support us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I hope other Senators will want to speak in
opposition. I think there should be opposition to this amendment. I
have tremendous respect for my colleagues who have offered this
amendment. I will say a couple things especially in response to the
Senator from Kentucky.
I am a Senator who cares a great deal about workers and about mine
workers. I am a Senator who appreciates the sentiment behind this
amendment. But the question is, What happens when the strip mining
takes place, and what are the consequences for the people who live in
these communities?
I can speak certainly from what I have seen in eastern Kentucky, and
it is pretty awful when that leftover rock and earth gets dumped into
the streams. Many of the people have the wealth taken away from them,
but they still have the land, they still have the streams, they still
have the water, and now we see that kind of devastation.
My concern is this amendment will create a loophole to the Clean
Water Act. I know my colleague from West Virginia believes otherwise,
but it is a very real concern. I point out to colleagues that it is my
understanding the Federal district judge put a stay on his own decision
while it was being appealed to the court of appeals. So it is not
operative right now.
I do not know why we are taking this action tonight. It is a big
mistake from an environmental point of view, and I do not accept, I say
to my colleague from Kentucky, the tradeoff that he presents as to
workers versus some protection for the environment and some concern
about the strip mining.
I did not want to be the person to speak in opposition, but I do
believe there is another perspective. I will vote no.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know what is in this amendment. I prepared
this amendment. I have been explaining it now for weeks. And, upon my
honor, there is nothing in it that undermines or undercuts the Clean
Water Act or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, both of
which I supported, one of which I called up as majority leader in this
Senate in 1977.
I know what I am talking about. I have lived under a coal miner's
roof, ate from a coal miner's table, slept in a coal miner's bed. I
have known the joys and the sorrows of coal miners. I married a coal
miner's daughter. I know what I am talking about. I haven't just made a
trip into West Virginia and come back to Washington to issue a news
report on the State and its people. I have lived there for many years.
I will be 82 years old the day after tomorrow. I know what those
miners need. I am not misleading anybody. Let me say this to the
Senator: That stay he refers to that the judge put on has no legal
basis. The judge stated that it has no legal basis. He put it on, and
he can lift it the day this Congress winds up its work.
I hope Senators will vote for this amendment. There were 125,000 coal
miners when I went to the House of Representatives; 125,000 in West
Virginia. Today there are 20,000 or less. My dad was a coal miner. My
wife's sister's husband died with black lung. My wife's sister's
husband's father died under a slate fall. I know the joys and the
sorrows of the mining people. I have helped to carry those miners, the
heavy coffins, on the steep hillsides of West Virginia. I have not just
gone into those hills poking around, and then coming back, and issuing
news reports about their poverty. I know what they need, because I am
one of them.
Those 20,000 coal miners earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.
Let's give them a vote. If the Senator from Minnesota had people who
were faced with the loss of their jobs, this Senator would vote with
the Senator from Minnesota and not say a word about it. I resent
anything such as has been said by the Senator about my State and its
people.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 1
minute to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague.
It is an honest difference of interpretation of the amendment.
The only thing I want to respond to, I do not want to be personal,
but I would like to say to my colleague, I do not pretend to know West
Virginia like you know West Virginia and Senator Rockefeller does; that
is not the position I am taking, but as to the bopping in and bopping
out, I will say that I want my colleague to know I have spent quite a
bit of time in eastern Kentucky. That is where my wife's family is
from. Her grandparents were all coal miners. I have spent time in east
Tennessee as well. I spent a lot of time with people. I have seen what
the strip mining has done to those communities. I am just expressing my
honest viewpoint. That is all I am trying to do, I say to the Senator.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I join many others in this body in
expressing my support for miners and for mining communities. In
Virginia's Southwest region, mining creates the jobs that provide
enough income to lift the next generation, that put the sons and
daughters of miners through college, and that gives the region options
other than coal.
Virginia miners have expressed deep concerns that the broad
application of Judge Haden's ruling would result in the devastation of
the mining industry in the Southern Appalachian coal fields. The
Judge's decision is not limited to the mountain top mining that was the
subject of the original suit. It would apply to the use of valley fills
from other forms of mining, including underground mining. The practical
effect of this ruling is a virtual moratorium on mining in mountainous
regions. We need to protect the environment and we also need to protect
the livilihood of those hardworking families. I had hoped we could
reach a compromise on this issue that would effectively allow us to do
both.
I have reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding between the federal
and state agencies that could be used to mitigate the consequences of
valley fills if they were allowed to continue. It was signed by the
EPA, Department of the Interior, Army Corps of Engineers, and the State
of West Virginia. All the signatories are sworn to protect the nation's
water. I am convinced that if the MOU stood, the agencies involved
would work diligently to mitigate any negative consequences from mining
in the West Virginia coal fields. Nevertheless, it is imperative that
we continue to be vigilant on the effects of mining
[[Page 30598]]
on the environment, and work to minimize its effects.
I have also reviewed Judge Haden's ruling and see in that ruling the
underlying conflict between what the regulations intend to do, and the
actual costs of applying those regulations. It demonstrates once again
how essential acting on regulatory reform is going to be in this
Congress. It is imperative that we set in place a method of analyzing
the true cost of the regulations, before they are put into place. I am
certain the agencies involved want to do the right thing, by both
miners and the environment. The rules as I read them make that
virtually impossible. I am hopeful that this conflict can be resolved
as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I intend to support the miners
of Southwest Virginia.
I must however, voice my strong opposition to the language on hard
rock mining that has been added at the last minute to this amendment.
My vote on this amendment stems only from my concern for the immediate
effect Judge Haden's ruling would have on the economy of Southwest
Virginia. I have opposed and will continue to oppose efforts to delay
the review and revision of the nation's hard rock mining standards. My
vote in no way supports the inclusion of hard rock provisions in this
package.
I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the Record
before the vote on Amendment No. 2780.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd
amendment.
We are scrambling around right here in the U.S. Senate to pass a
stopgap spending bill to keep from shutting down a major portion of the
Federal Government.
So, it is very fitting that we add an amendment to that stopgap
spending bill that would help us keep a Federal judge from shutting
down the coal mining industry in West Virginia and possibly other
States like Kentucky as well.
This is a matter of survival for many of our coal mines. It is
essential that we act now to prevent unnecessary damage to the
industry--to prevent unnecessary unemployment--and to prevent
unnecessary economic devastation in areas which have already been
bypassed by the economic boom times that have blessed much of the
Nation.
A Federal district court judge in West Virginia ruled on October 21
that a well-balanced working agreement between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the West Virginia Division of Environmental
Protection violated the Clean Water Act.
That arbitrary ruling which basically overrules three Federal
agencies' interpretation of the law is going to jeopardize the coal
industry immediately in West Virginia and potentially in other States
like my own State of Kentucky as well.
We need to pass the Byrd Amendment to stay this ruling until we have
had time to get the results of a pending environmental impact
statement.
It is a matter of simple fairness. The jobs and lives of many of our
constituents are at stake.
I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Byrd amendment to
provide for a 2-year moratorium during which mountain top mining
activities may continue under a memorandum of agreement with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior and the
Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA which is in charge of implementation
of the Clean Water Act was a party to the agreement which would
continue to force during the 2-year moratorium. An environmental impact
study will go forward during the moratorium and regulations pursuant to
the environmental impact statement can be promulgated. My vote on this
amendment does not commit me to support the continuation of any such
moratorium beyond this 2-year period during which the courts and the
regulatory agencies will more fully evaluate the impacts on both the
environment and the affected coal miners and their communities. The
fact that the court has stayed the effect of its own opinion is further
evidence that this legislative moratorium is both warranted and will do
no damage to the underlying act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
offer an amendment at this time on behalf of Senators Helms and Edwards
of North Carolina with regard to funds for their disaster. And I ask
unanimous consent that that vote occur in a stacked sequence, after it
is debated, after the vote on the amendment by Senator Byrd and Senator
McConnell, and that the first vote be just 10 minutes, and then the
second vote would be 10 minutes also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2781
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send to the desk then the amendment on
behalf of Senators Helms and Edwards.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Helms and
Mr. Edwards, proposes an amendment numbered 2781.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert:
commodity credit corporation producer-owned marketing associations
forgiveness
Sec. 1. The Secretary of Agriculture shall reduce the
amount of any principal due on a loan made to marketing
association incorporated in the State of North Carolina for
the 1999 crop of an agricultural commodity by at least 75
percent if the marketing association suffered losses of the
agricultural commodity in a county with respect to which--(1)
a natural disaster was declared by the Secretary for losses
due to Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene; or (2) a major
disaster or emergency was declared by the President for
losses due to Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
If the Secretary assigns a grade quality for the 1999 crop
of an agricultural commodity marketed by an association
described in subsection (a) that is below the base quality of
the agricultural commodity, the Secretary shall compensate
the association for losses incurred by the association as a
result of the reduction in grade quality.
Up to $81,000,000 of the resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation may be used for the cost of this provision:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) and Section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Sec. 2. In administering $50,000,000 in emergency
supplemental funding for the Emergency Conservation Program,
the Secretary shall give priority to the repair of structures
essential to the operation of the farm.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am honored they would allow me to do this
on their behalf because I believe they were not treated properly in the
wee hours of the morning with regard to an amount of money for disaster
assistance for North Carolina. We are determined to assist them in
getting that. We hope this will be accepted by the House in this form.
But if not in this form, we will be back to carry out our commitment to
the people in North Carolina and as a symbol to people all across
America that, when it comes to disasters, there are no party lines and
there is no division between the Capitol; we will do what is necessary
to help people when they are desperate and need help.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 2780
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2780. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
[[Page 30599]]
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Ashcroft), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the
Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Smith), are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan), are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 370 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Abraham
Allard
Bayh
Bennett
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Enzi
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--33
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Brownback
Chafee, L.
Collins
Daschle
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Murray
Reed
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--11
Ashcroft
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Frist
Gorton
Hutchison
Lautenberg
McCain
Moynihan
Smith (OR)
The amendment (No. 2780) was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2781. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri: (Mr.
Ashcroft), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the
Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--11
Ashcroft
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Frist
Gorton
Hutchison
Lautenberg
McCain
Moynihan
Smith (OR)
The amendment (No. 2781) was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution
having been read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider is
laid upon the table.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82), as amended, was passed.
____________________
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1998--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT--PM 77
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit this report on the Nation's achievements in
aeronautics and space during Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, as required under
section 206 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2476). Aeronautics and space activities involved 14
contributing departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and
the results of their ongoing research and development affect the Nation
in many ways.
A wide variety of aeronautics and space developments took place
during FY 1998. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) successfully completed five Space Shuttle flights. There were 29
successful Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launches in FY 1998. Of
those, 3 were NASA-managed missions, 2 were NASA-funded/Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed missions, 8 were Department of
Defense (DOD)-managed missions, and 16 were FAA-licensed commercial
launches. Scientists also made some dramatic new discoveries in various
space-related fields such as space science, Earth science, and remote
sensing, and life and microgravity science. In aeronautics, activities
included work on high-speed research, advance subsonic technology, and
technologies designed to improve the safety and efficiency of our
commercial airlines and air traffic control system.
Close international cooperation with Russia occurred on the Shuttle-
Mir docking missions and on the ISS program. The United States also
entered into new forms of cooperation with its partners in Europe,
South America, and Asia.
Thus, FY 1998 was a very successful one for U.S. aeronautics and
space programs. Efforts in these areas have contributed significantly
to the Nation's scientific and technical knowledge, international
cooperation, a healthier environment, and a more competitive economy.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, November 18, 1999.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 2:47 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 joint resolution, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:
H.J. Res. 82. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other
purposes.
____
At 3:40 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the
[[Page 30600]]
following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 1167. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act to provide for further self-
governance by Indian tribes, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1953. An act to authorize leases for terms not to
exceed 99 years on land held in trust for the Torres Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Guidiville Band of Pomo
Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria.
H.R. 3051. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior,
the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study on
the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in the State of New Mexico,
and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, with an amendment, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
S. 1418. An act to provide for the holding of court at
Natchez, Mississippi, in the same manner as court is held at
Vicksburg, Mississippi, and for other purposes.
____
At 6:48 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill,
H.R. 3194, 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.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.J. Res. 83. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other
purposes.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence
of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 234. Concurrent resolution tabling the bill
(H.R. 2466) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes.''
enrolled bills signed
At 7:40 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bills:
S. 278. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico.
S. 382. An act to establish the Minuteman Missile National
Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other
purposes.
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. 1398. An act to clarify certain boundaries on maps
relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
The enrolled bills were signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
The message also announced that the House agrees to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Social
Security Act to expand the availability of health care coverage for
working individuals with disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work
and Self-Sufficiency Program in the Social Security Administration to
provide individuals with meaningful opportunities to work, and for
other purposes.
At 9:23 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 joint resolution, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:
H.J. Res. 85. Joint resolution appointing the day for the
convening of the second session of the One Hundred Sixth
Congress.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 235. Concurrent resolution providing for an
additional sine die adjournment of the first session of the
One Hundred Sixth Congress.
H. Con. Res. 236. Concurrent resolution correcting the
enrollment H.R. 1180.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bills, without amendment:
S. 28. An act to authorize an interpretive center and
related visitor facilities within the Four Corners Monument
Tribal Park, and for other purposes.
S. 67. An act to designate the headquarters building of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington,
District of Columbia, as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal
Building.''
S. 438. An act to provide for the settlement of the water
rights claims of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation, and for other purposes.
S. 548. An act to establish the Fallen Timbers Battlefield
and Fort Miamis National Historical Site in the State of
Ohio.
S. 580. An act to amend title IX of the Public Health
Service Act to revise and extend the Agency for Healthcare
Policy and Research.
S. 574. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
make corrections to a map relating to the Coastal Barrier
Resources System.
S. 580. An act to amend title IX of the Public Health
Service Act to revise and extend the Agency for Healthcare
Policy and Research.
S. 791. An act to amend the Small Business Act with respect
to the women's business center program.
S. 1595. An act to designate the United States courthouse
at 401 West Washington Street in Phoenix, Arizona, as the
``Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse.''
S. 1866. an act to redesignate the Coastal Barrier
Resources System as the ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System.''
The message also announced that the House agrees to the resolution
(H. Res. 393) returning to the Senate the bill (S. 4) entitled the
``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of
1999'', in the opinion of the House, contravenes the first clause of
the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the
United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House
and that such bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a
message communicating this resolution.
The message further announced that the House agrees to the resolution
(H. Res. 394) returning to the Senate the bill (S. 1232) entitled the
``Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act'', in the
opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh
section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States
and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such
bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
____________________
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-6227. A communication from the Associate Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Papayas Grown in Hawaii: Increase
in Assessment Rate'' (FV-99-928-1 FR), received November 9,
1999; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-6228. A communication from the Acting Administrator,
Farm Service Agency, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Providing Notice to Delinquent
Farm Loan Program Borrowers of the Potential for Cross-
Servicing'' (RIN0560-AF89), received November 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-6229. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Regulatory Analysis and Development, Policy and
Program Development, Animal and Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Mediterranean Fruit Fly; Removal
of Quarantined Area'' (Docket # 98-083-7), received November
16, 1999; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-6230. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Regulatory Analysis and Development, Policy and
Program Development, Animal and Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``User Fees; Agricultural
Quarantine and Inspection Service'' (Docket # 98-073-2),
received November 16, 1999; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-6231. A communication from the Under Secretary, Food,
Nutrition and Consumer Services, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``National School
[[Page 30601]]
Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care
Food Program: Amendments to the Infant Meal Program''
(RIN0584-AB81), received November 16, 1999; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-6232. 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
``Paraquat; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions''
(FRL #6392-9), received November 16, 1999; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-6233. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, three reports relative to EPA regulatory
programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-6234. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of the texts and background
statements of international agreements, other than treaties;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6235. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to use of the U.S.
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the Timor
crisis and the North Caucasus crisis; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-6236. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to the long-term strategy
to carry out the counternarcotics responsibilities of the
Department of State; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6237. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Annuity Contracts'' (Revenue Procedure 99-44), received
November 16, 1999; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6238. A communication from the Acting Trade
Representative, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation entitled
``Southeast Europe Trade Preference Act''; to the Committee
on Finance.
EC-6239. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations; 64 FR 60706; 11/08/99'', received November
16, 1999; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6240. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations; 64 FR 60709; 11/08/99'', received November
16, 1999; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6241. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations; 64 FR 60711; 11/08/99'', received November
16, 1999; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6242. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Regulations and Legislation Division, Office of
Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety and
Soundness Standards'' (RIN1550-AB27), received November 16,
1999; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6243. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Regulations and Legislation Division, Office of
Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Interagency
Guidelines Establishing Year 2000 Standards for Safety and
Soundness'' (RIN1550-AB27), received November 16, 1999; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6244. A communication from the Managing Director, Office
of the General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Board,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Allocation of Joint and Several Liability on Consolidated
Obligations Among the Federal Home Loan Banks'' (RIN3069-
AA78), received November 17, 1999; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6245. A communication from the Assistant Attorney
General, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation
entitled ``Money Laundering Act of 1999''; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6246. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-6247. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to DoD purchases from
foreign entities; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6248. A communication from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Subcontracting Goals for
Purchases Benefitting People who are Blind or Severely
Disabled'' (DFARS Case 99-D304), received November 16, 1999;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6249. A communication from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Debarment Investigation
and Reports'' (DFARS Case 99-D013), received November 16,
1999; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6250. A communication from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Comprehensive Small
Business Subcontracting Plans'' (DFARS Case 99-D306),
received November 16, 1999; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-6251. 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 of Municipal Waste Combustor State Plan for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Indiana'' (FRL #6476-
2), received November 27, 1999; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6252. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, two reports relative to EPA regulatory
programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6253. A communication from the 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
Endangered Status for the Plant `Lesquerella thamnophila'
(Zapapa bladderpod)'' (RIN1018-AE54), received November 17,
1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6254. A communication from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of the list of General Accounting Office reports for
September 1999; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-6255. A communication from the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on direct spending or
receipts legislation dated November 10, 1999; to the
Committee on the Budget.
EC-6256. 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 an addition to and a deletion from the
Procurement List, received September 13, 1999; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-6257. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Prevailing Rate Systems;
Definition of Napa County, California, to a Nonappropriated
Fund Wage Area'' (RIN3206-AI86), received November 16, 1999;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-6258. A communication from the Board Members, Railroad
Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to its commercial activities inventory; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-6259. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management, Department of Labor,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to its
commercial activities inventory; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-6260. A communication from the Executive Director,
Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to its commercial activities
inventory; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-6261. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
the Office of Inspector General for the period April 1, 1999,
through September 30, 1999; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-6262. A communication from the Director, Corporate
Policy and Research Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer
Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing Benefits'', received
November 16, 1999; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-6263. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Ohio
Regulatory Program'', received November 17, 1999; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-6264. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Indiana
Regulatory Program'' (SPATS No. IN-143-FOR), received
November 17, 1999; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
[[Page 30602]]
EC-6265. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Indiana
Regulatory Program'' (SPATS No. IN-044-FOR), received
November 17, 1999; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-6266. A communication from the Chairman, Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Landowner Notification, Expanded
Categorical Exclusions, and Other Environmental Filing
Requirements'' (Docket No. RM98-17-000), received November
17, 1999; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-6267. A communication from the Associate Administrator
for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Revisions to the NASA FAR Supplement on
Property Reporting Requirements'', received November 16,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6268. A communication from the Chief, Policy and
Programming Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of the Local
Competition Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996''
(FCC 99-238) (CC Doc. 96-98), received November 17, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with
amendments and an amendment to the title:
S. 1561. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to
add gamma hydroxybutyric acid and ketamine to the schedules
of control substances, to provide for a national awareness
campaign, and for other purposes.
____________________
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. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Reid, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1955. A bill to allow patients access to drugs and
medical devices recommended and provided by health care
practitioners that are not approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1956. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enhance the assurance of efficiency, quality, and patient
satisfaction in the furnishing of health care to veterans by
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Robb, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 1957. A bill to provide for the payment of compensation
to the families of the Federal employees who were killed in
the crash of a United States Air Force CT-43A aircraft on
April 3, 1996, near Dubrovnik, Croatia, carrying Secretary of
Commerce Ronald H. Brown and 34 others; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 1958. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants for
startup costs of school breakfast programs; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 1959. A bill to provide for the fiscal responsibility of
the Federal Government; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 1960. A bill to provide for the appointment of 1
additional Federal district judge for the eastern district of
Wisconsin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr.
Wellstone):
S. 1961. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to
expand the number of acres authorized for inclusion in the
conservation reserve; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 1962. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses
through strengthened budgetary enforcement mechanisms; to the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977,
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other
Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1963. A bill to authorize a study of alternatives to the
current management of certain Federal lands in Arizona; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1964. A bill to designate the United States Post Office
located at 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as
the Joseph Ileto Post Office; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1965. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior,
the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study on
the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in the State of New Mexico,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. HAGEL (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1966. A bill to provide for the immediate review by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service of new employees hired
by employers subject to Operation Vanguard or similar
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Lott):
S. 1967. A bill to make technical corrections to the status
of certain land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, to take certain land into trust for that
Band, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1968. A bill to amend the Federal securities laws to
enhance oversight over certain derivatives dealers and hedge
funds, reduce the potential for such entities to increase
systemic risk in the financial markets, enhance investor
protections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr.
Thomas):
S. 1969. A bill to provide for improved management of, and
increases accountability for, outfitted activities by which
the public gains access to and occupancy and use of Federal
land, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1970. A bill to amend chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code, with respect to the liability of the United
States for claims of military personnel for damages for
certain injuries; 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. Burns):
S. Res. 233. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the urgent need for the department of
Agriculture to resolve certain Montana civil rights
discrimination cases; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. Con. Res. 76. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress regarding a peaceful resolution of the
conflict in the state of Chiapas, Mexico and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Reid,
and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1955. A bill to allow patients access to drugs and medical devices
recommended and provided by health care practitioners that are not
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Access to Medical Treatment Act
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to
Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin,
Reid, Inouye and Johnson in this effort to increase individuals'
freedom of choice in health care.
At the outset, I want to extend my thanks to my friend Berkley
Bedell, who formerly represented the 6th District of Iowa, for first
bringing this issue to my attention and for his assistance in
developing this bill. Berkley Bedell has experienced first-hand the
life-saving potential of alternative treatments. His story underscores
the need for the legislation I am introducing today and the importance
of a national debate on ways to promote consumer choice and expand
access to promising new medical treatments.
American consumers have already voted for expanded access to
alternative treatments with their feet and
[[Page 30603]]
their pocket-books. The Journal of the American Medical Association
recently published a study by David Eisenberg and others that found
that Americans spent nearly $27 billion on alternative therapies in
1997. Americans made more visits to alternative practitioners--a total
of 629 million--than to primary care doctors. Expenditures for
alternative medicine professional services increased 45.2 percent
between 1990 and 1997 to $21.2 billion. Some type of alternative
therapy is used by 46.3 percent of the American population.
Alternative therapies are also being incorporated into mainstream
medical programs and practice. The curriculum of at least 22 of the
nation's 125 medical schools include courses on alternative medicine.
The National Institutes of Health now has a Center for Complementary
and Alternative Medicine where work is underway to expand our knowledge
of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use.
Despite the growing reliance on many types of alternative medicine,
other alternative therapies remain unavailable because they do not fit
the categories already carved out by Congress for exemption from the
requirement to gain FDA approval. My bill would increase access to
treatments that would normally be regulated by the FDA, but have not
yet undergone the expensive and lengthy process currently required to
gain FDA approval.
Given the popularity of alternative medicine among the American
public and its growing acceptance among traditional medical
practitioners, it would seem logical to remove some of the access
barriers that consumers face when seeking certain alternative
therapies. The time and expense currently required to gain FDA approval
both discourages the exploration of innovative, life-saving treatments
by individual practitioners, scientists and smaller companies and
limits patient access to low-cost treatments.
Mr. President, the Access to Medical Treatment Act proposes one way
to expand freedom of choice for medical consumers under carefully
controlled situations. It asserts that individuals--especially those
who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments
have proven ineffective--should have the option of trying an
alternative treatment, so long as they have been fully informed of the
nature of the treatment, potential side effects, and given any other
information necessary to meet carefully-crafted informed consent
requirements. This is a choice that is rightly made by the consumer,
and not dictated by the Federal government.
All treatments sanctioned by this Act must be prescribed by an
authorized health care practitioner who has personally examined the
patient. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information
about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including
questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not
been conducted. Patients must be informed of any possible side effects
or interactions with other drugs.
The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to
advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit
financially from prescribing alternative medicine. This provision was
included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of
patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. If
an individual or a company wants to earn a profit from a product, they
would be wise to go through the standard FDA approval process.
The bill protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any
adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an
unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported,
manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending a thorough
investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused
by the drug or medical device, as a part of a total recall, the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, along with
the manufacturer, has the duty to inform all health care practitioners
to whom the drug or device has been provided.
This legislation will help build a knowledge base regarding
alternative treatments by requiring practitioners to report on
effectiveness. This is critical because current information available
about the effectiveness of many promising treatments is inadequate. The
information generated through this Act will begin to reverse this
reality, particularly because information will be collected and
analyzed by the Center for Alternative Medicine at the National
Institutes of Health.
In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance
between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of
patients from dangerous and ineffective treatments and the preservation
of the consumers' freedom to choose alternative therapies. The
complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from
seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served
by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I
am hopeful the discussion generated by introduction of this legislation
will help point the way to its resolution.
Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to focus
serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome
current obstacles to their safe development and utilization.
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:
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 ``Access to Medical Treatment
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Adulterated.--The term ``adulterated'' means any
unapproved drug or medical device that in whole or part
consists of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance that
has been prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary
conditions where such drug or device may have been
contaminated with such filthy, putrid, or decomposed
substance and be injurious to health.
(2) Advertising claim.--The term ``advertising claim''
means any representation made or suggested by statement,
word, device, sound, or any combination thereof with respect
to medical treatment.
(3) Costs.--The term ``costs'' means a charge to patients
equal to the amount necessary to recover expenses for making
or obtaining the unapproved drug or medical device and
providing for its transport to the health care practitioner.
(4) Danger.--The term ``danger'' means an adverse reaction,
to an unapproved drug or medical device, that used as
directed--
(A) causes serious harm to the patient in a case in which
such harm would not have otherwise occurred; or
(B) causes harm that is more serious than side effects for
drugs or medical devices approved by the Federal Food and
Drug Administration for the same disease or condition.
(5) Drug.--The term ``drug'' has the same meaning given
that term in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).
(6) Health care practitioner.--The term ``health care
practitioner'' means a physician or other individual who is a
provider of health care, who is authorized under the law of a
State to prescribe drugs or devices.
(7) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce''
means commerce between any State or Territory and any place
outside thereof, and commerce within the District of Columbia
or within any other Territory not organized with a
legislative body.
(8) Legal representative.--The term ``legal
representative'' means a parent or other person who qualifies
as a legal guardian under State law.
(9) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' has the
same meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201(h) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).
(10) Patient.--The term ``patient'' means any person who
seeks medical treatment from a health care practitioner for a
disease or health condition.
(11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services.
(12) Unapproved drug or medical device.--The term
``unapproved'', with respect to a drug or medical device,
means a drug or medical device that is not approved or
authorized for manufacture, sale, and distribution in
interstate commerce under section 505, 513, or 515 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360c,
and 360e) or under section 351 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 201).
[[Page 30604]]
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 501(a)(2)(B),
501(e) through 501(h), 502(f)(1), 505, 513, and 515 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B),
351(e) through 351(h), 352(f)(1), 355, 360c, and 360e) and
section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201)
or any other provision of Federal law, a patient may receive,
and a health care practitioner may provide or administer, any
unapproved drug or medical device that the patient desires or
the legal representative of the patient authorizes if--
(1) the unapproved drug or medical device is recommended by
a health care practitioner within that practitioner's scope
of practice under State law;
(2) the provision or administration of the unapproved drug
or medical device is not a violation of the laws of the State
or States in which the activity is carried out; and
(3) the health care practitioner abides by all of the
requirements in subsection (b).
(b) Requirements.--A health care practitioner may
recommend, provide or administer any unapproved drug or
medical device for a patient, pursuant to subsection (a), if
that practitioner--
(1) does not violate State law by providing or
administering the unapproved drug or medical device;
(2) does not violate the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) by providing or administering the
unapproved drugs;
(3) has concluded based on generally accepted principles
and current information that the unapproved drug or medical
device, when used as directed, will not cause a danger to the
patient;
(4) provides the recommendation under circumstances that
give the patient sufficient opportunity to consider whether
or not to use such a drug or medical device and that minimize
the possibility of coercion or undue influence by the health
care practitioner;
(5) discloses to the patient any financial interest that
such a practitioner may have in the drug or medical device;
(6) has informed the patient in writing, prior to
recommending, providing, or administering the unapproved drug
or medical device--
(A) that the unapproved drug or medical device is not
approved by the Secretary as safe and effective for the
condition of the patient and is considered experimental;
(B) of the foreseeable risks and benefits of the unapproved
drug or medical device, including any risk to an embryo or
fetus, and expected possible side effects or discomforts that
the patient may experience and any medical treatment
available if side affects occur;
(C) of any appropriate alternative procedures or courses of
treatment (including procedures or courses of treatment that
may involve the use of a drug or medical device that has been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration), if any, that
may be advantageous for the patient's condition;
(D) of any interactions the unapproved drug or medical
device may have with other drugs, if any;
(E) of the active and inactive ingredients of the
unapproved drug and the mechanism of action of the medical
device, if known;
(F) of the health condition for which the unapproved drug
or medical device is provided, the method of administration
that will be used, and the unit dose;
(G) of the procedures that will be employed by the health
care practitioner in using such a drug or medical device;
(H) of the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of
records identifying the patient will be maintained;
(I) for use of such a drug or medical device involving more
than minimal risk, of the treatments available if injury
occurs, what such treatments involve, and where additional
information regarding such treatments may be obtained;
(J) of any anticipated circumstances under which the
patient's use of such a drug or medical device may be
terminated by the health care practitioner without regard to
the patient's consent;
(K) that the use of an such a drug or medical device is
voluntary and that the patient may suspend or terminate
treatment at any time;
(L) of the consequences of a patient's decision to withdraw
from the use of such a drug or medical device;
(M) if any information described in subparagraphs (A)
through (L) cannot be provided by the health care
practitioner because such information is not known at the
time the practitioner provides or administers such drug or
medical device, that such information cannot be provided by
the practitioner; and
(N) of any other information or disclosures required by
applicable State law for the administration of experimental
drugs or medical devices to human subjects;
(7) has not made, except as provided in subsection (d), any
advertising claims for the unapproved drug or medical device;
(8) does not impose a charge for the unapproved drug or
medical device in excess of costs;
(9) complies with requirements for reporting a danger in
section 4; and
(10) has received a signed affidavit from the patient or
the patient's legal representative confirming that the
patient or the legal representative--
(A) has received the written information required by this
subsection and understands it; and
(B) desires treatment with the unapproved drug or medical
device as recommended by the health care practitioner.
(c) Mandatory Disclosure.--Any manufacturer of an
unapproved drug or medical device shall disclose, to any
health care practitioner that has received such drug or
medical device from such manufacturer, all information
available to such manufacturer regarding such drug or medical
device to enable such practitioner to comply with the
requirements of subsection (b)(3) and make a determination
regarding the danger posed by such drug or medical device.
Compliance with this subsection shall not constitute a
violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
(d) Advertising Claims Exception.--Subsection (b)(7) shall
not apply to a health care practitioner's dissemination of
information on the results of the practitioner's
administration of the unapproved drug or medical device in a
peer-reviewed journal, through academic or professional
forums, or through statements by a practitioner to a patient.
Subsection (b)(7) shall not apply to any accurate and
truthful statement made in person by a health care
practitioner to an individual or a prospective patient.
SEC. 4. CESSATION OF USE, AND REPORTING OF, DANGEROUS DRUGS
AND MEDICAL DEVICES.
(a) Duty To Protect Patient.--If a health care practitioner
discovers that an unapproved drug or medical device causes a
danger to a patient, the practitioner shall immediately cease
use and recommendation of the unapproved drug or medical
device and provide to the manufacturer of the unapproved drug
or medical device and the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention--
(1) a written evaluation of the patient's medical condition
before and after administration of the unapproved drug or
medical device;
(2) a written evaluation of the adverse reaction, including
its physiological manifestations, duration, and the effect of
cessation of treatment upon the patient's condition;
(3) any other information the health care practitioner
deems pertinent to an evaluation of the adverse reaction;
(4) the name, occupation, business address, and business
telephone number of the physician;
(5) the name of the unapproved drug or medical device and a
description of the method of administration and operation,
dosage, and duration of treatment;
(6) the lot number, if any, of the unapproved drug or
medical device; and
(7) an affidavit pursuant to section 1746 of title 28,
United States Code, confirming that all statements made to
the manufacturer are accurate.
(b) Manufacturer's Duty To Report.--Any manufacturer of an
unapproved drug or medical device that receives information
provided under subsection (a) shall immediately--
(1) cease sale and distribution of the unapproved drug or
medical device pending completion of an investigation to
determine the actual cause of the danger;
(2) notify all health care practitioners to whom the
manufacturer has provided the unapproved drug or medical
device of the information provided to the manufacturer under
subsection (a); and
(3) report to the Secretary in writing that an unapproved
drug or medical device (identified by name, known method of
operation, unit dose, and intended use) that the manufacturer
provided to a health care practitioner for administration
under this Act has been reported to be a danger to a patient
and confirming that the manufacturer--
(A) has ceased sale and distribution of the unapproved drug
or medical device pending completion of an investigation to
determine the actual cause of the danger; and
(B) has notified health care practitioners to which the
unapproved drug or medical device has been sent of the
information it has received.
(c) Investigation.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, upon receipt of the information
described in subsection (a), shall conduct an investigation
of the unapproved drug or medical device that a health care
practitioner has determined to cause a danger to a patient in
order to make a determination of the actual cause of such
danger.
(2) Report to Secretary.--The Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention shall prepare and submit a
report to the Secretary regarding the determination made
under paragraph (1), including a determination concerning
whether the unapproved drug or medical device is or is not
the actual cause of danger or whether the actual cause of
danger cannot be determined.
(3) Duty of Secretary.--Upon receipt of the report
described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
[[Page 30605]]
(A) if the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention determines that the cause of such danger is the
unapproved drug or medical device, direct the manufacturer of
such drug or medical device to--
(i) cease manufacture, sale, and distribution of such drug
or medical device; and
(ii) notify all health care practitioners to whom the
manufacturer has provided such drug or medical device to
cease using or recommending such drug or medical device, and
to return such drug or medical device to the manufacturer as
part of a complete recall;
(B) if the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention determines that the cause of such danger is not
such drug or medical device, direct the manufacturer of such
drug or medical device to inform all health care
practitioners to whom the manufacturer has provided such drug
or medical device of such a determination; and
(C) if the Director of the Centers of Disease Control and
Prevention cannot determine the cause of the danger, direct
the manufacturer of the drug or medical device to inform all
health care practitioners to whom the manufacturer has
provided such drug or medical device of such a determination.
(d) Secretary's Duty To Inform.--Upon receipt of the report
described in subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall promptly
disseminate information concerning the danger to all health
care practitioners in the United States, to the Director of
the National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, and to agencies of the States that have
responsibility for regulating unsafe or adulterated drugs and
medical devices.
SEC. 5. REPORTING OF RESULTS OF UNAPPROVED DRUGS AND MEDICAL
DEVICES.
(a) Reporting of Results.--If a health care practitioner
provides or administers an unapproved drug or medical device,
that in the opinion of the health care practitioner, produces
results that are more beneficial than results produced from
any drug or medical device approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, or produces other results regarding the
effectiveness of the treatment relative to treatments
approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the same
condition, the practitioner shall provide to the
manufacturer--
(1) the results of the administration of the drug or
device;
(2) a written evaluation of the patient's medical condition
before and after administration of the unapproved drug or
medical device;
(3) the name, occupation, business address, and business
telephone number of the physician;
(4) the name of the unapproved drug or medical device and a
description of the method of operation and administration,
dosing, and duration of treatment; and
(5) an affidavit pursuant to section 1746 of title 28,
United States Code, confirming that all statements made to
the manufacturer are accurate.
(b) Manufacturer's Duty To Report.--Any manufacturer of an
unapproved drug or medical device that receives information
under subsection (a) shall provide to the Director of the
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine--
(1) a complete copy of the information;
(2) the name, business address, and business telephone
number of the manufacturer;
(3) the name, business address, and business telephone
number of the health care practitioner who supplied
information to the manufacturer;
(4) the name of the unapproved drug or medical device;
(5) the known method of operation and administration of the
unapproved drug or medical device;
(6) the per unit dose; and
(7) the intended use of the unapproved drug or medical
device.
(c) Director's Duty To Make Public.--The Director of the
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
shall review and analyze information received pursuant to
subsection (b) about an unapproved drug or medical device and
make available, on an Internet website and in writing upon
request by any individual, an annual review and analysis of
such information, and include a statement that such drug or
medical device is not approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.
SEC. 6. OTHER LAWS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ACT.
This Act shall not be construed to have any effect on
section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 353a) nor does this Act supersede any law of a State
or political subdivision of a State, including laws governing
rights and duties among health care practitioners and
patients. This Act shall also not apply to statements or
claims permitted or authorized under sections 403 and 403B of
such Act (21 U.S.C. 343, 343-2). This Act shall not in any
way adversely affect the distribution and marketing of
vitamins and supplements.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS.
(a) Introduction in Interstate Commerce.--To the extent
necessary to comply with this Act, a health care practitioner
may--
(1) introduce an unapproved drug or medical device into
interstate commerce;
(2) deliver an unapproved drug or medical device for
introduction into such commerce;
(3) transport an unapproved drug or medical device in such
commerce;
(4) receive an unapproved drug or medical device in such
commerce and deliver the unapproved drug or medical device;
and
(5) hold an unapproved drug or medical device for sale
after shipment of the unapproved drug or medical device in
such commerce.
(b) Rule of Construction.--This Act shall not be construed
to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care
practitioner to prescribe, recommend, provide or administer
to a patient for any condition or disease any unapproved drug
or medical device lawful under the law of the State or States
in which the health care practitioner practices.
SEC. 8. PENALTY.
A health care practitioner or manufacturer found to have
knowingly violated this Act shall be denied coverage under
this Act.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle today
for the introduction of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This bill
will allow greater freedom of choice and increased access in the realm
of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of unscrupulous
entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows individual
patients and their properly licensed health care provider to use
certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Mr. President, we have made several important changes to the
legislation from last Congress.
We have improved the informed consent protections for patients by
modeling them after the NIH's human subject protection regulations. The
patient must be fully informed, orally and in writing of: the nature,
content and methods of the medical treatment; that the treatment is not
approved by the FDA; the anticipated benefits AND risks of the
treatment; any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result; the
results of past applications of the treatment by the health care
provider and others; the comparable benefits and risks of any available
FDA-approved treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition;
and any financial interest the provider has in the product.
Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) any adverse effects, and must
immediately cease use and manufacture of the product, pending a CDC
investigation. The CDC is required to conduct an investigation of any
adverse effects, and if the product is shown to cause any danger to
patients, the physician and manufacturers are required to immediately
inform all providers who have been using the product of the danger.
Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information
about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers
and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to
the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH,
which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an
annual report.
In addition, the provider and manufacturer may make no advertising
claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the treatment of
therapy, and FDA has the authority to determine that the labeling of
the treatment is not false or misleading.
Mr. President, this legislation preserves the consumer's freedom to
choose alternative therapies while addressing the fundamental concern
of protecting patients from dangerous treatments and those who would
advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies.
It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his
discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be
considered an ``alternative medical practice'' and widely rejected by
the medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a common
diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists resisted
basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused to accept
the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful the medical
profession came around on that one.
In addition, the Office of Technology Assessment reported in a 1978
study that only about 25 percent of the practices of mainstream
medicine were based on scientific evidence. And there
[[Page 30606]]
is little evidence that has changed in the past two decades.
Today's consumers want alternatives. They want less invasive, less
expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay healthy. And they
are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks. Mr. President,
Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional therapies.
According to a recent survey published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), nearly one-half of Americans use some kind
of complementary and alternative medicine. These practices, which range
from acupuncture, to chiropractic care, to naturopathic, herbal and
homeopathic remedies, are not simply complementary and alternative, but
integral to how millions of Americans manage their health and treat
their illnesses.
This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with
strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative
therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and
cure disease. I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on this issue,
and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1956. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the
assurance of efficiency, quality, and patient satisfaction in the
furnishing of health care to veterans by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans
Health Care Quality Assurance Act of 1999.
This legislation contains a number of proposals designed to ensure
that access to high quality medical services for our veterans is not
compromised as the Department of Veterans Affairs--the VA--strives to
increase efficiency in its nationwide network of veterans hospitals.
Mr. President, the VA administers the largest health care network in
the U.S., including 172 hospitals, 73 home care programs, over 800
community-based outpatient clinics, and numerous other specialized care
facilities.
Moreover, there are approximately 25 million veterans in the U.S.,
including approximately 19.3 million wartime veterans, and the number
of veterans seeking medical care in VA hospitals is increasing. The
FY99 VA medical care caseload was projected to increase by 160,000
veterans over the FY98 level, and is projected to increase by an
additional 54,000 in FY00, reaching a total of 3.6 million veterans, an
increase from 2.7 million in FY97. In FY00, outpatient visits at VA
medical facilities are projected to increase by 2.5 million to 38.3
million. The average age of veterans is increasing as well, and this is
expected to result in additional demands for health care services,
including more frequent and long-term health needs.
The VA is attempting to meet this unprecedented demand for health
care services without substantial increases in funding, largely through
efforts to increase efficiency. Not surprisingly, these seemingly
competing objectives are generating serious concerns about the
possibility that quality of care and/or patient satisfaction are being
sacrificed.
Mr. President, many VA regional networks and medical center directors
report that timely access to high quality health care is being
jeopardized, and that is why I am introducing the Veterans Health Care
Quality Assurance Act, legislation which seeks to ensure that no
veteran's hospital is targeted unfairly for cuts, and that efforts to
``streamline'' and increase efficiency are not followed by the
unintended consequence of undermining quality of care or patient
satisfaction.
I believe that all veterans hospitals should be held to the same
equitable VA-wide standards, and that quality and satisfaction must be
guaranteed. Toward that end, the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance
Act calls for audits of every VA hospital every three years. This will
ensure that each facility is subject to an outside, independent review
of its operations on a regular basis, and each audit will include
findings on how to improve services to our veterans.
The legislation will also establish an Office of Quality Assurance
within the VA to ensure that steps taken to increase efficiency in VA
medical programs do not undermine quality or patient satisfaction. This
office will collect and disseminate information on efforts that have
proven to successfully increase efficiency and resource utilization
without undermining quality or patient satisfaction. The director of
this new Office of Quality Assurance should be an advocate for veterans
and would be placed in the appropriate position in the VA command
structure to ensure that he or she is consulted by the VA Secretary and
Under Secretary for Veterans Health on matters that impact quality or
satisfaction.
The bill would require an initial report to Congress within six
months of enactment, which would include a survey of each VA regional
network and a report on each network's efforts to increase efficiency,
as well as an assessment of the extent to which each network and VA
hospital is or is not implementing the same uniform, VA-wide policies
to increase efficiency.
Under the bill's reporting requirement, the VA would also be required
to publish--annually--an overview of VA-wide efficiency goals and
quality/satisfaction standards that each veterans facility should be
held to. Further, the VA would be required to report to Congress on
each hospital's standing in relation to efficiency, quality, and
satisfaction criteria, and how each facility compares to the VA-wide
average.
In an effort to encourage innovation in efforts to increase
efficiency within the agency, the bill would encourage the
dissemination and sharing of information throughout the VA in order to
facilitate implementation of uniform, equitable efficiency standards.
Finally, Mr. President, the bill includes provisions calling for
sharing of information on efforts to maximize resources and increase
efficiency without compromising quality of care and patient
satisfaction; exchange and mentoring initiatives among and between
networks in order to facilitate sharing of such information; incentives
for networks to increase efficiency and meet uniform quality/patient
satisfaction targets; and formal oversight by the VA to ensure that all
networks are meeting uniform efficiency criteria and that efforts to
increase efficiency are equitable between networks and medical
facilities.
Last week America celebrated Veterans Day 1999--81 years after the
Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the
carnage of World War I. World War I was supposed to be ``the war to end
all wars'' . . . the war that made the world safe for democracy. Sadly,
that was not to be, and America has been repeatedly reminded that the
defense of democracy is an on-going duty.
Mr. President, keeping our promise to our veterans is also an ongoing
duty. The debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans can never be fully
repaid. What we can and must do for our veterans is repay the financial
debt we owe to them. Central to that solemn duty is ensuring that the
benefits we promised our veterans when they enlisted are there for them
when they need them.
I consider it a great honor to represent veterans, these brave
Americans. So many of them continue to make contributions in our
communities upon their transition from military to civilian life--
through youth activities and scholarship programs, homeless assistance
initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in need, and
national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all
Americans. The least we can do is make good on our promise, such as the
promise of access to high quality health care.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their
country, and this legislation is but a small tribute to the men and
women and their families who have served this country with courage,
honor and distinction. They answered the call to duty when their
country needed them, and this is a component of my on-going
[[Page 30607]]
effort to ensure that we, as elected officials, answer their call when
they need us.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 1958. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants for startup costs of school
breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will go
far in helping children start their school day ready to learn.
The relationship between a healthy breakfast and both behavior and
academic achievement has been documented by a number of studies.
Fortunately, participation of schools in the School Breakfast program
has increased steadily since the program was made permanent in 1975.
According to the School Breakfast Scorecard, a report recently released
by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a record number of
schools--70,000--provided breakfast to school children last year. And
nearly half of our states have 80 percent or more of their schools
serving both lunch and breakfast under the National School Lunch and
School Breakfast programs.
That's good news. The bad news is that the gulf between states with
the highest rates of school participation in breakfast and those with
the lowest is wide. 20 percent of our states have fewer than 55 percent
of their schools participating in both breakfast and lunch; that's a
full 20 points below the national average. In my home state of
Wisconsin, only 30 percent of the schools that serve lunch also serve
breakfast.
By another measure--participation of low-income children in both
school lunch and breakfast--the results from the Scorecard are equally
concerning. Nationally, only 42 percent of the kids receiving a free or
reduced price lunch are also receiving breakfast; some states have
fewer than 25 percent of kids receiving a free or reduced price lunch
also receiving school breakfast.
The bill I am introducing today would help states provide an
additional financial incentive for schools to participate in the school
breakfast program. While there are a number of reasons that schools do
not offer their children a school breakfast, certainly the barrier most
difficult to overcome is the cost of the meals throughout the year. In
short, the cost of the school breakfast program may simply be too high
for some schools and school districts.
My bill authorizes, subject to appropriations, grants from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow states to provide schools
with an additional five cent per meal reimbursement during the first
year in which they provide the school breakfast program. This
additional reimbursement may be used to supplement both the existing
federal per meal reimbursement and any additional per meal
reimbursement provided by the state. To ensure that the grants are as
effective as possible they are targeted to those states with poor
school breakfast participation rates and that also have a program in
place to promote school breakfast participation. State educational
agencies will have the discretion to determine, based on participation
rates, which schools or school districts will receive the supplemental
assistance.
Providing a nutritious breakfast is the first step in ensuring that
kids are ready to learn when they sit down at their desks each morning.
The legislation I am introducing will go far in helping states and
schools reach that goal and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation and letters of support for my bill from Wisconsin State
Superintendent John Benson and Wisconsin School Food Service
Association President Renee Slotten-Beauchamp be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1958
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINANCIAL INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFAST
PROGRAMS.
Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1773) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Startup Grants for School Breakfast Programs.--
``(1) Definition of eligible school.--In this subsection,
the term `eligible school' means a school that agrees to
operate the school breakfast program established with the
assistance provided under this subsection for a period of not
less than 3 years.
``(2) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to State
educational agencies, from funds made available to the
Secretary, for a fiscal year, to assist eligible schools in
initiating school breakfast programs.
``(3) Payment rates.--A State educational agency shall use
grants made available under this subsection during the first
fiscal year an eligible school initiates a school breakfast
program--
``(A) to increase by not more than 5 cents the annually
adjusted payment for each breakfast served by the eligible
school; or
``(B) to assist eligible schools with non-recurring
expenses incurred in initiating school breakfast programs.
``(4) Funds supplementary.--A grant under this subsection
shall supplement any payment to which a State educational
agency is entitled under subsection (b).
``(5) Plan.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this
subsection, a State educational agency shall submit to the
Secretary a plan to initiate school breakfast programs
conducted in the State, including a description of the manner
in which the State educational agency shall provide technical
assistance and funding to eligible schools in the State to
initiate the programs.
``(6) State educational agency preferences.--In making a
grant under this subsection for a fiscal year to initiate
school breakfast programs, the Secretary shall provide a
preference to a State educational agency that--
``(A) has in effect a State law that promotes the expansion
of State participation in the school breakfast program during
the year;
``(B) has significant public or private resources that will
be used to carry out the expansion of the school breakfast
program during the year;
``(C)(i) has not more than 55 percent of schools in the
State that are participating in the school lunch program also
participating in the school breakfast program; or
``(ii) has not more than 30 percent of the students in the
State receiving free or reduced price lunch also receiving
free or reduced price breakfasts; and
``(D) serves an unmet need among low-income children, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(7) Reallocation.--The Secretary shall act in a timely
manner to recover and reallocate to other State educational
agencies or States any amount made available to a State
educational agency or State under this subsection that is not
used by the agency or State within a reasonable period (as
determined by the Secretary).
``(8) Application.--The Secretary shall allow application
by State educational agencies on an annual basis for grants
under this subsection.
``(9) Preferences by state educational agencies and
states.--In allocating funds within the State, each State
educational agency shall give preference for assistance under
this subsection to an eligible school that demonstrates the
greatest need for assistance for a school breakfast program,
based on the percentage of children not participating in the
school breakfast program, as determined by the State
educational agency.
``(10) Maintenance of effort.--The expenditure of funds
from State and local sources for the maintenance of the
school breakfast program shall not be diminished as a result
of grants made available under this subsection.''.
____
State of Wisconsin,
Department of Public Instruction,
Madison, WI, November 5, 1999.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
US Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kohl:
This letter is in support of your proposed amendment for
Startup Grants for School Breakfast Programs. I believe this
legislation will provide an essential incentive for schools
to implement a School Breakfast Program (SBP). Understanding
that breakfast is an important component for academic
achievement as well as the health of our nation's children, I
am very concerned with Wisconsin's low participation in the
SBP.
The federal startup grants for SBP will enhance the many
public and private efforts within our state to increase the
number of schools offering breakfast. Our state legislature
has supported my budget initiative for a ten cents per
breakfast reimbursement, effective in fiscal year 2001.
Statewide public
[[Page 30608]]
and nonpublic collaborative initiatives to promote the
importance of breakfast include the Good Breakfast for Good
Learning Breakfast Awareness Campaign, now in its third year.
Public and private hunger prevention coalitions are actively
promoting school breakfast. Professional organizations, such
the Wisconsin School Food Service Association and the
Wisconsin Dietetic Association have taken a lead in school
breakfast promotion efforts.
However, the bottom line is that schools cannot absorb
financial loss in the Child Nutrition Programs. Fear that the
SBP will have a negative impact on the school district's
general fund has been detrimental to the promotional efforts
identified above. The startup grants for SBP will help
alleviate those fears and allow the children in this state to
have access to a nourishing breakfast at the start of the
school day.
I would like to commend your efforts to help the children
in this state and the nation reach their full potential
through promotion of School Breakfast Program.
Sincerely,
John T. Benson,
State Superintendent.
____
Wisconsin School
Food Service Association,
November 17, 1999.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Kohl:
This letter is in support of your proposed amendment for
Startup Grants for School Breakfast Programs.
The Wisconsin School Food Service Association with its 1700
members, along with other allied associations have been
working to increase the number of schools in Wisconsin
offering breakfast. We understand the connection between good
nutrition at breakfast and academic achievement. We see
first-hand how difficult it is for a hungry child to
concentrate on learning.
The federal startup grants for School Breakfast Programs
will help our efforts to expand school breakfast
participation. A real concern for many school districts is
the cost of implementing and maintaining the program. During
the 1997-98 school year Wisconsin schools lost an average of
$0.23 per breakfast served. Our association believes school
food and nutrition programs deserve adequate funding and
reasonable regulations to help maintain financial integrity
and nutritional quality of meals. As a commitment to the
children of Wisconsin we made state funding for school
Breakfast Programs a high legislative priority this year. Our
state legislature recently supported a ten-cent per breakfast
reimbursement, which will be in effect for the fiscal year
2001. Federal Startup Grants would help districts implement
school Breakfast Programs.
The Wisconsin School Food Service Association feels the
children of Wisconsin and the nation deserve every
educational opportunity to reach their full potential. School
breakfast is one of those opportunities.
Our association commends you for your efforts to expand
School Breakfast.
Sincerely,
Renee Slotten-Beauchamp R.D., D.C.
President.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 1959. A bill to provide for the fiscal responsibility of the
Federal Government; to the Committee on Finance.
the fiscal responsibility act
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today as we are debating how to protect
Social Security and Medicare while making necessary investments in our
nation's future, I am introducing legislation designed to provide some
options for reducing spending. In an effort to promote greater fiscal
responsibility within the federal government, ``The Fiscal
Responsibility Act'' would eliminate special interest tax loopholes,
reduce corporate welfare, eliminate unnecessary government programs,
reduce wasteful spending, enhance government efficiency and require
greater accountability.
The reforms contained in this bill would result in savings of up to
$20 billion this year and up to $140 billion over the next five years.
These savings could be used to pay down the federal debt, shore up
Social Security and Medicare, provide middle-class tax relief, and/or
pay for needed investment in education, health care and other
priorities.
While I recognize that everyone won't agree on each of the provisions
of this measure, I believe it is important for us to put forward
options to be considered. I hope that we can work together on a
bipartisan basis to produce a set of reforms such as these to lay a
path of fiscal responsibility as we move into the next century.
The following is a summary of the bill's major provisions:
Elimination of Unnecessary Government Programs.
A number of outdated or unnecessary programs would be eliminated,
including Radio Marti, TV Marti and certain nuclear energy research
initiatives. These changes would save over $150 million this year.
Reduction of Wasteful Spending and Government Efficiency
Improvements.
$13 billion a year is lost to Medicare waste and abuse. This would be
substantially reduced through a series of comprehensive reforms. In
addition, taxpayer support for the cost of certain nuclear energy
lobbying activities would be eliminated.
A number of common sense steps would be implemented to improve the
efficiency of government activities.
Spending by government agencies on travel, printing, supplies and
other items would be frozen at 1998 levels. This change would save $2.8
billion this year and about $12 billion over 5 years.
Pentagon spending would be tied to the rate of inflation. This would
force the Pentagon to reduce duplication and other inefficiencies
identified by government auditors and outside experts. This change
would save taxpayers $9.2 billion this year and approximately $69
billion over the next 5 years.
Enhancing the government's ability to collect student loan defaults
would save taxpayers $892 million this year and $1 billion over five
years.
Eliminating Special Interest Tax Loopholes and Give-Aways.
Tobacco use causes 400,000 deaths a year and costs taxpayers billions
in preventable health care costs. And, yet, taxpayers are forced to
cough up about $2 billion a year to subsidize the advertising and
marketing of this deadly product. The tax deductibility of tobacco
promotion would be ended and these funds would be saved.
A loophole that allows estates valued above $10 million to elude
taxation would be closed.
The federal government allows mining companies to extract minerals
from federally-owned lands at an actual cost of pennies on the dollar.
This special interest giveaway would be ended, saving taxpayers $750
million over the next five years.
American citizens temporarily working in foreign countries can earn
up to $70,000 without paying any U.S. taxes. This unfair provision
would be eliminated, bringing in an estimated $15.7 billion over the
next 5 years.
A foreign tax credit that allows big oil and gas companies to escape
paying their fair share for royalties would be limited. This common
sense change would generate $3.1 billion over 5 years to reduce the
debt our kids and grandkids will inherit.
Increased Accountability.
Tobacco companies hook 3,000 children a day on their deadly products.
One in three of these kids will be sentenced to an early death. Tobacco
companies should be held accountable. Accordingly, a goal of reducing
teen smoking by at least 15 percent each year would be set. If tobacco
companies fail to meet this goal, they would have to pay a penalty.
Such a system would generate approximately $6 billion this year and $20
billion over the next 5 years. It would also significantly reduce the
number of young children who become addicted to tobacco.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review the provisions in this
bill and look forward to moving forward next year on a fiscally
responsible budget plan.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 1960. A bill to provide for the appointment of 1 additional
Federal district judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the federal judgeship for northeastern wisconsin act
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal
Judgeship for Northeastern Wisconsin Act of 1999. This bill would
create one additional judgeship in the eastern district of Wisconsin
and seat it in Green Bay, at the center of a region in desperate need
of a district court. Let me explain how an additional judgeship could
alleviate the stress that the current system places on business, law
enforcement agents, witnesses, victims and individual litigants in
northeastern Wisconsin.
[[Page 30609]]
First, while the four full-time district court judges for the eastern
district of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee, for most
litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee is well
over 100 miles away. In fact, as the courts are currently arranged, the
northern portion of the eastern district is more remote from a Federal
court than any other major population center, commercial or industrial,
in the United States. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur
substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee--
costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed, driving
from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly two hours each way. Add
inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as
Oconto or Marinette--and often the driving time alone actually exceeds
the amount of time witnesses spend testifying.
Second, Mr. President, the few Wisconsin Federal judges serve a
disproportionately large population. Last year, I commissioned a study
by the General Accounting Office which revealed that Wisconsin Federal
judges have to serve the highest population among all federal judges.
Each sitting Federal judge in Wisconsin serves an average population of
859,966, while the remaining federal judges across the country--more
than 650--serve less than half that number, with an average of 417,000
per judge. For example, while Louisiana has fewer residents than
Wisconsin, it has 22 Federal judges, nearly four times as many as our
state.
Third, Mr. President, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high in
northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and
kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the
appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the
upper part of the state will be made enormously more difficult.
Additionally, under current law, the Federal Government is required to
prosecute all felonies committed by Indians that occur on the Menominee
Reservation. The reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors
and courts--more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic.
And because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, investigators
and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the existing system costs
all of us. Without an additional judge in Green Bay, the administration
of justice, as well as the public's pocketbook, will suffer enormously.
Fourth, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in
northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court
to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with
out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these
legitimate cases are never even filed--precisely because the northern
part of the State lacks a Federal court. Mr. President, this hurts
businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation.
Fifth, the creation of an additional judgeship in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin is justified based on caseload. The Judicial
Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal
judiciary, makes biannual recommendations to Congress regarding the
necessity of additional judgeships using a system of weighted filings--
that is, the total number of cases modified by the average level of
case complexity. In the Judicial Conference's most recent
recommendations, new positions were justified where a district's
workload exceeded 435 weighted filings per judge. Such high caseloads
are common in the eastern district of Wisconsin, peaking in 1996 with
an overwhelming 453 weighted filings. On this basis, an additional
judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin is warranted.
Mr. President, our legislation is simple, effective and
straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern
district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives
the chief judge of the eastern district flexibility to designate which
judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number
of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978.
During that period, nearly 150 new Federal district judgeships have
been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin.
And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who
would be most affected: since 1994, each and every sheriff and district
attorney in northeastern Wisconsin has urged me to create a Federal
district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter
from the U.S. Attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom
Schneider, also be included. This letter expressed the support of the
entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the
FBI, the DEA and the BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. They
needed this additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, Mr.
President, that need has only increased over the last five years.
Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the
need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our
proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates.
In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay
will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial
efficiency. But most important, it will help ensure that justice is
more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern
Wisconsin. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation, either separately or as part of an omnibus judgeship
bill that I hope Congress will consider next session. The Judicial
Conference has recommended the creation of over 60 new judgeships, yet
not one has been created since 1990. Should such a bill be considered,
I will be right there to ensure that Northeastern Wisconsin is
included.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1960
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 ``Federal Judgeship for
Northeastern Wisconsin Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.
(a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district
judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
(b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section
133(a) of title 28, United States Code, reflects the change
in the total number of permanent district judgeships
authorized under subsection (a), such table is amended by
amending the item relating to Wisconsin to read as follows:
``Wisconsin:
``Eastern....................................................5 ....
``Western..................................................2''.....
(c) Holding of Court.--The chief judge of the eastern
district of Wisconsin shall designate 1 judge who shall hold
court for such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act, including such sums as may
be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for
the judicial position created by this Act.
____
August 8, 1994.
U.S Senator Herb Kohl,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kohl: We are writing to urge your support for
the creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. The
Eastern District of Wisconsin includes the 28 eastern-most
counties from Forest and Florence Counties in the north to
Kenosha and Walworth Counties in the south.
Green Bay is central to the northern part of the district
which includes approximately one third of the district's
population. Currently, all Federal District Judges hold court
in Milwaukee.
A federal court in Green Bay would make federal proceedings
much more accessible to the people of northern Wisconsin and
would alleviate many problems for citizens and law
enforcement. Travel time of 3 or 4 hours each way makes it
difficult and expensive for witnesses and officers to go to
court in Milwaukee. Citizen witnesses are often reluctant to
travel back and forth to Milwaukee.
[[Page 30610]]
It often takes a whole day to travel to come to court and
testify for a few minutes. Any lengthy testimony requires an
inconvenient and costly overnight stay in Milwaukee. Sending
officers is costly and takes substantial amounts of travel
time, thereby reducing the number of officers available on
the street. Many cases are simply never referred to federal
court because of this cost and inconvenience.
In some cases there is no alternative. For example, the
Federal government has the obligation to prosecute all felony
offenses committed by Indians on the Menominee Reservation.
Yet the Reservation's distance from the Federal Courts and
prosecutors in Milwaukee poses serious problems. Imagine the
District Attorney of Milwaukee being located in Keshena or
Green Bay or Marinette and trying to coordinate witness
interviews, case preparation, and testimony.
As local law enforcement officials, we try to work closely
with other local, state and federal agencies, and we believe
establishing a Federal District Court in Green Bay will
measurably enhance these efforts. Most important, a Federal
Court in Green Bay will make these courts substantially more
accessible to the citizens who live here.
We urge you to introduce and support legislation to create
and fund an additional Federal District Court in Green Bay.
Gary Robert Bruno, Shawano and Menominee County District
Attorney.
Jay Conley, Oconto County District Attorney.
John DesJardins, Outagamie County District Attorney.
Douglas Drexler, Florence County District Attorney.
Guy Dutcher, Waushara County District Attorney.
E. James FitzGerald, Manitowoc County District Attorney.
Kenneth Kratz, Calumet County District Attorney.
Jackson Main, Jr., Kewaunee County District Attorney.
David Miron, Marinette County District Attorney.
Joseph Paulas, Winnebago County District Attorney.
Gary Schuster, Door County District Attorney.
John Snider, Waupaca County District Attorney.
Ralph Uttke, Langlade County District Attorney.
Demetrio Verich, Forest County District Attorney.
John Zakowski, Brown County District Attorney.
William Aschenbrener, Shawano County Sheriff.
Charles Brann, Door County Sheriff.
Todd Chaney, Kewaunee County Sheriff.
Michael Donart, Brown County Sheriff.
Patrick Fox, Waushare County Sheriff.
Bradley Gehring, Outagamie County Sheriff.
Daniel Gillis, Calumet County Sheriff.
James Kanikula, Marinette County Sheriff.
Norman Knoll, Forest County Sheriff.
Thomas Kocourek, Manitowoc County Sheriff.
Robert Kraus, Winnebago County Sheriff.
William Mork, Waupaca County Sheriff.
Jeffrey Rickaby, Florence County Sheriff.
David Steger, Langlade County Sheriff.
Kenneth Woodworth, Oconto County Sheriff.
Richard Awonhopay, Chief, Menominee Tribal Police.
Richard Brey, Chief of Police, Manitowoc.
Patrick Campbell, Chief of Police, Kaukauna.
James Danforth, Chief of Police, Oneida Public Safety.
Donald Forcey, Chief of Police, Neenah.
David Gorski, Chief of Police, Appleton.
Robert Langan, Chief of Police, Green Bay.
Michael Lien, Chief of Police, Two Rivers.
Mike Nordin, Chief of Police, Sturgeon Bay.
Patrick Ravet, Chief of Police, Marinette.
Robert Stanke, Chief of Police, Menasha.
Don Thaves, Chief of Police, Shawano.
James Thorne, Chief of Police, Oshkosh.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Milwaukee, WI, August 9, 1994.
To: The District Attorney's, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
Urging the Creation of a Federal District Court in Green
Bay.
From: Thomas P. Schneider, United States Attorney, Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1994, urging the
creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. You point
out a number of facts in your letter:
(1) Although 1/3 of the population of the Eastern District
of Wisconsin is in the northern part of the district, all of
the Federal District Courts are located in Milwaukee.
(2) A federal court in Green Bay would be more accessible
to the people of northern Wisconsin. It would substantially
reduce witness travel time and expenses, and it would make
federal court more accessible and less costly for local law
enforcement agencies.
(3) The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over
most felonies committed on the Menominee Reservation, located
approximately 3 hours from Milwaukee. The distance to
Milwaukee is a particular problem for victims, witnesses, and
officers from the Reservation.
I have discussed this proposal with the chiefs of the
federal law enforcement agencies in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, Secret Service, U.S. Marshal, U.S.
Customs Service, and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal
Investigation Division. All express support for such a court
and give additional reasons why it is needed.
Over the past several years, the FBI, DEA, and IRS have
initiated a substantial number of investigations in the
northern half of the district. In preparation for indictments
and trials, and when needed to testify before the Grand Jury
or in court, officers regularly travel to Milwaukee. Each
trip requires 4 to 6 hours of round trip travel per day, plus
the actual time in court. In other words, the agencies'
already scarce resources are severely taxed. Several federal
agencies report that many cases which are appropriate for
prosecution are simply not charged federally because local
law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to bring
these cases and officers back and forth to Milwaukee.
Nevertheless, there have been a substantial number of
successful federal investigations and prosecutions from the
Fox Valley area and other parts of the Northern District of
Wisconsin including major drug organizations, bank frauds,
tax cases, and weapons cases.
It is interesting to note that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin holds hearings in Green
Bay, Manitowoc, and Oshkosh, all in the northern half of the
district. For the past four years approximately 29 percent of
all bankruptcy filings in the district were in these three
locations.
In addition, we continue to prosecute most felonies
committed on the Menominee Reservation. Yet, the
Reservation's distance from the federal courts in Milwaukee
poses serious problems. A federal court in Green Bay is
critically important if the federal government is to live up
to its moral and legal obligation to enforce the law on the
Reservation.
In summary, I appreciate and understand your concerns and I
join you in urging the creation of a Federal District Court
in Green Bay.
Thomas P. Schneider,
United States Attorney.
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 1961. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the
number of acres authorized for inclusion in the conservation reserve;
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the conservation reserve program acreage expansion act
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation which would increase the acreage cap currently in place for
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) under the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CRP continues to be a popular alternative for landowners who wish to
take a portion of their land out of production for conservation
purposes. While the program serves a multitude of beneficial purposes,
there are items of the program that we must continue to work on in
Congress. As a start, I am introducing companion legislation to
Congressman Collin Peterson's (D-MN) bill in the House to increase the
acreage allotted in CRP up to 45 million acres.
CRP has undergone significant changes as a result of the 1996 Farm
Bill. Wildlife benefits provided by certain grass species and
conservation practices are now heavily emphasized in the Environmental
Benefits Index (EBI) which sets forth eligibility into the program.
While many of these changes have been welcomed because of the favorable
effect they have on conservation and the environment, I have some
concerns with certain requirements farmers face in relation to the EBI
requirements.
First, producers with existing CRP contracts that have tracts of land
accepted for re-enrollment into CRP have indicated that in certain
cases, they were required to plow under at least half of the existing
grass stand on those tracts in order to plant new grass seeds to meet
the EBI criteria. Those participants are concerned this may lead to
soil erosion instead of soil conservation on tracts that are already
highly erodible because plowing up half of grass stand exposes that
land to the
[[Page 30611]]
unpredictable forces of weather. Moreover, it often requires more than
one growing season for new grass species to take root and establish
adequate cover in order to protect habitat. That said, both producers
and conservationists have expressed concern to me that this requirement
may place habitat protection in a precarious position in some
instances. Finally, the costs of seed varieties called for in the EBI,
especially for native grass species, have skyrocketed to a point here
it is oftentimes cost-prohibitive for producers to meet the
requirements of establishing a new grass stand. These and other matters
I plan to address with the input of all interested parties as we
proceed with the legislation.
However, on the whole CRP remains a very popular program in my home
state of South Dakota and across the country. During the twelve signups
held between 1986 and 1992, 36.4 million acres were enrolled in CRP.
USDA estimates that the average erosion rate on enrolled acres was
reduced from 21 to less than 2 tons per acre per year. Retiring these
lands also expanded wildlife habitat, enhanced water quality, and
restored soil. The annual value of these benefits has been estimated
from less than $1 billion to more than $1.5 billion; some estimates of
these benefits approach or exceed annual costs, especially in areas of
heavy participation. While major changes cannot occur to CRP until we
undertake a renewed effort to change the Farm Bill, I am hopeful that
Congress reconsider the current Farm Bill in 2000.
In addition to supporting CRP, I have co-sponsored S. 1426, the
Conservation Security Act of 1999. This bill creates a voluntary
incentive program to encourage conservation activities by landowners.
This bill includes a variety of solid conservation practices that
landowners may choose from in order to qualify for certain incentives.
Some of the conservation practices include conservation tillage, runoff
control, buffer strips, wetland restoration, and wildlife management.
I believe the Conservation Security Act is a strong piece of
legislation that would benefit agriculture producers, wildlife, and the
environment. I will continue to support and work with Senator Harkin in
seeing this legislation move forward.
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 1962. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses through strengthened
budgetary enforcement mechanisms; to the Committee on the Budget and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order
of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the
other Committee have 30 days to report or be discharged.
the social security and Medicare safe deposit box act
Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. 1962
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 ``Social Security and Medicare
Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.
(a) Medicare Surpluses Off-Budget.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the net surplus of any trust fund for
part A of Medicare shall not be counted as a net surplus for
purposes of--
(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President;
(2) the congressional budget; or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
(b) Points of Order to Protect Social Security and Medicare
Surpluses.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(g) Points of Order To Protect Social Security and
Medicare Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not
be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to
consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or
conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would
set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
``(2) Subsequent Legislation.--It shall not be in order in
the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report if--
``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report,
would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal
year.
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`on-budget deficit', when applied to a fiscal year, means the
deficit in the budget as set forth in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to
section 301(a)(3) for that fiscal year.''.
(c) Content of Concurrent Resolution On The Budget.--
Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraph:
``(6) the receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, combined,
established by title II of the Social Security Act;''.
(d) Super Majority Requirement.--
(1) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after
``310(d)(2),''.
(2) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after
``310(d)(2),''.
SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of subtitle II of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding before section 1101
the following:
``Sec. 1100. Protection of social security and medicare
surpluses
``The budget of the United States Government submitted by
the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
budget deficit for any fiscal year covered by that budget.''.
(b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11
of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
before the item for section 1101 the following:
``1100. Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect upon the date of its enactment
and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to fiscal
year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1963. A bill to authorize a study of alternatives to the current
management of certain Federal lands in Arizona; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
alternatiave land management study for the barry goldwater military
training range
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation that will require a comprehensive study of alternative land
management options for areas comprising the Barry Goldwater military
training range and Organ Pipe National Monument in Arizona.
Earlier this year, the Congress finalized the Department of Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 which included language to renew
a land-withdrawal for the Barry Goldwater training range for an
additional twenty-five years to the year 2024. The final proposal
transferred land management of the natural and cultural resources
within the range to the Air Force and the Navy, a decision that was
fully supported by both the Interior Department and the President's
Council on Environmental Quality.
In practical effect, the Air Force and Marine Corps have been
performing the management functions at the Goldwater range for many
years, and doing a very good job of it, according to most observers. In
fact, the Department of Defense already dedicates significant resources
to land and natural resource management of the Range. The decision to
formally transfer management recognizes the superior fiscal and
manpower resources available to the military Services, who also have
the most compelling interest in maintaining future training access to
the range, which can only be accomplished by effectively addressing
environmental concerns regarding its use.
During consideration of the legislative environmental impact
statements and subsequent renewal proposals, no one disagreed that
essential military training should continue on the range.
[[Page 30612]]
However, several environmental groups registered concerns about the
Administration's proposal for DOD management of the Range and expressed
their fears that the military Services would be inappropriate and
ineffective natural resources managers. I took personal interest in
these expressed concerns and advocated for the strongest possible
language in the final withdrawal bill to redress any potential problems
should the land management of these areas ever be jeopardized under
primary military authority.
However, in response to continuing apprehension about proper land
management in the newly passed withdrawal package, I worked with the
concerned individuals to develop language directing the Department of
the Interior to study and make recommendations for alternative land
management scenarios for the range. Such a comprehensive study would
provide information to guide the Administration and the Congress in
taking appropriate future action to ensure that the cultural and
natural resources on the range will continue to be preserved and
protected in future years.
Although I was unable to convince my colleagues that studying various
land management options should be added to the Defense authorization
package, I am continuing to explore appropriate land management options
for the long-term. I do so because it is important that we assure that
the best possible protection will be provided to the unique natural and
cultural resources of these areas, consistent with the primary purpose
of the range.
While the Barry Goldwater Range will continue to serve its vital
purpose, we have an obligation to ensure proper stewardship of our
natural resources. This study will provide us with the critical
information necessary to fulfill that obligation. Once an alternative
management study is completed, I will ensure that any recommendations
for improved management of the Goldwater Range are considered and acted
on, as necessary, by the Congress.
I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this
legislation to ensure that the Goldwater Range is managed by the agency
most qualified to protect the public's interest and preserve the
precious land and natural resources of these pristine areas for future
generations.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1964. A bill to designate the United States Post Office located at
14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as the Joseph Ileto Post
Office; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
DESIGNATION OF THE JOSEPH ILETO POST OFFICE
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by
Senator Boxer in introducing a bill to designate the United States Post
Office located at 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as the
``Joseph Ileto Post Office.'' This post office would be designated in
memory and in celebration of the life of Joseph Santos Ileto, the
Filipino American postal worker who was brutally gunned down during his
postal route in August by Buford Furrow, Jr., a white supremacist. Only
hours earlier, this same assailant opened fire on the North Valley
Jewish Community Center, wounding three young children, one teenager,
and one elderly woman.
Joseph Ileto touched many lives. He was a kind-hearted, intelligent
man who gave so much to those he loved and even to those he did not
know. He was known for his unselfishness and his willingness to give a
helping hand to anyone in need. In fact, the day Joseph Ileto was
killed, he was filling in for another mail carrier, as he had done so
many times before. His life and death exemplify the ultimate sacrifice
of public service, which we too often take for granted. As a U.S.
Postal Service employee, he served our nation with honor and dignity
and died doing his job.
My heart goes out to the Ileto family, who is grieving over the death
of their son, brother, and friend. Despite the sadness of their loss,
they can be proud that the life and spirit of Joseph Ileto lives on.
His death only confirms the urgency in which we as a community must
take a strong stand against hate crimes and racism. The number of hate
crimes in the U.S. has increased during the last five years, and the
time is now to have dialogue and pass meaningful legislation to address
this issue. As a first step, it is my hope that we can expedite passage
this bill, to remember and honor the life of Joseph Ileto.
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. 1964
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOSEPH ILETO POST OFFICE.
The United States Post Office located at 14071 Peyton Drive
in Chino Hills, California, shall be known and designated as
the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the post office
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the Joseph Ileto Post Office.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1965. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau
of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study on the Jicarilla Apache
Reservation in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
legislation authorizing the bureau of reclamation to conduct a
feasibility study regarding water supply to the jicarilla apache indian
reservation in new mexico
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Bingaman in introducing legislation authorizing the Bureau of
Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study regarding water supply on
the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in New Mexico. There are major
deficiencies with regard to safe water supplies for residents of the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation, since the federally owned municipal water
system is severely dilapidated.
The United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate
and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic,
environmental, water supply, and public health needs of the Jicarilla
Apache Indian Reservation . Today, the House of Representatives passed
identical legislation to help resolve this problem.
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe is a federally recognized Indian nation in
northern New Mexico, with over 3,000 citizens. In the 1920s, the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) constructed a water delivery system to serve
federal facilities on the Reservation. In the 1960s, the system was
extended to serve tribal facilities and members, but for the last 20
years this federal owned and operated water system has been
deteriorating due to inadequate federal funding for regular maintenance
and improvements.
No capital improvements have been made to the system for at least ten
years. Currently, the system is not in compliance with Federal safe
drinking water standards or pollutant discharge standards.
In October of 1988, the inlet system collapsed and caused a
devastating five-day water outage on the Reservation. That catastrophe
required emergency assistance from the National Guard. A home burned to
the ground without necessary water to fight the fire. After that
experience, the Tribe expended its own funds to make some repairs, and
began a large-scale evaluation of the system. The Tribe has discovered
serious problems with the system.
Line breaks are common and frequent, and existing supply facilities
are near or at maximum capacity. The Jicarilla Apaches have had to
ration water for the last seven summers.
According to a recent EPA report, the water system on the Jicarilla
Reservation is the third worst system operating in a six-state region.
In addition to being out of compliance with federal drinking water
standards, the
[[Page 30613]]
sewage plant has been operating without a federal discharge permit,
exposing the BIA to fines up to $25,000 per day.
Sewage lagoons are operating at 200% capacity, and wastewater
spillage threatens not only the Jicarilla Apaches, but down-stream
communities in New Mexico and beyond. The Jicarilla Apache Tribal
Council has enacted a resolution declaring a state of emergency due to
the continued operation of these unsafe water systems.
The Tribe has been forced to expend their own funds due to the
serious health threats posed by the unsafe system. In addition to the
severe health threats that these systems pose, their inadequate and
unsafe condition has virtually suspended social and economic
development on the Reservation.
The water deficiencies have forced the Tribe to place a moratorium on
new projects, including housing, school, senior center, post office,
and health care facility construction. These projects cannot be
completed, even though many are already funded, because the existing
infrastructure cannot support any further development. While the
federal government is entirely responsible to maintain and operate the
federal water systems which serve the Reservation, the BIA lacks the
resources improve the system.
The water system on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is one of only
two or three such systems still being maintained by the BIA. The BIA
does not even own equipment necessary for routine sewer cleaning. While
the BIA has continued federal responsibility for these systems, BIA no
longer budgets for water delivery systems.
In fact, Kevin Gover of the BIA referred the Tribe to the Bureau of
Reclamation for assistance. The Bureau of Reclamation has the needed
expertise to help, having experience in providing water to Native
Americans through irrigation projects, as well as providing water
supplies to other rural communities.
The Tribe wants to eventually own and operate the water system, and
wishes to enter into a relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation for
completion of rehabilitation of this project. This legislation will
allow the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study to
determine the best method for developing a safe and adequate municipal,
rural, and industrial water supply for the residents of the Jicarilla
Apache Indian Reservation in the State of New Mexico.
We want to help the Jicarilla Apaches end their water crisis, and
secure congressional authorization for the necessary studies the Bureau
of Reclamation has the expertise to conduct. I ask unanimous consent
that our proposed legislation and the Jicarilla Apache Counsel
Resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1965
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) there are major deficiencies with regard to adequate
and sufficient water supplies available to resident of the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation in the State of New Mexico.
(2) the existing municipal water system that serves the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation is under the ownership and
control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is outdated,
dilapidated, and cannot adequately and safely serve the
existing and future growth needs of the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe;
(3) the federally owned municipal water system on the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation has been unable to meet the
minimum Federal water requirements necessary for discharging
wastewater into a public watercourse and has been operating
without a Federal discharge permit;
(4) the federally owned municipal water system that serves
the Jicarilla Apache Reservation has been cited by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency for violations of
Federal safe drinking standards and poses a threat to public
health and safety both on and off the Jicarilla Apache
Reservation;
(5) the lack of reliable supplies of potable water impedes
economic development and has detrimental effects on the
quality of life and economic self-sufficiency of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe;
(6) due to the severe health threats and impediments to
economic development, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has
authorized and expended $4,500,000 of tribal funds for the
repair and replacement of the municipal water system on the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation; and
(7) the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure
that adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet
the economic, environmental, water supply, and public health
needs of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Authorization.--Pursuant to reclamation laws, the
Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation
and in consultation and cooperation with the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe, shall conduct a feasibility study to determine the
most feasible method of developing a safe and adequate
municipal, rural, and industrial water supply for the
residents of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in the
State of New Mexico.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after funds are
appropriated to carry out this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall transmit to Congress a report containing the
results of the feasibility study required by subsection (a).
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $200,000 to carry
out this Act.
____
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe--Resolution No. 99-R-314-06
Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe is a federally
recognized Indian tribe organized under Section 17 of the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 476 (1988);
and
Whereas, the inherent powers of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe
are vested in the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council pursuant to
Article XI, Section 1 of the Revised Constitution of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe; and
Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council is authorized
by Article XI, Section I(d) of the Revised Constitution of
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe to enact ordinances to promote the
peace, safety, property, health and general welfare of the
people of the Reservation and is authorized by Article X of
the Revised Constitution to enact ordinances and resolutions
on matters of permanent interest to the members of the tribe
and on matters relating to particular individuals, officials
or circumstances; and
Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council has the power
to authorize tribal officials to act on its behalf for
regulatory and other purposes; and
Whereas, the lack of adequate and safe drinking water
facilities on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation leads to
serious health problems among tribal members and other
residents of the Reservation, such as early loss of life and
morbidity and diseases; and
Whereas, the current water treatment plant, water delivery
infrastructure and sewage systems that serve the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation are owned and operated by the United
States, through the Jicarilla Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs
(``BIA''); and
Whereas, the Federal Government has a trust responsibility
to provide safe drinking water to the Jicarilla Apache people
and the United States has failed to carry out this
responsibility by not providing the BIA adequate resources to
properly maintain and operate the water systems;
Whereas, in October 1998, due to the lack of adequate
Federal resources to properly maintain and operate the water
systems, the inlet system, which diverts water from the
Navajo River, collapsed causing a catastrophic five-day water
outage on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation, which
necessitated emergency relief by the National Guard; and
Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe worked around the clock
to restore water and expended tribal funds to do so, and as a
result of the water outage, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe began
investigating and evaluating the operation of the water
systems and discovered numerous additional problems; and
Whereas, the water treatment plant, which treats water
diverted from the Navajo River prior to being released for
public consumption in Dulce, New Mexico, has been the subject
of various notices of environmental non-compliance by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'');
Whereas, the sewage facilities that serve the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation are not in compliance with Federal law and
are operating without a federal discharge permit, which
exposes the BIA to fines up to $25,000 a day, and to meet the
national requirements, a new waste water plant must be
constructed; and
Whereas, although the Federal Government is responsible for
maintaining and operating its own water systems that serve
the Reservation, the Tribe has been forced to take action out
of its own funds due to the serious health threats the these
deficient and unsafe systems have on the people within and
near the Reservation; and
Whereas, based on the analysis and recommendation of the
Tribe's engineers and consultants, the Tribal Council has
authorized the construction of a new inlet system, waste
water treatment plant, and sewage facilities and the upgrade
and rehabilitation of the water delivery infrastructure; and
[[Page 30614]]
Whereas, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, in
1996 and found, among other things, that:
(1) safe drinking water is essential to the protection of
public health;
(2) because the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) now exceed the financial and
technical capacity of some public water systems, especially
many small public water systems, the Federal Government needs
to provide assistance to communities to help the communities
meet Federal drinking water requirements;
(3) more effective protection of public health requires
prevention of drinking water contamination through well-
trained system operators, water systems with adequate
managerial, technical and financial capacity and enhanced
protection of source waters of public water systems;
(4) compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act continues to be a concern at public water systems
experiencing technical and financial limitations and Federal,
State and local governments need more resources and more
effective authority to attain the objectives of the Safe
Drinking Water Act;
(5) Federal health services to maintain and improve the
health of the Indians are consistent with and required by the
Federal Government's trust relationship with the American
Indian people;
Whereas, the repair and replacement authorization by the
Tribal Council is consistent with the Congressional purposes
of ensuring safe drinking water to the public; and
Whereas, Indian tribes are recognized as domestic nations
under the protection of the United States Government and
possessed with the inherent powers of government; and
Whereas, pursuant to the Federal trust relationship between
the Federal government and Indian tribes arising from the
United States Constitution, United States Supreme Court
caselaw, numerous treaties, statutes, and regulations, the
Federal government had fiduciary duties to Indian tribes to
protect tribal self-government and to provide and ensure
adequate and safe drinking water; and
Whereas, in accordance with the Federal policy of Indian
Self-Determination, the Federal government has pledged to
assist Indian tribes in making reservations permanent homes
from Indian people; and
Whereas, The Federal Indian policy of Self-Determination
and the Federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes
requires that the Federal government conduct government-to-
government consultations with Indian tribes on matters
affecting tribal interests and to promote tribal economic
development, tribal governments, tribal self-sufficiency,
which includes proper and adequate and safe drinking water
facilities.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, by the Tribal Council of
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe that the Tribal Council hereby
declares that the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is in a state
of critical emergency due to the continued operation of the
unsafe water systems that serve the Jicarilla Apache
Reservation.
Be It Further Resolved, by the Tribal Council of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe that the Tribal Council, hereby
authorizes the Vice-President and his staff to do all acts
immediate and necessary to address this emergency, including
but not limited to, executing contracts, consulting on a
government-to-government basis with Congressional members and
the Executive Branch, including the Federal agencies and the
White House and lobbying for congressional appropriations.
And Be It Further Resolved, by the Tribal Council of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe calls
upon the United States Congress and the United States
Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau
of Reclamation, the Department of Health and Human Services
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, to
exercise their Federal Trust Responsibility and work with the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe on a government-to-government basis to
address this emergency.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Lott):
S. 1967. A bill to make technical corrections to the status of
certain land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,
to take certain land into trust for that Band, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
make technical corrections to the status of certain land held in trust
for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and to take certain land
into trust for the Band.
Mr. President, the lands involved in this bill are lands currently
owned by the tribe. Over the last 20 years, the tribe has attempted to
transfer the land to reservation land, through the regular processes of
the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land
transfer applications have the support of the State of Mississippi and
the local neighboring governments.
Countless times over the years, the tribe has been told by the
Department that land transfer applications have been lost and that
action would occur soon.
Housing, a school and a medical clinic are among the construction
plans that are detained because of the inaction by the Department and
BIA. Mr. President, this tribe is simply out of time. The school
waiting to be replaced has over two pages of safety violations from the
BIA. The medical clinic will not pass its next inspection. Thousands of
Mississippi Choctaw citizens have substandard living conditions because
of the lack of available housing.
Mr. President, the Choctaws are held up as the best example of self
determination. Yet, the federal government seems determined to throw
obstacles in the course of their success. The history of these land
acquisition applications and the treatment of the tribe is intolerable.
The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the bill and advises it
has no budgetary impact. I urge the Senate to pass this bill.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 1969. A bill to provide for improved management of, and increases
accountability for, outfitted activities by which the public gains
access to and occupancy and use of Federal land, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the outfitter policy act of 1999
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in
conjunction with my colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Thomas the
Outfitter Policy Act of 1999.
This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in the
past congress. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law
many of the management practices by which federal land management
agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on
National Forests, National Parks and other federal lands over many
decades.
The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills
and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a
safe and pleasant journey through our forests and deserts and over the
rivers and lakes that are the spectacular destinations for many
visitors to our federal lands.
The Outfitter Policy Act would assure the public continued
opportunities for reasonable and safe access to the special areas found
throughout our public lands. It establishes high standards that will be
met for the health and welfare of visitors who choose outfitted
services. It will help guarantee that quality professional services. It
will help guarantee that will be available for their recreational and
educational experiences on federal land.
This legislation is needed because the management of outfitting and
guiding services by this Administration had created problems that
threaten to destabilize many of these typically small, independent
outfitter and guide businesses. In addressing these problems, this
legislation relies heavily on practices that have historically worked
well for outfitters, visitors, and other users groups, as well as for
federal land managers in the field. When the bill is enacted, it will
assure that these past levels of service are continued and enhanced.
Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this
legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This
process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. It allowed
for the examination of the historical practices that have offered
consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. The legislation
I am now introducing is a result of that process.
I look forward to considering this legislation in the coming session
of the 106th Congress.
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:
[[Page 30615]]
S. 1969
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 ``Outfitter Policy Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the experience, skills, trained staff, and investment
in equipment that are provided by authorized outfitters are
necessary to provide access to Federal land to members of the
public that need or desire commercial outfitted activities to
facilitate their use and enjoyment of recreational or
educational opportunities on Federal land;
(2) such activities constitute an important contribution
toward meeting the recreational and educational objectives of
resource management plans approved and administered by
agencies of the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of the Interior;
(3) an effective relationship between those agencies and
authorized outfitters requires implementation of agency
policies and programs that provide for--
(A) a reasonable opportunity for an authorized outfitter to
realize a profit;
(B) a fair and reasonable return to the United States
through appropriate fees;
(C) renewal of outfitter permits based on a performance
evaluation system that rewards outfitters that meet required
performance standards and discontinues outfitters that fail
to meet those standards; and
(D) transfer of an outfitter permit to the qualified
purchaser of the operation of an authorized outfitter, an
heir or assign, or another qualified person or entity; and
(4) the provision of opportunities for outfitted visitors
to Federal land to engage in fishing and hunting is best
served by continued recognition that the States retain
primary authority over the taking of fish and wildlife on
Federal land.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish terms and conditions of access to, and
occupancy and use of, Federal land by visitors who require or
desire the assistance of an authorized outfitter; and
(2) to establish a stable regulatory climate that
encourages a qualified person or entity to provide, and to
continue to invest in the ability to provide, outfitted
visitors with access to, and occupancy and use of, Federal
land.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Actual use.--The term ``actual use'' means the portion
of a principal allocation of outfitter use that an authorized
outfitter uses in conducting commercial outfitted activities
during a period, for a type of use, for a location, or in
terms of another measurement of the term or outfitted
activities covered by an outfitter permit.
(2) Allocation of use.--
(A) In general.--The term ``allocation of use'' means a
method or measurement of access that--
(i) is granted by the Secretary to an authorized outfitter
for the purpose of facilitating the occupancy and use of
Federal land by an outfitted visitor;
(ii) takes the form of--
(I) an amount or type of commercial outfitted activity
resulting from an apportionment of the total recreation
capacity of a resource area; or
(II) in the case of a resource area for which recreation
capacity has not been apportioned, a type of commercial
outfitted activity conducted in a manner that is not
inconsistent with or incompatible with an approved resource
management plan; and
(iii) is calibrated in terms of amount of use, type of use,
or location of a commercial outfitted activity, including
user days or portions of user days, seasons or other periods
of operation, launch dates, assigned camps, or other
formulations of the type or amount of authorized activity.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``allocation of use'' includes the
designation of a geographic area, zone, or district in which
a limited number of authorized outfitters are authorized to
operate.
(3) Authorized outfitter.--
(A) In general.--The term ``authorized outfitter'' means a
person that conducts a commercial outfitted activity on
Federal land under an outfitter authorization.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``authorized outfitter'' includes
an outfitter that conducts a commercial outfitted activity on
Federal land under an outfitter authorization awarded under
an agreement between the Secretary and a State or local
government that provides for the regulation by a State or
local agency of commercial outfitted activities on Federal
land.
(4) Commercial outfitted activity.--The term ``commercial
outfitted activity'' means an authorized outfitted activity--
(A) that is available to the public;
(B) that is conducted under the direction of paid staff;
and
(C) for which an outfitted visitor is required to pay more
than shared expenses (including payment to an authorized
outfitter that is a nonprofit organization).
(5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means--
(A) the Forest Service;
(B) the Bureau of Land Management;
(C) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(D) the Bureau of Reclamation.
(6) Federal land.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Federal land'' means all land
and interests in land administered by a Federal agency.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal land'' does not
include--
(i) land held in trust by the United States for the benefit
of an Indian tribe or individual; or
(ii) land held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to
a restriction by the United States against alienation.
(7) Institutional recreation program.--The term
``institutional recreation program'' means a program of
recreational activities on Federal land that may include the
conduct of an outfitted activity on Federal land sponsored
and guided by--
(A) an institution with a membership or limited
constituency, such as a religious, conservation, youth,
fraternal, or social organization; or
(B) an educational institution, such as a college or
university.
(8) Limited outfitter authorization.--The term ``limited
outfitter authorization'' means an outfitter authorization
under section 6(f).
(9) Livery.--The term ``livery'' means the dropping off or
picking up of visitors, supplies, or equipment on Federal
land.
(10) Outfitted activity.--
(A) In general.--The term ``outfitted activity'' means an
activity--
(i) such as outfitting, guiding, supervision, education,
interpretation, skills training, assistance, or livery
operation conducted for a member of the public in an outdoor
environment; and
(ii) that uses the recreational, natural, historical, or
cultural resources of Federal land.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``outfitted activity'' does not
include a service provided under the National Forest Ski Area
Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b).
(11) Outfitted visitor.--The term ``outfitted visitor''
means a member of the public that relies on an authorized
outfitter for access to and occupancy and use of Federal
land.
(12) Outfitter.--The term ``outfitter'' means a person that
conducts a commercial outfitted activity, including a person
that, by local custom or tradition, is known as a ``guide''.
(13) Outfitter authorization.--The term ``outfitter
authorization'' means--
(A) an outfitter permit; or
(B) a limited outfitter authorization.
(14) Outfitter permit.--The term ``outfitter permit'' means
an outfitter permit under section 6.
(15) Principal allocation of outfitter use.--The term
``principal allocation of outfitter use'' means a commitment
by the Secretary in an outfitter permit for an allocation of
use to an authorized outfitter in accordance with section 9.
(16) Resource area.--The term ``resource area'' means a
management unit that is described by or contained within the
boundaries of--
(A) a national forest;
(B) an area of public land;
(C) a wildlife refuge;
(D) a congressionally designated area;
(E) a hunting zone or district; or
(F) any other Federal planning unit (including an area in
which outfitted activities are regulated by more than 1
Federal agency).
(17) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
(A) with respect to Federal land administered by the Forest
Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Chief of the Forest Service or a designee;
(B) with respect to Federal land administered by the Bureau
of Land Management, the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management or a
designee;
(C) with respect to Federal land administered by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service or a designee; and
(D) with respect to Federal land administered by the Bureau
of Reclamation, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Commissioner of Reclamation or a designee.
(18) Temporary allocation of use.--The term ``temporary
allocation of use'' means an allocation of use to an
authorized outfitter in accordance with section 9.
SEC. 5. NONOUTFITTER USE AND ENJOYMENT.
Nothing in this Act enlarges or diminishes the right or
privilege of occupancy and use of Federal land under any
applicable law (including planning process rules and any
administrative allocation), by a commercial or noncommercial
individual or entity that is not an authorized outfitter or
outfitted visitor.
SEC. 6. OUTFITTER AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Prohibition.--No person or entity, except an authorized
outfitter, shall conduct a commercial outfitted activity on
Federal land.
[[Page 30616]]
(2) Conduct of outfitted activities.--An authorized
outfitter shall not conduct an outfitted activity on Federal
land except in accordance with an outfitter authorization.
(3) Special rule for alaska.--With respect to a commercial
outfitted activity conducted in the State of Alaska, the
Secretary shall not establish or impose a limitation on
access by an authorized outfitter that is inconsistent with
the access ensured under subsections (a) and (b) of section
1110 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 3170).
(b) Terms and Conditions.--An outfitter authorization shall
specify--
(1) the rights and obligations of the authorized outfitter
and the Secretary; and
(2) other terms and conditions of the authorization.
(c) Criteria for Award of an Outfitter Permit.--The
Secretary shall establish criteria for award of an outfitter
permit that--
(1) identify skilled, experienced, and financially capable
persons or entities with knowledge of the resource area to
offer and conduct commercial outfitted activities;
(2) provide a stable regulatory climate in accordance with
this Act and other law (including regulations) that
encourages a qualified person or entity to provide, and to
continue to invest in the ability to provide, commercial
outfitted activities;
(3) offer a reasonable opportunity for an authorized
outfitter to realize a profit; and
(4) subordinate considerations of revenue to the United
States to the objectives of--
(A) providing recreational or educational opportunities for
the outfitted visitor;
(B) providing for the health and welfare of the public; and
(C) conserving resources.
(d) Award.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may award an outfitter
permit under this Act if--
(A) the commercial outfitted activity to be authorized is
not inconsistent with or incompatible with an approved
resource management plan applicable to the resource area in
which the commercial outfitted activity is to be conducted;
and
(B) the authorized outfitter meets the criteria established
under subsection (c)(1).
(2) Use of competitive process.--
(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by this Act,
the Secretary shall use a competitive process to select an
authorized outfitter to which an outfitter permit is to be
awarded.
(B) Exception for certain activities.--The Secretary may
award an outfitter permit to an applicant without conducting
a competitive selection process if the Secretary determines
that--
(i) the applicant meets criteria established by the
Secretary under subsection (c); and
(ii) there is no competitive interest in the commercial
outfitted activity to be conducted.
(C) Exception for renewals and transfers.--The Secretary
shall award an outfitter permit to an applicant without
conducting a competitive selection process if the
authorization is a renewal or transfer of an existing
outfitter permit under section 11 or 12.
(e) Provisions of Outfitter Permits.--
(1) In general.--An outfitter permit shall provide for--
(A) the health and welfare of the public;
(B) conservation of resource values;
(C) a fair and reasonable return to the United States
through an authorization fee in accordance with section 7;
(D) a term of 10 years;
(E) the obligation of an authorized outfitter to defend and
indemnify the United States in accordance with section 8;
(F) a principal allocation of outfitter use, and, if
appropriate, a temporary allocation of use, in accordance
with section 9;
(G) a plan to conduct performance evaluations in accordance
with section 10;
(H) renewal or termination of an outfitter permit in
accordance with section 11;
(I) transfer of an outfitter permit in accordance with
section 12;
(J) a means of modifying an outfitter permit to reflect
material changes from the terms and conditions specified in
the outfitter permit;
(K) notice of a right of appeal and judicial review in
accordance with section 14; and
(L) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary may
require.
(2) Extensions.--The Secretary may award not more than 3
temporary 1-year extensions of an outfitter permit, unless
the Secretary determines that extraordinary circumstances
warrant additional extensions.
(f) Limited Outfitter Authorizations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue a limited
outfitter authorization to an applicant for incidental
occupancy and use of Federal land for the purpose of
conducting a commercial outfitted activity on a limited
basis.
(2) Term.--A limited outfitter authorization shall have a
term of not to exceed 2 years.
(3) Reissuance or renewal.--A limited outfitter
authorization may be reissued or renewed at the discretion of
the Secretary.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FEES.
(a) Amount of Fee.--
(1) In general.--An outfitter permit shall provide for
payment to the United States of a fair and reasonable
authorization fee, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Determination of amount of fee.--In determining the
amount of an authorization fee, the Secretary shall take into
consideration--
(A) the obligations of the outfitter under the outfitter
permit;
(B) the provision of a reasonable opportunity for net
profit in relation to capital invested; and
(C) economic conditions.
(b) Establishment of Amount Applicable to an Outfitter
Permit.--
(1) In general.--The amount of the authorization fee paid
to the United States for the term of an outfitter permit
shall be specified in the outfitter permit.
(2) Requirements.--The amount of the authorization fee--
(A)(i) shall be expressed as--
(I) a simple charge per day of actual use; or
(II) an annual or seasonable flat fee;
(ii) if calculated as a percentage of revenue, shall be
determined based on adjusted gross receipts; or
(iii) with respect to a commercial outfitted activity
conducted in the State of Alaska, shall be based on a simple
charge per user day;
(B) shall be subordinate to the objectives of--
(i) conserving resources;
(ii) protecting the health and welfare of the public; and
(iii) providing reliable, consistent performance in
conducting outfitted activities; and
(C) shall be required to be paid by an authorized outfitter
to the United States on a reasonable schedule during the
operating season.
(3) Adjusted gross receipts.--For the purpose of paragraph
(2)(A)(ii), the Secretary shall--
(A) take into consideration revenue from the gross receipts
of the authorized outfitter from commercial outfitted
activities conducted on Federal land; and
(B) exclude from consideration any revenue that is derived
from--
(i) fees paid by the authorized outfitter to any unit of
Federal, State, or local government for--
(I) hunting or fishing licenses;
(II) entrance or recreation fees; or
(III) other purposes (other than commercial outfitted
activities conducted on Federal land);
(ii) goods and services sold to outfitted visitors that are
not within the scope of authorized outfitter activities
conducted on Federal land; or
(iii) operations on non-Federal land.
(4) Substantially similar services in a specific geographic
area.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if
more than 1 outfitter permit is awarded to conduct the same
or similar commercial outfitted activities in the same
resource area, the Secretary shall establish an identical fee
for all such outfitter permits.
(B) Exception.--The terms and conditions of an existing
outfitter permit shall not be subject to modification or open
to renegotiation by the Secretary because of the award of a
new outfitter permit at the same resource area for the same
or similar commercial outfitted activities.
(5) Actual use.--
(A) In general.--For the purpose of calculating an
authorization fee for actual use under clauses (ii) and (iii)
of paragraph (2)(A), the sum of authorization fees
proportionately assessed per outfitted visitor in a single
calendar day for commercial outfitted activities at more than
1 resource area shall be not greater than the equivalent fee
charged for 1 full user day.
(B) Reconsideration of fee.--The authorization fee may be
reconsidered during the term of the outfitter permit in
accordance with paragraph (6) or section 9(c)(3) at the
request of the Secretary or the authorized outfitter.
(6) Adjustment of fees.--The amount of an authorization
fee--
(A) shall be determined as of the date of the outfitter
permit; and
(B) may be modified to reflect--
(i) changes relating to the terms and conditions of the
outfitter permit, including 1 or more outfitter permits
described in paragraph (5);
(ii) extraordinary unanticipated changes affecting
operating conditions, such as natural disasters, economic
conditions, or other material adverse changes from the terms
and conditions specified in the outfitter permit;
(iii) changes affecting operating or economic conditions
determined by other governing entities, such as the
availability of State fish or game licenses; or
(iv) the imposition of new or higher fees assessed under
other law.
(c) Establishment of Amount Applicable to a Limited
Outfitter Authorization.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of an authorization fee, if any, under a limited
outfitter authorization.
SEC. 8. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION.
(a) In General.--An authorized outfitter shall defend and
indemnify the United States for costs or expenses associated
with injury, death, or damage to any person or property
[[Page 30617]]
caused by the authorized outfitter's negligence, gross
negligence, or willful and wanton disregard for persons or
property arising directly out of the authorized outfitter's
conduct of a commercial outfitted activity under an outfitter
authorization.
(b) No Liability.--An authorized outfitter--
(1) shall have no responsibility to defend or indemnify the
United States, its agents, employees, or contractors, or
third parties for costs or expenses associated with injury,
death, or damage to any person or property caused by the
acts, omissions, negligence, gross negligence, or willful and
wanton misconduct of the United States, its agents,
employees, or contractors, or third parties;
(2) shall not incur liability of any kind to the United
States, its agents, employees, or contractors, or third
parties as a result of the award of an outfitter
authorization or as a result of the conduct of a commercial
outfitted activity under an outfitter authorization absent a
finding by a court of competent jurisdiction of negligence,
gross negligence, or willful and wanton disregard for persons
or property on the part of the authorized outfitter; and
(3) shall have no responsibility to defend or indemnify the
United States, its agents, employees, or contractors, or
third parties for costs or expenses associated with injury,
death, or damage to any person or property resulting from the
inherent risks of the commercial outfitted activity conducted
by the authorized outfitter under the outfitter authorization
or the inherent risks present on Federal land.
(c) Agreements.--An authorized outfitter may enter into
contracts or other agreements with outfitted visitors,
including agreements providing for release, waiver,
indemnification, acknowledgment of risk, or allocation of
risk.
SEC. 9. ALLOCATION OF USE.
(a) In General.--In a manner that is not inconsistent with
or incompatible with an approved resource management plan
applicable to the resource area in which a commercial
outfitted activity occurs, the Secretary--
(1) shall provide a principal allocation of outfitter use
to an authorized outfitter under an outfitter permit; and
(2) may provide a temporary allocation of use to an
authorized outfitter under an outfitter permit.
(b) Renewals, Transfers, and Extensions.--The Secretary
shall provide a principal allocation of outfitter use to an
authorized outfitter that--
(1) in the case of the renewal of an outfitter permit, is
not inconsistent with or incompatible with the terms and
conditions of an approved resource management plan applicable
to the resource area in which the commercial outfitted
activity occurs; or
(2) in the case of the transfer or temporary extension of
an outfitter permit, is the same amount of principal
allocation of outfitter use provided to the current
authorized outfitter.
(c) Waiver.--
(1) In general.--At the request of an authorized outfitter,
the Secretary may waive any obligation of the authorized
outfitter to use all or part of the amount of allocation of
use provided under the outfitter permit, if the request is
made in sufficient time to allow the Secretary to temporarily
reallocate the unused portion of the allocation of use in
that season or calendar year.
(2) Reclaiming of allocation of use.--Unless the Secretary
has reallocated the unused portion of an allocation of use in
accordance with paragraph (1), the authorized outfitter may
reclaim any part of the unused portion in that season or
calendar year.
(3) No fee obligation.--An outfitter permit fee may not be
charged for any amount of allocation of use subject to a
waiver under paragraph (1).
(d) Adjustment to Allocation of Use.--The Secretary--
(1) may adjust an allocation of use assigned to an
authorized outfitter to reflect--
(A) material change arising from approval of a change in
the resource management plan for the area of operation; or
(B) requirements arising under other law; and
(2) shall provide an authorized outfitter with
documentation supporting the basis for any adjustment in the
principal allocation of outfitter use, including new terms
and conditions that result from the adjustment.
(e) Temporary Allocation of Use.--
(1) In general.--A temporary allocation of use may be
provided to an authorized outfitter at the discretion of the
Secretary for a period not to exceed 2 years.
(2) Renewals, transfers, and extensions.--A temporary
allocation of use may be renewed, transferred, or extended at
the discretion of the Secretary.
SEC. 10. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE UNDER OUTFITTER PERMITS.
(a) Evaluation Process.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a process for
annual evaluation of the performance of an authorized
outfitter in conducting a commercial outfitted activity under
an outfitter permit.
(2) Evaluation Criteria.--Criteria to be used by the
Secretary to evaluate the performance of an authorized
outfitter shall--
(A) be objective, measurable, and reasonably attainable;
and
(B) include--
(i) standards generally applicable to all commercial
outfitted activities;
(ii) standards specific to a resource area, an individual
outfitter operation, or a type of commercial outfitted
activity; and
(iii) such other terms and conditions of the outfitter
permit as are agreed to by the Secretary and the authorized
outfitter as measurements of performance.
(3) Special rule for alaska.--With respect to commercial
outfitted activities conducted in the State of Alaska,
objectives relating to conservation of natural resources and
the taking of fish and game shall not be inconsistent with
the laws (including regulations) of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.
(4) Requirements.--In evaluating the level of performance
of an authorized outfitter, the Secretary shall--
(A) appropriately account for factors beyond the control of
the authorized outfitter, including conditions described in
section 7(b)(6)(B);
(B) ensure that the effect of any performance deficiency
reflected by the performance rating is proportionate to the
severity of the deficiency, including any harm that may have
resulted from the deficiency; and
(C) allow additional credit to be earned for elements of
performance that exceed the requirements of the outfitter
permit.
(b) Levels of Performance.--The Secretary shall define 3
levels of performance, as follows:
(1) Good, indicating a level of performance that fulfills
the terms and conditions of the outfitter permit.
(2) Marginal, indicating a level of performance that, if
not corrected, will result in an unsatisfactory level of
performance.
(3) Unsatisfactory, indicating a level of performance that
fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the outfitter
permit.
(c) Performance Evaluation.--
(1) Evaluation system.--The Secretary shall establish a
performance evaluation system that assures the public of
continued availability of dependable commercial outfitted
activities and discontinues any authorized outfitter that
fails to meet the required standards.
(2) Procedure.--An authorized outfitter shall be entitled--
(A) to be present, or represented, at inspections of
operations or facilities, which inspections shall be limited
to the operations and facilities of the authorized outfitter
located on Federal land;
(B) to receive written notice of any conduct or condition
that, if not corrected, might lead to a performance
evaluation of marginal or unsatisfactory, which notice shall
include an explanation of needed corrections and provide a
reasonable period of time in which the corrections may be
made without penalty; and
(C) to receive written notice of the results of the
performance evaluation not later than 30 days after the
conclusion of the authorized outfitter's operating season,
including the level of performance and the status of
corrections that may have been required.
(d) Marginal Performance.--If an authorized outfitter's
level of performance for a year is determined to be marginal,
and the authorized outfitter fails to complete the
corrections within the time period specified under subsection
(c)(2)(B), the level of performance shall be determined to be
unsatisfactory for the year.
(e) Determination of Eligibility for Renewal.--
(1) In general.--The results of all annual performance
evaluations of an authorized outfitter shall be reviewed by
the Secretary in the year preceding the year in which the
outfitter permit expires to determine whether the authorized
outfitter's overall performance during the term has met the
requirements for renewal under section 11.
(2) Failure to evaluate.--If, in any year of the term of an
outfitter permit, the Secretary fails to evaluate the
performance of the authorized outfitter by the date that is
60 days after the conclusion of the authorized outfitter's
operating season, the performance of the authorized outfitter
in that year shall be considered to have been good.
(3) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the end of the
year preceding the year in which an outfitter permit expires,
the Secretary shall provide the authorized outfitter with the
cumulative results of performance evaluations conducted under
this subsection during the term of the outfitter permit.
(4) Unsatisfactory performance in final year.--If an
authorized outfitter receives an unsatisfactory performance
rating under subsection (d) in the final year of the term of
an outfitter permit, the review and determination of
eligibility for renewal of the outfitter permit under
paragraph (1) shall be revised to reflect that result.
SEC. 11. RENEWAL OR TERMINATION OF OUTFITTER PERMITS.
(a) Renewal at Expiration of Term.--
(1) In general.--On expiration of the term of an outfitter
authorization, the Secretary shall renew the authorization in
accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) Determination based on annual performance rating.--The
Secretary shall
[[Page 30618]]
renew an outfitter authorization under paragraph (1) at the
request of the authorized outfitter and subject to the
requirements of this Act if the Secretary determines that the
authorized outfitter has received not more than 1
unsatisfactory annual performance rating under section 10
during the term of the outfitter permit.
(b) Termination.--An outfitter permit may be terminated
only if the Secretary determines that--
(1) the authorized outfitter has failed to correct a
condition for which the authorized outfitter received notice
under section 10(c)(2)(B) and the condition is considered by
the Secretary to be significant with respect to the health
and welfare of outfitted visitors or the conservation of
resources;
(2) the authorized outfitter is repeatedly in arrears in
the payment of fees under section 7; or
(3) the authorized outfitter's conduct demonstrates
repeated and willful disregard for--
(A) the health and welfare of outfitted visitors; or
(B) the conservation of resources on which the commercial
outfitted activities are conducted.
SEC. 12. TRANSFERABILITY OF OUTFITTER PERMITS.
(a) In General.--An outfitter permit shall not be
transferred (including assigned or otherwise conveyed or
pledged) by the authorized outfitter without prior written
notification to, and approval by, the Secretary.
(b) Approval.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve a transfer of
an outfitter permit unless the Secretary determines that the
transferee does not have sufficient professional, financial,
and other resources or business experience to be capable of
performing under the outfitter permit for the remainder of
the term of the outfitter permit.
(2) Qualified transferees.--Subject to section 6(d)(1), the
Secretary shall approve a transfer of an outfitter permit--
(A) to a purchaser of the operation of the authorized
outfitter;
(B) at the request of the authorized outfitter, to an
assignee, partner, or stockholder or other owner of an
interest in the operation of the authorized outfitter; or
(C) on the death of the authorized outfitter, to an heir or
assign.
(c) No Modification as Condition of Approval.--The terms
and conditions of an outfitter permit shall not be subject to
modification or open to renegotiation by the Secretary
because of a transfer described in subsection (a), unless the
terms and conditions of the outfitter permit that is proposed
to be transferred have become inconsistent or incompatible
with an approved resource management plan for the resource
area as a result of a modification to the plan.
(d) Consideration Period.--
(1) Threshold for automatic approval.--Subject to paragraph
(2), if the Secretary fails to approve or disapprove the
transfer of an outfitter permit within 90 days after the date
of receipt of an application containing the information
required with respect to the transfer, the transfer shall be
deemed to have been approved.
(2) Extension.--The Secretary and the authorized outfitter
making application for transfer of an outfitter permit may
agree to extend the period for consideration of the
application.
(e) Continuance of Outfitter Permit.--If the transfer of an
outfitter permit is not approved by the Secretary or if the
transfer is not subsequently made, the outfitter permit shall
remain in effect.
SEC. 13. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--An authorized outfitter shall keep such
reasonable records as the Secretary may require to enable the
Secretary to determine that all the terms of the outfitter
authorization have been and are being carried out.
(b) Burden on Authorized Outfitter.--The recordkeeping
requirements established by the Secretary shall incorporate
simplified procedures that do not impose an undue burden on
an authorized outfitter.
(c) Access to Records.--The Secretary, or an authorized
representative of the Secretary, shall, until the end of the
fifth calendar year beginning after the end of the business
year of an authorized outfitter, have access to and the right
to examine any books, papers, documents, and records of the
authorized outfitter relating to each outfitter authorization
held by the authorized outfitter during the business year.
SEC. 14. APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Appeals Procedure.--The Secretary shall by regulation--
(1) grant an authorized outfitter full access to
administrative remedies under the Secretary's authority at
the time of an appeal; and
(2) establish an expedited procedure for consideration of
appeals of Federal agency decisions to deny, suspend, fail to
renew, or terminate an outfitter permit.
(b) Judicial Review.--An authorized outfitter that is
adversely affected by a final decision of the Secretary under
this Act may commence a civil action in United States
district court.
SEC. 15. INSTITUTIONAL RECREATION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage the occupancy
and use of Federal land by institutional recreation programs
that conduct outfitted activities under this Act.
(b) Requirements.--In managing an institutional recreation
program authorized under this Act, the Secretary shall
require that the program--
(1) operate in a manner that is not inconsistent with or
incompatible with an approved resource management plan
applicable to the resource area in which the outfitted
activity is conducted;
(2) provide for the health and welfare of members of the
sponsoring organization or affiliated participants; and
(3) ensure the conservation of resources.
SEC. 16. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAW AND RIGHTS.
(a) Consistency With Other Law.--Each program of outfitted
activities carried out on Federal land shall be consistent
with the mission of the administering Federal agency and all
laws (including regulations) applicable to the outfitted
activities.
(b) Consistency With Rights of United States.--Nothing in
this Act limits or restricts any right, title, or interest of
the United States in or to any land or resource.
SEC. 17. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as are
appropriate to carry out this Act.
SEC. 18. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.
(a) National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998.--Nothing
in this Act supersedes or otherwise affects any provision of
title IV of the National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998
(16 U.S.C. 5951 et seq.).
(b) State Outfitter Licensing Law.--This Act does not
preempt any outfitter or guide licensing law (including any
regulation) of any State or territory.
SEC. 19. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Outfitters with satisfactory ratings.--An outfitter
that holds a permit, contract, or other authorization to
conduct commercial outfitted activities (or an extension of
such a permit, contract, or other authorization) in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act shall be entitled, on
request or on expiration of the authorization, to the
issuance of an outfitter permit under this Act if a recent
performance evaluation determined that the outfitter's
aggregate performance under the permit, contract, or other
authorization was good or was the equivalent of good,
satisfactory, or acceptable under a rating system in use
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Outfitters with no ratings.--For the purpose of
paragraph (1), if no recent performance evaluation exists
with respect to an outfitter, the outfitter's aggregate
performance under the permit, contract, or other
authorization shall be deemed to be good.
(b) Effect of Issuance of Outfitter Permit.--The issuance
of an outfitter permit under subsection (a) shall not
adversely affect any right or obligation that existed under
the permit, contract, or other authorization (or an extension
of the permit, contract, or other authorization) on the date
of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1970. A bill to amend chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code,
with respect to the liability of the United States for claims of
military personnel for damages for certain injuries; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
feres doctrine reversal legislation
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill
which will overturn what has come to be known as the ``Feres
doctrine.'' In the 1950 case of Feres v. U.S., the Supreme Court held
that the United States Government is not liable under the Federal Tort
Claims Act for injuries to military personnel where the injuries are
sustained ``incident to service.'' Under the Feres doctrine, therefore,
a soldier would not be able to seek compensation from the government
for injuries sustained due to government negligence unless the soldier
happened to be on leave or furlough at the time he or she sustained the
injuries.
Over the years, we have seen the Feres doctrine produce anomalous
results which reflect neither the will of the Congress nor basic common
sense. For instance, under Feres, a soldier who is the victim of
medical malpractice at an army hospital cannot sue the government for
compensation. Likewise, his family cannot sue for compensation if the
soldier dies from the malpractice. But a civilian who suffers from the
same malpractice would be entitled to file suit against the government.
Likewise, if a soldier driving home from work on an army base is hit by
a negligently driven army truck, he is barred from suing the government
for compensation. If the soldier dies in the accident, his family will
be barred from suing for
[[Page 30619]]
compensation. Meanwhile, a civilian hit by the same truck would have a
cause of action against the United States. Unfortunately, the
individuals hurt by the Feres doctrine are the men and women of our
armed forces--people whom we should protect and reward, not punish.
The recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in O'Neil
v. United States illustrates the troubling results produced by the
Feres doctrine. In O'Neil, the family of slain Naval officer Kerryn
O'Neil was barred from pursuing a wrongful death claim against the
government under the Feres doctrine. O'Neil was murdered by her former
fiance, George Smith, a Navy ensign. The two met at the U.S. Naval
Academy and were stationed at the same Naval base in California. After
Ms. O'Neil broke off their engagement, Mr. Smith began to stalk her.
One night while Ms. O'Neil was sitting in her on-base apartment
watching a movie with a friend, Smith came to her building and killed
her, her friend, and then himself.
After the murders, Kerryn O'Neil's family learned that Mr. Smith had
scored in the 99.99th percentile for aggressive/destructive behavior in
Navy psychological tests. Under Naval procedures, these results should
have been forwarded to the Department of Psychiatry at the Naval
Hospital for a full psychological evaluation. Had their claim not been
barred, the O'Neils would have argued that the Navy was negligent in
failing to follow up on these extreme test results. I do not know
whether the O'Neil's deserved to be compensated under the Act--this
depends on the specific facts and the case law in this area. But it
does seem clear to me that the O'Neils should not have been barred from
pursuing their claim because their daughter's fatal injuries were
sustained ``incident to service.''
Of course, there are situations in which soldiers should not be
allowed to sue the government in tort. For example, in a combat
situation, countless judgment calls are made which result in death or
injuries to soldiers. We cannot have lawyers and juries second guessing
the decisions made by field commanders and combatants in the heat of
battle. But such considerations do not necessitate that military
personnel should lose the right to sue the government in any context.
The bill I introduce today will reverse the court-created Feres
doctrine and return the law to the way it was originally intended by
Congress. My bill is very short and simple. It amends the Federal Tort
Claims Act to specifically provide that the Act applies to military
personnel on active duty the same as it applies to anyone else. My bill
further specifies that military personnel will be limited by the
exceptions to government liability already included in the Act,
including the bar on liability for injuries sustained by military
personnel in combat and the bar on liability for claims which arise in
a foreign country. In short, my bill will ensure that members of our
armed forces will be entitled to damages they deserve when injured
through the negligence or wrongful actions of the Federal government or
its agents, except for certain limited cases contemplated by Congress
when it originally passed the Act.
Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to give the
general consent of the government to be sued in tort, subject to
several specific restrictions. Under the common law doctrine of
sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be sued without such
specific consent. The Act provides that the government will be held
liable ``in the same manner and to the same extent as a private
individual under the circumstances.'' Thus, the Act makes the United
States liable for the torts of its employees and agents to the extent
that private employers are liable under state law for the torts of
their employees and agents.
The Act contains many exceptions to government liability, but it does
not contain an explicit exception for injuries sustained by military
personnel incident to service. In fact, one of the Act's exceptions
prevents ``any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the
military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard during time of war.'' By
including this exception, Congress clearly contemplated the special
case of military personnel and decided that certain limits must be
placed on government liability in this context. But by drawing this
exception narrowly and limiting it to combat situations, Congress
rejected any broad exception for injuries sustained ``incident to
service.'' The Supreme Court did far more than interpret our statute
when it significantly broadened the limited combat exception provided
by Congress. This bill leaves intact the government's exemption for
injuries sustained in combat.
The Feres doctrine has been the subject of harsh criticism by some of
the leading jurists in the nation. In the 1987 case of United States v.
Johnson, a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Feres
doctrine bars suits on behalf of military personnel injured incident to
service even in cases of torts committed by employees of civilian
agencies. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent in Johnson, in which
he was joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens. Scalia wrote
that Feres was ``wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread,
almost universal criticism it has received.''
Judge Edward Becker, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, has also spoken out strongly against the Feres doctrine. He
has noted that ``the scholarly criticism of the doctrine is legion''
and has urged the Supreme Court to grant cert. to reconsider Feres.
Judge Becker has written to me that given the failure of the Court to
overturn Feres thus far, I should introduce legislation doing so.
Even in the Feres opinion itself, the Supreme Court expressed an
uncharacteristic doubt about its decision. The justices recognized that
they may be misinterpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act. They called
upon Congress to correct their mistake if this were the case. The Court
wrote:
There are few guiding materials for our task of statutory
construction. No committee reports or floor debates disclose
what effect the statute was designed to have on the problem
before us, or that it even was in mind. Under these
circumstances, no conclusion can be above challenge, but if
we misinterpret the Act, at least Congress possesses a ready
remedy.
Congress does possess a ready remedy, and I call upon my colleagues
to exercise it. The bill I introduce today will eliminate the
judicially created Feres doctrine and revive the original framework of
the Federal Tort Claims Act. There is no reason to deny compensation to
the men and women of our armed services who are injured or killed in
domestic accidents or violence outside the heat of combat. I hope that
when we resume our business next year my colleagues will join me in
supporting and passing this legislation.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 211
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 211, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the exclusion
for employer-provided educational assistance programs, and for other
purposes.
S. 279
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Frist) was added as a cosponsor of S. 279, a bill to amend title
II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for
individuals who have attained retirement age.
S. 345
At the request of Mr. Allard, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Grams) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) were added as
cosponsors of S. 345, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove
the limitation that permits interstate movement of live birds, for the
purpose of fighting, to States in which animal fighting is lawful.
S. 486
At the request of Mr. Edwards, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 486, a bill to provide for the punishment of methoamphetamine
laboratory operators, provide additional resources
[[Page 30620]]
to combat methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse in the
United States, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Hatch, his name, and the name of the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. Biden) were added as cosponsors of S. 486, supra.
S. 1020
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) 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. 1109
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the names of the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1109, a bill to conserve global bear populations by
prohibiting the importation, exportation, and interstate trade of bear
viscera and items, products, or substances containing, or labeled or
advertised as containing, bear viscera, and for other purposes.
S. 1197
At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1197, a bill to prohibit
the importation of products made with dog or cat fur, to prohibit the
sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution of
products made with dog or cat fur in the United States, and for other
purposes.
S. 1257
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1257, a bill to amend
statutory damages provisions of title 17, United States Code.
S. 1380
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Robb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1380, a bill to provide for a
study of long-term care needs in the 21st century.
S. 1419
At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) were added as cosponsors of S. 1419,
a bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to designate May as
``National Military Appreciation Month.''
S. 1447
At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1447, a bill
to amend the Public Health Service Act, Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for nondiscriminatory coverage for substance abuse treatment service
under private group and individual health coverage.
S. 1500
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1500, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an additional payment
for services provided to certain high-cost individuals under the
prospective payment system for skilled nursing facility services, and
for other purposes.
S. 1590
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1590, a bill to amend
title 49, United States Code, to modify the authority of the Surface
Transportation Board, and for other purposes.
S. 1668
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Moynihan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1668, a bill to amend
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with
respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other
purposes.
S. 1708
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1708, a bill to
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require plans which adopt amendments
that significantly reduce future benefit accruals to provide
participants with adequate notice of the changes made by such
amendments.
S. 1812
At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel), the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan), the Senator from
Maine (Ms. Snowe), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) were added as cosponsors of S. 1812, a
bill to establish a commission on a nuclear testing treaty, and for
other purposes.
S. 1823
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1823, a bill to revise and
extend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994.
S. 1900
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the names of the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), and the
Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as cosponsors of S.
1900, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit to holders of qualified bonds issued by Amtrak, and for other
purposes.
S. 1954
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Frist) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1954, a bill to
establish a compensation program for employees of the Department of
Energy, its contractors, subcontractors, and beryllium vendors, who
sustained beryllium-related illness due to the performance of their
duty; to establish a compensation program for certain workers at the
Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion plant; to establish a pilot
program for examining the possible relationship between workplace
exposure to radiation and hazardous materials and illnesses or health
conditions; and for other purposes.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 53
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 53, a concurrent resolution condemning all prejudice against
individuals of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry in the United States
and supporting political and civic participation by such individuals
throughout the United States.
Senate Resolution 91
At the request of Mr. Nickles, his name was added as a cosponsor of
Senate Resolution 91, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate
that Jim Thorpe should be recognized as the ``Athlete of the Century.''
Senate Resolution 118
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 118, a
resolution designating December 12, 1999, as ``National Children's
Memorial Day.''
Senate Resolution 128
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the names of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Robb) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) were added as
cosponsors of Senate Resolution 128, a resolution designating March
2000, as ``Arts Education Month.''
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 76--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS
REGARDING A PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE STATE OF
CHIAPAS, MEXICO AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations:
S. Con. Res. 76
Whereas the United States and Mexico have a long history of
close relations and share a wide range of interests;
Whereas a democratic, peaceful and prosperous Mexico is of
vital importance to the security of the United States.
Whereas the United States Government provides assistance
and licenses exports of
[[Page 30621]]
military equipment to Mexican security forces for counter-
narcotics purposes;
Whereas the Department of State's 1998 Country Report on
Human Rights Practices in Mexico stated that a ``culture of
impunity pervades the security forces'' and documented human
rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture,
extrajudicial killings, and disappearances, by these forces;
Whereas confrontations in August 1999 between members of
the Mexican military and supporters of the Zapatista National
Liberation Army (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico are representative
of the political tension and violence that has plagued the
region for years;
Whereas the conflict has its roots in the poverty and
injustice suffered by the indigenous people of Chiapas, and
shared by the poor in the neighboring states of Oaxaca and
Guerrero;
Whereas the lack of progress in implementing a preliminary
peace agreement signed in 1996 and the intimidating level of
militarization by the Mexican army, paramilitary groups and
the EZLN has resulted in the forced displacement of thousands
of indigenous people and exacerbated the impoverished
conditions in Chiapas;
Whereas on September 14, 1999, the Commission for Peace and
Reconciliation in Chiapas of the Conference of Mexican
Catholic Bishops urged the Government of Mexico to consider
relocating military forces in Chiapas to only those positions
absolutely necessary to maintaining the integrity and
security of Mexico;
Whereas the Government of Mexico has devoted resources to
reduce poverty in Chiapas, but the breakdown in peace
negotiations and the lack of trust between the Mexican
Government and some indigenous communities have limited the
impact of that assistance;
Whereas on September 7, 1999, the Government of Mexico
pledged to renew dialogue with the EZLN, support the
formation of a new mediation tea, and investigate human
rights abuses in Chiapas;
Whereas the EZLN has not yet accepted the Government of
Mexico's overtures to resume negotiations; and
Whereas the summary expulsions of American citizens and
human rights monitors from Mexico are inconsistent with the
freedoms of movement, association and expression: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of State should--
(1) take effective measures to ensure that United States
assistance and exports of equipment to Mexican security
forces--
(A) are used primarily for counter-narcotics purposes; and
(B) are not provided to units of security forces that have
been implicated in human rights violations, unless the
Government of Mexico is taking effective measures to bring
the individuals responsible to justice;
(2) encourage the EZLN and the Government of Mexico to take
steps to create conditions for good faith negotiations that
address the social, economic and political causes of the
conflict in Chiapas, to achieve a peaceful and lasting
resolution of the conflict, and to vigorously pursue such
negotiations;
(3) commend the Government of Mexico for its renewed
commitment to negotiations and for establishing a date for
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to
visit Mexico to discuss human rights concerns there;
(4) give a higher priority in discussions with the
Government of Mexico to criminal justice reforms that protect
human rights, emphasizing United States concerns about
arbitrary detention, torture, extra judicial killings, and
disappearances, and the failure to prosecute individuals
responsible for these crimes; and
(5) urge the Government of Mexico to implement the
recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, particularly with regard to American citizens and
others who have been summarily expelled from Mexico in
violation of Mexican law and international law.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today submitting a concurrent
resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding measures to
achieve a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the state of Chiapas,
Mexico.
This resolution is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Feinstein,
Jeffords, Torricelli, Murray, Durbin, Wellstone, Feingold, Harkin,
Kerry, Mikulski, and Boxer.
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is introducing an identical resolution
today in the House of Representatives.
The purpose of this resolution is to convey our support for a
peaceful settlement of the conflict in Chiapas that has been simmering
since the Zapatista uprising in 1994. Since then, and despite repeated
attempts at negotiations, the situation remains tense and prospects for
productive dialogue remote. In August, armed confrontations between
members of the Mexican military and Zapatista supporters in Chiapas was
a reminder of the political violence that has plagued the region for
years. I submitted a similar resolution just over a year ago and,
unfortunately, the situation remains largely unchanged.
This resolution does not attempt to take sides or to dictate an
outcome of that conflict. It is not meant to embarrass or interfere in
Mexico's internal affairs. The situation in Chiapas is a complex one
that has social, ethnic, economic and political dimensions. It is a
manifestation of years of Mexican history. It is for the Mexican people
to resolve.
But despite its complexities, there is no doubt that the indigenous
people of Chiapas have been the victims of injustice for centuries.
Most do not own any land and they live--as their parents and
grandparents did--in abject poverty. The 1994 Zapatista uprising, in
which some 150 people died, was a reflection of that injustice and
despair, and the political tension and violence of recent years has
only exacerbated their plight.
To his credit, President Zedillo has devoted considerable financial
resources to address the poverty and lack of basic services in Chiapas.
On September 7, 1999, he pledged to renew dialogue with the Zapatistas
and investigate human rights abuses there. The scheduled November 23rd
visit to Mexico by Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights, is an important and welcome development. I am hopeful
that the Mexican Government will engage in an open dialogue with Ms.
Robinson and that progress can be made on ways to further promote and
protect human rights in Mexico.
Despite these positive steps, however, Mexican officials indicate
that they expect little progress toward resolving the conflict before
the presidential elections in July 2000. This is very disappointing.
While mistrust runs deep on both sides, a great deal can be
accomplished in eight months if the parties to the conflict are willing
to take the steps to create conditions for good faith negotiations to
succeed, and then sit down at the table together.
There is little evidence that the Mexican Government's strategy is
working. Since early 1998, the Zedillo administration has, on the one
hand, lavishly funded social programs in those indigenous communities
in Chiapas that are willing to accept them. On the other hand, Mexican
troops have tightened their grip on the impoverished communities of
Zapatista supporters. They patrol the roads in and out of Chiapas in
armored vehicles, brandishing weapons and establishing military check-
points and bases when it is abundantly clear that neither the
communities, nor the Zapatistas themselves, pose a credible threat to
the Mexican Government. In addition, paramilitary forces, responsible
for some of the worst atrocities, continue to operate in the region.
Human rights monitors, including Mexican citizens, have been
harassed, and foreigners, including American citizens, have been
summarily expelled from Mexico for activities that amount to nothing
more than criticizing the policies of the Mexican Government.
The Zapatistas have also contributed to their isolation. They have
not accepted the Mexican Government's recent overtures to resume
dialogue and seem resigned to wait in their jungle stronghold until
there is a new government before considering a return to talks. Again,
July is a long way away, especially for the Zapatistas' supporters who
struggle every day just to find food and shelter for themselves and
their families. They have suffered long enough.
Mr. President, this resolution calls on our Secretary of State to
encourage the Mexican Government and the Zapatistas to support
negotiations that address the underlying causes of the conflict, to
achieve a lasting peace. It seeks to convey our concern about the
people of Chiapas, and the urgent need for concrete progress to resolve
a conflict that has cost many innocent lives and threatens the economic
and political development of our southern neighbor.
A stable, peaceful and prosperous Mexico is not only in the best
interest
[[Page 30622]]
of all Mexicans, it is also in the economic and security interests of
the United States. And human rights abuses, wherever and however they
occur, deserve our attention.
The resolution urges the Secretary of State to ensure that the United
States is not contributing to the political violence, by reaffirming
current law which limits assistance and exports of equipment only to
Mexican security forces who are primarily involved in counter-narcotics
activities and who do not commit human rights abuses. In order to
ensure that the law is faithfully implemented, the State Department
needs to know who we train and who receives our equipment.
It calls on the Mexican Government to respect the freedoms of
movement, association and expression by implementing the
recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
particularly with regard to American citizens and others who have been
summarily expelled from Mexico in violation of Mexican law and
international law.
And it urges both sides to take initiatives for peace.
Mr. President, some may ask why we are submitting this resolution
today, when this conflict has been simmering for years, It is my hope
that in conjunction with Mary Robinson's visit next week, this
Resolution will send a strong message to the Mexican Government, the
Zapiatislas, our own administration and the international community
that an intensified effort is needed urgently to resolve the conflict
peacefully.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 233--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE
URGENT NEED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO RESOLVE CERTAIN
MONTANA CIVIL RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION CASES
Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Burns) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agrilcuture,
Nutrition, and Forestry:
S. Res. 233
Whereas there exists a strong public policy against
discrimination against minority groups, whether the
discrimination is committed by private individuals or by the
Federal Government in the operation of its programs;
Whereas, whenever discrimination occurs in the conduct of a
Federal Government program, the responsible Federal
Government agency should take quick and aggressive action to
remedy the discrimination;
Whereas, last year, the Department of Agriculture was held
accountable for certain civil rights violations against
United States agricultural producers in connection with their
attempted participation in lending programs of the
Department;
Whereas, a significant number of Montana civil rights
petitioners have not received a timely, and equitable
resolution of their complaints;
Whereas the agricultural community has faced a series of
hardships, including record low prices, extreme weather
disasters, and a shortage of farm loan opportunities;
Whereas additional frustration and financial difficulties
perpetuated by the inadequate review process has further
imposed undue hardship on the Montana civil rights
petitioners;
Whereas the mission of the Office of Civil Rights of the
Department of Agriculture requires the Office to facilitate
the fair and equitable treatment of customers and employees
of the Department while ensuring the delivery and enforcement
of civil rights programs and activities;
Whereas the Department of Agriculture should be committed
to the policy of treating its customers with dignity and
respect as well as to providing high quality and timely
products and services; and
Whereas an urgent need exists for the Department of
Agriculture to resolve certain Montana civil rights
discrimination cases, many backlogged, by a date certain in
furtherance of that policy: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that, not
later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture should
resolve, or take other action to resolve, all cases pending
on the date of approval of this resolution of alleged civil
rights discrimination by the Department of Agriculture
against agricultural producers located in the State of
Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a sense-of-
the-Senate Resolution regarding the urgent need for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to resolve its civil rights discrimination cases. On
behalf of Senator Burns, the bill's cosponsor, and myself, I urge the
Senate to recognize the urgency of this situation.
Mr. President, there exists a strong public policy against
discrimination against minority groups, whether the discrimination is
committed by private individuals or by the Government in the operation
of its programs, and it is our firmly held belief that whenever
discrimination occurs in the conduct of Government programs, the
responsible Government agencies should take quick and aggressive action
to remedy such discrimination.
I am most concerned that over the past year, such action has not been
taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Civil Rights.
In fact, many Montana civil rights cases that my office and that of
Senator's Burns have been working with are seriously backlogged in the
system and have consequently remained unsatisfactorily addressed.
We have worked hard with the Montana Department of Agriculture's Farm
Agency to resolve these cases. The Director of the FSA and the State
FSA Committee has worked hard to resolve any outstanding problems
concerning its programs and have made certain that these kinds of
problems to not occur in Montana. I commend their outreach efforts in
ensuring the equitable delivery of the Agency's programs to all
eligible Montana recipients.
We need a better working relationship with the USDA's Office of Civil
Rights to bring the outstanding cases to resolution in a timely manner.
Repeated phone calls and requests have yielded few answers. For that
reason, I am offering this resolution which binds the agency to its
mission of facilitating the fair and equitable treatment of USDA
customers and employees while ensuring the delivery and enforcement of
civil rights programs and activities. Further we hope to commit the
USDA to treating its customers with dignity and respect as well as to
providing quality and timely products and services. Finally, the
resolution resolves that not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary
should resolve all the outstanding cases of alleged civil rights
discrimination by the Department of Agriculture.
It is high time to bring this issue to resolution, and I appreciate
the Senate's consideration of this important matter.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined by Mr.
Baucus, in sponsoring a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which addresses
the backlog of Montana civil rights complaints at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA).
Last year, a finding was made that the USDA had, for decades, been
guilty of violating many of America's producer's civil rights. When
these producers tried to take advantage of the programs offered by the
USDA they were treated differently than their friends and neighbors. We
enacted Legislation last fall, that was intended to right this wrong.
Even with passage of this provision, it remains a difficult challenge
to ensure that those who have been harmed by USDA will receive a prompt
and balanced resolution of their complaints.
It appears that a number of those previously investigated complaints
have fallen into some sort of ``black hole''. Despite numerous phone
calls and concerted pressure, no progress has been made in resolving
these cases. We have been contacted by a number of Montanans who have
shared horror stories about the treatment their cases have received
from the USDA's Office of Civil Rights. These complaints are simply
being ignored. The inadequacy of this process is adding insult to
injury, keeping these producers in limbo and allowing their complaints
to rest, unresolved. These constituents cannot get on with their lives
until the USDA takes action. For those who have justified complaints,
this delay is another slap in the face.
This resolution expreses the sense of the Senate that USDA's delays
must stop. These cases must be resolved soon. It is our intent that
they be resolved by March 1, 2000. These producers has suffered too
much already. They cannot afford to wait any longer.
We look forward to working with members of other states affected by
[[Page 30623]]
this abuse of the civil rights program to resolve these complaints as
quickly a possible.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
______
FURTHER CONTINUING RESOLUTION, 2000
______
BYRD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2780
Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bunning,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
Gramm, and Mr. Grams) proposed an amendment to the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 82) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 2000, and for other purposes, as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any regulation or court ruling), hereafter--
(1) in rendering permit decisions for discharges of excess
spoil and coal mine waste into waters of the United States
from surface coal mining and reclamation operations, the
permitting authority shall apply section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and the section
404(b)(1) guidelines pursuant to section 404(b)(1) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(b)(1))
and implementing regulations set forth in part 230 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on October 19,
1999);
(2) the permitted disposal of such spoil or waste meeting
the requirements of the section 404(b)(1) guidelines referred
to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to satisfy the criteria
for granting a variance under regulations set forth in
sections 816.57 and 817.57 of title 30, Code of Federal
Regulations, and applicable State regulations; and
(3) Federal and State water quality standards shall not
apply to the portions of waters filled by discharges
permitted pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraphs
(1) and (2); all applicable Federal and State water quality
standards shall apply to all portions of waters other than
those filled pursuant to the permitting procedures set forth
in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Duration of Effectiveness.--The permitting procedures
specified in subsection (a) shall remain in effect until the
later of--
(1) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(2) the effective date of regulations promulgated to
implement recommendations made as a result of the
environmental impact statement relating to the permitting
process, the preparation of which was announced at 64 Fed.
Reg. 5800 (February 5, 1999).
(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section modifies,
supersedes, undermines, displaces, or amends any requirement
of, or regulation issued under, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'') (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), as applied
by the responsible Federal agencies on October 19, 1999.
(d) Period of Effectiveness.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law repealing or terminating the effectiveness
of this Act, this section shall remain in effect until the
date of termination of the effectiveness of the permitting
procedures in accordance with subsection (b).
SEC. __. HARDROCK MINING.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of section 1000(a)(3) of
division B of the Act enacting H.R. 3194 of the 106th
Congress, in lieu of section 357 of title III of H.R. 3423 of
the 106th Congress, as introduced on November 17, 1999,
regarding the issuance of regulations on hardrock mining, the
following shall apply:
(1) Hardrock mining.--None of the funds made available
under this Act or any other Act shall be used by the
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate final regulations to
revise subpart 3809 of 43, Code of Federal Regulations,
except that the Secretary, after the end of the public
comment period required by section 3002 of the 1999 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31; 113 Stat.
89), may issue final regulations to amend that subpart if the
regulations are consistent with--
(A) the regulatory gap findings identified in the report of
the National Research Council entitled ``Hardrock Mining on
Federal Lands''; and
(B) statutory authorities in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this section expands the
statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior in
effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Period of Effectiveness.--This section--
(1) takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of the
Act enacting H.R. 3194 referred to in subsection (a); and
(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law repealing or
terminating the effectiveness of this Act, shall remain in
effect unless repealed by Act of Congress that makes specific
reference to this section.
SEC. __. MILLSITES.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of section 1000(a)(3) of
division B of the Act enacting H.R. 3194 of the 106th
Congress, in lieu of section 337 of title III of H.R. 3423 of
the 106th Congress, as introduced on November 17, 1999,
regarding the millsites opinion, the following shall apply:
(1) Millsites opinion.--No funds shall be expended by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture,
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, to limit the number or
acreage of millsites based on the ratio between the number or
acreage of millsites and the number or acreage of associated
lode or placer claims with respect to--
(A) any patent application excluded from the operation of
section 112 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, by section 113 of that Act
(108 Stat. 2519);
(B) any operation or property for which a plan of
operations has been approved before the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(C) any operation or property for which a plan of
operations, or amendment or modification to an existing plan,
was submitted to the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest
Service before May 21, 1999.
(2) No ratification.--Nothing in this Act or the 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31)
shall be construed as an explicit or tacit adoption,
ratification, endorsement, approval, rejection, or
disapproval of the opinion dated November 7, 1997, by the
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior concerning
millsites.
(b) Period of Effectiveness.--This section--
(1) takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of the
Act enacting H.R. 3194 referred to in subsection (a); and
(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law repealing or
terminating the effectiveness of this Act, shall remain in
effect unless repealed by Act of Congress that makes specific
reference to this section.
______
HELMS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2781
Mr. LOTT (for Mr. Helms (for himself, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Robb))
proposed an amendment to the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 82, supra; as
follows:
At the appropriate place insert:
commodity credit corporation producer-owned marketing associations
forgiveness
Sec. 1. The Secretary of Agriculture shall reduce the
amount of any principal due on a loan made to marketing
association incorporated in the State of North Carolina for
the 1999 crop of an agricultural commodity by at least 75
percent if the marketing association suffered losses of the
agricultural commodity in a county with respect to which--(1)
a natural disaster was declared by the Secretary for losses
due to Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene; or (2) a major
disaster or emergency was declared by the President for
losses due to Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)
If the Secretary assigns a grade quality for the 1999 crop
of an agricultural commodity marketed by an association
described in subsection (a) that is below the base quality of
the agricultural commodity, the Secretary shall compensate
the association for losses incurred by the association as a
result of the reduction in grade quality.
Up to $81,000,000 of the resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation may be used for the cost of this provision:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) and prevent sequestration of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Sec. 2. In administering $50,000,000 in emergency
supplemental funding for the Emergency Conservation Program,
the Secretary shall give priority to the repair of structures
essential to the operation of the farm.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO GRAHAM STILES NEWELL
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to
stand before the Senate today and pay tribute to a man who has greatly
influenced the cultural maturity of my home state of Vermont. Graham
Stiles Newell will be honored as Citizen of the Year by the Vermont
Chamber of Commerce on December 4, 1999. Graham has made extraordinary
contributions to Vermont
[[Page 30624]]
in many areas throughout his life. And he has made his biggest
contributions in one area in which I have spent a great deal of
legislative energy--education.
Graham Newell probably learned to read before he learned to walk. I
understand that he first secured a library card at the Saint Johnsbury
Atheneum when he was in the first grade. Since then, he has been
passing on his knowledge to anyone willing to learn, and that number is
larger than you can imagine. After graduating from the University of
Chicago in 1938, he launched an incredible career in education, one
that touched three generations of many Vermont families.
Graham has been a leader in Vermont education in both the
professional and legislative arenas. In the last seven decades he has
been a teacher at the Junior High, High School, and College level, and
will undoubtably keep teaching well into the next millennium. Graham
began his teaching career at his alma mater, Saint Johnsbury Academy,
in 1938, and remained on the faculty for nine years. From 1945 to 1982
he taught history at Lyndon State College full-time. After ``retiring''
in 1982, he returned to the Academy to teach Latin, where you will
still find him today. He also continued to teach one or two history
classes a semester at Lyndon State College until 1996.
Most people consider Latin a dead language, but if you were to enter
Graham's classroom today you would find it to be as alive and enjoyable
as ever. A testament to Graham's teaching skills was demonstrated at
the Academy in 1997, when 47 of his 52 Latin students, over 90 percent,
made honors on the National Latin Exam, an extremely challenging test
taken by over 90,000 students across the United States.
Graham's contributions to education do not end in the classroom.
While teaching, he also served in the Vermont Legislature for over 25
years. He was a member and chair of the Vermont Senate Education
Committee during the 1960s, helping to create Vermont's education laws.
Indeed, the self proclaimed Ambassador of the Northeast Kingdom has
positively affected every single student in the state of Vermont over
the last 30 years. In fact, his influence has even reached students
outside of Vermont, due to his tenure on the New England Board of
Higher Education. But Graham always remained supremely faithful to the
students in his classroom, once even teaching class over the phone from
the Vermont Statehouse.
One can look at Graham's education accomplishments alone and see a
lifetime of work and success. However, his influence has touched many
in other fields as well. As President of the Vermont Historical Society
from 1965 to 1969, his many successes included securing a permanent
home for the organization in the historic Pavilion Office Building in
Montpelier. He has also served on a number of commissions, including
the Commission on Interstate Cooperation, the Historic Sites
Commission, the Commission to Study State Government (or ``Little
Hoover'' as we called it), the Vermont Civil War Centennial Commission,
the board of managers of the Council of State Governments, and the
Education Commission of the States. In addition, the thousands of
people who check into the Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital each
year should be thankful to Graham as he is largely responsible for its
existence. I could go on, but I'm afraid it would take the remainder of
this session of congress to do so.
I am thankful for the opportunity to provide my colleagues with a
shining example of a real Vermont renaissance man. I join countless
Vermonters in offering my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to
Graham Stiles Newell for his many years of hard work and dedication to
the citizens of Vermont.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BARB RABE
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of
Barb Rabe, who retired after 29 years of service in the Oshkosh School
District. She began her career in the Oshkosh School District in 1970
at the Perry Tipler Middle School as a Teachers Assistant, and then
transferred to Oakwood Elementary School where she served for the next
27 years. During her years of service, Barb worked for six principals,
adapting to each new principal's style, and was always actively
involved as the staff grew from 12 to 42 and the student population
grew from 200 to 500. She worked hard at creating partnerships with
staff, students and families that would foster collaboration,
cooperation and allegiance. Barb's strong work ethic, energy and
enthusiasm will be missed.
While mastering the key elements of organization and flexibility,
giving of her time and talent in serving the faculty and students of
Oakwood School, and showing love and appreciation for students, she
also came up with new ideas to adapt to the changing work environment.
She developed the computerized milk and lunch money collection program
at the school, which helped the school collect money more efficiently
and thoroughly. She also purchased her own computer years before the
school purchased them and took her work home to complete it in an
organized fashion. When Oakwood School became computerized, she played
an instrumental role in the conversion process. The students and staff
of Oakwood will miss her professional and positive demeanor, although
her husband of 45 years, Gordon, and their three sons and their
families, will enjoy spending more time with her. Barb will be sorely
missed by the entire Oakwood Elementary School community, however I
extend my best wishes for a healthy, enriched and rewarding
retirement.
____________________
30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL PRINTING FACILITY OF THE
JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this year marks the 30th
anniversary of the San Diego Regional Printing Facility of the John H.
Harland Company.
The John H. Harland Company was founded in 1923, and is the second
largest check printer in the United States.
The John H. Harland Company opened its doors in California in 1969.
Today, the San Diego Regional Printing Facility employs 249 employees
and fills 98,900 orders per week. The jobs this facility has brought to
our state throughout the years have been of great benefit to
California.
I offer my congratulations to the John H. Harland Company and its
employees on the occasion of its 30th Anniversary and wish it great,
continued success in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. MICHAEL J. NAPLES
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to
Mr. Michael J. Naples. ``Napes,'' as he is affectionately called by all
who know him, is retiring after 29 years of teaching at Ocean City High
School in New Jersey. He has earned great respect from students and
peers alike. Each year the students Mr. Naples' taught and the athletes
he coached attest to his dedication to excellence.
Although his first commitment was to education, his enthusiasm for
cross-country and track leave an enduring legacy at Ocean City High
School. Mr. Naples' cross-country record over the last 21 years is 209
victories and 28 losses. His track record is 133 wins and only 8
losses. During his tenure as a track coach, Mr. Naples led the Raiders
to two state titles and coached 9 individual state champions.
His greatest moment as a coach came during the 1989 cross-country
season, when he inspired his girls' team to capture the first state
title for an Ocean City High School team in 24 years!
Mr. President, it is often difficult to say goodbye to a teacher who
has touched the lives of so many people. This is a teacher whose former
students are continually coming back to thank him for inspiring them,
educating them and, most importantly, caring about them. My deepest
respects go to this inductee of the New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic
Association
[[Page 30625]]
Hall of Fame. He has left a lasting legacy of high academic standards
and excellence in sports.
____________________
NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH HONORS WEST VIRGINIA ADOPTION ANGELS
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor three
West Virginia individuals who have recently been awarded ``Adoption
Angel'' awards by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. Larry and
Jane Leech and Judge Gary Johnson are truly ``angels'' in adoption.
President Clinton recently proclaimed November ``National Adoption
Month''. It is a good time to re-commit ourselves to doing all we can
to ensure that all children have the opportunity to grow up in safe,
stable and permanent homes.
During Adoption Month in 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, a
bill I sponsored, was signed into law. This act, for the first time
ever, made children's safety, health and opportunity for loving, stable
families the paramount factors to consider when planning for children
in foster care. The act provided incentive bonuses for states
successful in increasing adoptions.
My state of West Virginia has made a lot of progress in moving kids
out of foster care and into permanent homes. When the adoption bonuses
for 1999 were announced, I was proud that West Virginia, because three
of our state's children. Brian, Shawn and Sarah Keane, had the honor of
introducing President Clinton the day the bonuses were announced. The 3
Keane children along with 208 more West Virginia foster children moved
in with their adoptive families in 1998.
Our State is working hard to increase public awareness of adoption
and children needing homes. A quarterly newsletter, ``Open Your Heart,
Open Your Home'' features stories of waiting children and successful
adoptive families. In May, Dave Thomas came to West Virginia for the
third annual Foster and Adoptive Parent Recognition Day, to recognize
adoptive parents who provide homes for children with special needs.
We have been able to make this progress largely as a result of the
efforts of the individuals who were honored by the Congressional
Coalition on Adoption, and other dedicated and hard-working West
Virginians like them. Let me tell you a little about these ``angels''.
Larry and Jane Leech have been foster parents for many years, opening
their home and their hearts to children in need of both. Working with
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, the Leeches
adopted a sibling group of three young boys, twins age 4 and an older
brother, age 6, in 1998. Now, a year later, the Leeches are again in
the final stages of adopting another sibling group--this time, three
older girls. Mr. and Mrs. Leech also have three biological children.
They have a tremendous amount of love and a strong commitment to all
nine of their children. Recently, the Leeches and their children
visited the West Virginia Governor's mansion where they were honored by
First Lady Hovah Underwood, for their commitment to children in need.
Judge Gary Johnson believes that all children in the foster care
system deserve permanent homes. As the 28th Judicial circuit judge,
elected in 1992, Judge Johnson has worked closely with the West
Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. He meets with them
quarterly to review problems or identify issues that prevent children
in West Virginia from achieving permanence in their lives. Judge
Johnson continually increases his own knowledge of the issues by
attending conferences on child welfare.
The progress we have made since the passage of the 1997 Adoption Act
is significant. Certainly the 211 West Virginia children who found
families last year, including the six children who now call Larry and
Jane Leech ``Mom'' and ``Dad'' know that. But over 400 West Virginia
children are still waiting and hoping to be adopted--over 100,000
children in our nation are still waiting and hoping to be adopted. Too
many of these chilldren are growing up in the insecurity of foster
care. Too many of them are becoming teenagers without a permanent
family.
And that is why we need ``National Adoption Month''. We need
opportunities to honor the angels in adoption like the Leeches and
Judge Johnson. And we need the opportunity to publicly re-new our
commitment to ensuring that all children have the opportunity for
permanent adoptive homes.
I am pleased to join the other members of the Congressional Coalition
on Adoption in honoring more than 50 ``Angels of Adoption'' from around
the country. I am doubly pleased that 3 of these angels are from West
Virginia. And I pledge to continue to work on legislation that will
help all of West Virginia's, and America's foster children have the
opportunity that the Leech children now have, the chance to grow up in
a permanent, loving family.
I urge my colleagues to dedicate themselves to this effort as
well.
____________________
JEWISH HISTORY IN GREECE
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in recent years there has been
renewed interest in the early history of the Jewish community in
Greece. The Hellenic and Jewish peoples have had a long and
constructive relationship, and that interaction has been one of the
foundations of Western civilization.
An important part of this historical movement is the renewed research
on historic Jewish sites in Greece. There is now an active and
impressive Jewish museum in Athens which has served as a focal point
for this activity. These efforts have spawned a number of individuals
to do their own family and group research; and I am pleased to report
that one of my constituents, Dr. Judith Mazza, has written an excellent
account of her visit to Greece entitled, ``First-time Traveler's
Impressions of Jewish Sites in Greece,'' which was published in the
spring 1999 issue of Kol haKEHILA. Dr. Mazza is descended from a
Romaniote Jewish family from Greece, and her article depicts succinctly
the rich and enduring Jewish cultural and religious legacy in Greece. I
recommend it to all those interested in the history of the Jewish
people and ask that the article be inserted at this point in the
Record.
The article follows:
[From Kol haKEHILA, Spring 1999]
A First-Time Traveler's Impressions of Jewish Sites in Greece
(By Dr. Judith Mazza)
I first saw mention of the Jewish Museum of Greece, located
in Athens, about twenty years ago. Curious about my family
history, I joined the Museum as an ``American Friend.'' Upon
joining, I received a letter from the founder (now Director
Emeritus) of the museum, Nicholas Stavroulakis, concerning my
family name (Mazza, Matsas, Matza, etc). I learned from that
letter that my family most probably was a Romaniote family
rather than a Sephardi family. I then understood why my
father's family never spoke Ladino (judaeo-espanol). My
father, born in the United States, spoke Greek at home, as
did his parents (who emigrated to the United States in the
early 1900s from Ionnina and Corfu).
My husband and I were curious to visit Jewish sites in
Greece. My interest had been stimulated by the book Jewish
Sites and Synagogues of Greece (Athens, 1992) by Stavroulakis
and Timothy DeVinney. Prior to reading this book, I knew
little about the communities that had existed in Greece prior
to World War II. I did not have the opportunity to travel to
Greece until November 1998. As soon as I knew I would be in
Athens, I attempted to contact the Jewish Museum of Greece.
Kol haKEHILA, was the first internet source to give me a way
to contact the museum by e-mail.
By e-mail, I asked the museum's curator, Zanet Battinou, to
help find us a knowledgeable guide for our day in Athens. She
recommended Dolly Asser. In addition to visiting ancient
sites in Athens that day, Ms. Asser also took us to the
Jewish Museum of Greece, and to the two modern synagogues in
Athens.
athens
We began our day at the Museum. It had recently relocated
and now occupies an entire building in the Plaka
neighborhood. The museum has a number of floors, each with a
different focus. As a first-time visitor, I found it
interesting to see historic artifacts, documents, clothing
and a wide variety of religious and domestic objects. There
is a research library on the top floor. School children
arrived as we were leaving, so apparently a visit to the
Jewish Museum of Greece has become a part of the public
school curriculum.
[[Page 30626]]
After we left the museum, we visited the two synagogues.
They are located on Melidoni Street, immediately across the
street from one another. The street is gated and guarded by
an armed policeman as a precaution against potential
terrorist incidents.
We first went to the Beth Shalom synagogue, which is the
only actively used synagogue for the 3,500 Jews in Athens
today. Ms. Asser introduced us to Rabbi Jacob Arar, who
studied in France and Israel, inasmuch as there are no
rabbinical schools in Greece. The outside of the building has
simple lines and is faced in white marble. The interior of
the synagogue is mostly wood paneled and has a warm and
comfortable feeling.
Directly across the street is the Ianniotiki synagogue,
which had been built by Romaniote Jews from Ionnina. It is
located on the second floor of the building. The lower floor
houses the Athens Jewish community offices. We obtained the
key to the synagogue from the office staff and walked through
a hallway into a courtyard. The courtyard was fully paved
except for a small area from which one large palm tree grew.
We walked up the narrow exterior stairs to a walkway, and
unlocked the door. This synagogue was smaller and seemed
older than the synagogue across the street. We later learned
that it is mostly used for special occasions. It is elegant
in its simplicity.
rhodes
We had the opportunity to see one other Jewish site in
Greece when we stopped in Rhodes a few days later. We had
seen a website for the Jewish Museum of Rhodes before our
travels began at www.RhodesJewishMuseum.org. We sought out
the island's synagogue and adjacent museum. Finding the
street in the old walled city of Rhodes was not too
difficult, as it was clearly labeled and the synagogue is
noted on tourist maps. As we walked toward the synagogue and
museum, we knew that we were in what had once been the Jewish
quarter of the city. We could see Hebrew inscriptions above
some of the doorways, signifying houses built by prominent
Jewish families. However, many of these buildings appeared to
be in a state of disrepair. Unfortunately, we had no
information about the buildings and knew virtually nothing
about the Jewish community that once existed here.
As we walked, we could see through iron gates, that some
buildings had interior courtyards with interesting floor
patterns formed by smooth black and white stones. In some
courtyards, the stone patterns were intact, while in others
the patterns were quite deteriorated.
We could not find the synagogue itself, but luckily, we
asked directions from an elderly woman. Lucia Modiano Sulam
turned out to be the keeper of the synagogue and was kind
enough to guide us to it. She was a Holocaust survivor, with
tattooed numbers on her forearm.
We were quite unprepared for what we found when we entered
Kahal Shalom synagogue. The synagogue, in very good
condition, was more elaborate than the synagogues we had seen
in Athens. Crystal chandeliers hung from the ceiling.
Beautiful carpets lay on the floor. The mosaic floor inside
was made of the same black and white smooth stones that we
had seen elsewhere. Here, the stones were arranged in more
elaborate patterns. Chairs were placed on the two long sides
of the interior and the wooden bimah was in the middle of the
room.
Just outside the synagogue entrance is a courtyard which
has a stone mosaic floor. It is well preserved.
We also visited the Jewish Museum of Rhodes, located next
to the synagogue. This is a new museum in its first stage of
development. Aron Hasson, a Los Angeles attorney whose family
came from Rhodes, founded it. The museum currently consists
of one room with white rustic walls and a curved ceiling.
When we were there, the museum exhibition consisted of
photographs and other printed materials.
Tourism to Jewish sites in Greece
We knew that the Jewish population in Greece had been
decimated by the Holocaust, and that only remmants of that
once-thriving community remains there. However, as a traveler
and tourist, I have been stuck by the difficulty in obtaining
information about Jewish sites and Jewish history of Greece.
I do not understand why one organization or resource does not
reference another. Organizations that have websites or access
to the Internet should have hypertext links to other Greek
Jewish organizations, including e-mail links to facilities
that may not yet have a website.
There should be a list of bibliographic references about
Greek Jewry and Jewish tourist sites in Greece. When we were
in the Jewish Museum of Greece shop in Athens, I was stunned
to find an English language book about the Jews of Ionnina
(Dalven, R., The Jews of Ioannina, Philadelphia, 1992). I
purchased the book immediately! Likewise, it was through word
of mouth from both Yitzhak Kerem (publisher of the electronic
newsletter Sefarad) and Elias Messinas (editor of Kol
haKEHILA) that I learned of the fascinating book written by
Dr. Michael Matsas entitled The Illusion of Safety; The story
of the Greek Jews During the Second World War (New York,
1997). In reading these books and in speaking with both
Messinas and Kerem whom I recently met in Jerusalem, I
understand that the Greek Jews, unlike Jews in some other
parts of Europe, had ample opportunity to flee or hide from
the Nazis. In instance after instance the warnings of the
catastrophic consequences of not fleeing or hiding were not
disseminated, or the seriousness of the situation was
minimized. The communication among the communities was poor.
When we visited Rhodes, we stood on its acropolis and
clearly saw the Turkish coast only 11 miles away. It was
difficult to come to terms with the complacency of the Jewish
population of Rhodes in 1944 that resulted in their
slaughter. They were among the last Greek Jews to be sent to
Auschwitz. By 1944, other communities in Greece had already
been eliminated. Safety lay only eleven miles away. The Jews
of the city of Rhodes did not even flee to the island's
countryside. Perhaps a reader can explain this puzzling
apparent fact.
The lesson today seems clear. To preserve the remnants of
the Greek Jewish heritage, various interested organizations
should cooperate with the another. They should use electronic
hypertext links to cross-reference one another whenever
possible. The Jewish Museum of Greece in Athens should have
information about Jewish sites throughout Greece, including
other museums, such as the one in Rhodes. Likewise, the
Jewish Museum of Rhodes should link to as many Jewish sites
throughout Greece as possible. Books, bibliographies and
brochures about Jewish sites throughout Greece should be made
available at each of the sites and at Tourist Offices. Never
again should the Jewish community of Greece be weakened by
poor communication among various components. Certainly, not
in this age of electronic communications and the Internet.
There are some dedicated people working in disparate
organizations to preserve and memorialize Greek Jewish sites
and culture. Now they need to recognize the gestalt effect
that would result from closer cooperation.
We came away from our experience wanting to learn more
about the various communities that only existed in the past,
and also those which continue to survive. We hope that others
will become interested in exploring and preserving Jewish
heritage in Greece. The best way to do this and to attract
Jewish tourists is to make information about Jewish sites
more readily available. We hope that the various
organizations and interested parties will work together to
that end.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE FOURTH BIRTHDAY OF THE PROVIDENCE GAY MEN'S
CHORUS
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Providence Gay Men's Chorus, which celebrated its fourth anniversary on
November 14, 1999. I would like to thank the Chorus for its four years
of community involvement, during which time the members have shared not
only their melodious voices with the citizens of Rhode Island, but also
their hopes and ambitions for a better world.
The Providence Gay Men's Chorus, which began in 1995 as a group of
eight, now has 50 members. In addition to their musical talent, one of
the attributes that is most unique about the Chorus, and most
appreciated, is the group's mission to promote tolerance. As we know,
the real work of fostering support for people with diverse backgrounds
and lifestyles usually happens slowly, and within the context of shared
activities and community. The Providence Gay Men's Chorus reaches out
with its concerts to expand the bounds of community. By helping to
create an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, their work
benefits not only the citizens of Rhode Island, but ultimately the
entire nation.
I am pleased to make it known that November 14, 1999 was not only the
fourth anniversary of the Chorus, but also was declared Providence Gay
Men's Chorus Day in the State of Rhode Island. Mr. President, I ask
that a gubernatorial proclamation from the Governor of my home state of
Rhode Island proclaiming November 14th as ``Providence Gay Men's Chorus
Day'' be printed in the Congressional Record.
I join in the chorus of voices supporting the Providence Gay Men's
Chorus' dual mission of creating beautiful music and promoting mutual
respect and understanding. I know this talented musical group will
continue its good work and I wish them many, many more birthdays.
The proclamation follows:
[[Page 30627]]
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations--Gubernatorial
Proclamation
Whereas, the Providence Gay Men's Chorus was first
conceived in a karaoke bar in Providence in October 1995. The
first meeting of its original eight members from Rhode Island
and Massachusetts was held in November 1995, in a home in
Pawtucket. The name Providence Gay Men's Chorus (PGMC) was
decided on after some deliberation and the group was then
underway with a music director and an accompanist; and,
Whereas, the mission of the PGMC is to provide and foster
continuing growth of men's voices. Through the sharing of
song concerts, the PGMC hopes to foster mutual understanding,
tolerance and support of people with diverse backgrounds and
lifestyles; and,
Whereas, the membership started to blossom during the first
year and moved to St. James Episcopal Church in North
Providence. During this year, the first board was also formed
and the first concert was held in Warcham, Massachusetts with
12 members; and,
Whereas, the chorus kept growing and moved again. This time
to the Bell Street Chapel in Providence, where the now 35-
member chorus was performing two seasons per year with three
concerts per season. It was at the Bell Street Chapel that
the PGMC achieved their first sell out audience; and,
Whereas, as membership approached 40 members, the chorus
moved once again to the First Unitarian Church in Providence.
During this time, the PGMC joined the national choral
organization for gay and lesbians called GALA and received
its first corporate sponsorship; and,
Whereas, the chorus is now approaching its fourth birthday,
has a membership of 50 and is back at the Bell Street Chapel.
The members will be performing series of concerts in
November, singing at First Night 2000, and initiating a
scholarship program. Future plans for the chorus are to bring
a program to the Hasbro's Children's Hospital, perform to
mainstream audiences throughout the city and state, and
attend the national GALA conferences; and,
Whereas, on November 14, 1999 the chorus will hold a
concert at the Newport Congregational Church, under the
direction of Charles Pietrello and the accompaniment of Bruce
Ruby;
Now, therefore, I, Lincoln Almond, Governor of the State of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do hereby proclaim
November 14, 1999, as Providence Gay Men's Chorus
Day.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM AND OLENE DOYLE
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to stand before my
colleagues today and pay tribute to a couple who have so positively
influenced the people of Washington County, Vermont over the course of
their lives. William and Olene Doyle will be honored as the Washington
County Citizens of the Year by the Green Mountain Council of Boy Scouts
on November 22nd, 1999.
My old friend Bill Doyle has navigated a well rounded career as a
teacher, politician, and author. Since 1958, he has been teaching
history and government at Johnson State College. In 1968, he was
elected to serve as one of Washington County's three State Senators, a
role in which he has thrived for over three decades. As a skilled
teacher and a master of parliamentary rules, Bill has been an
invaluable mentor and mediator in the Vermont State House. Bill has
written two books, including The Vermont Political Tradition, which is
regarded by many to be a ``must read'' on Vermont political history. He
has also taken his passion for government and politics and created the
annual ``Doyle Poll,'' our yearly gauge of public opinion on the
hottest and sometimes most controversial issues facing Vermonters.
While admittedly unscientific, the poll's results are soundly
reflective of Vermont sentiment.
As the son of an art teacher, I have always held a deep respect for
the arts and for those who are able to inspire creativity in our
nation's young people. Olene Doyle has taught art in elementary,
secondary, and higher education institutions in the central Vermont
region. Her dedication to arts and education led her to volunteer
positions on the local school board in Montpelier, as well as on the
board of the Wood Art Gallery, where, incidently, I now hold the annual
Congressional Arts Competition.
Bill and Olene raised three wonderful children. However, they have
never stopped teaching as evidenced by their ongoing community service
and involvement in their local church and non-profit organizations.
Given the countless hours they dedicate to community service, it is
noteworthy that the couple finds the time to pursue personal hobbies
such as golf and gardening. And while I have never had the privilege of
seeing the Doyle gardens, I have been told they are a vibrant
reflection of the dedication which Bill and Olene give to everything
they do.
I am thankful for the opportunity to express my heartfelt praise. I
can think of few couples more worthy of this award. Years of
partnership and devotion to each other have inevitably spilled over
into the Vermont community, where Bill and Olene have truly made their
mark as two of Vermont's most influential and giving people.
____________________
BRETT WAGNER ON RUSSIAN NUCLEAR MATERIALS
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is important that we remember
how vital our nuclear nonproliferation programs with Russia are to our
national security. That's why I was pleased, in recent weeks, to see
two articles by Brett Wagner in the San Francisco chronicle and in the
Wall Street Journal, which I would like to submit for the Record.
Mr. Wagner is the president of the California Center for Strategic
Studies, and his articles bring much needed attention to an essential
aspect of our nuclear nonproliferation policy--to ensure that Russian
weapons-grade, highly-enriched uranium does not fall into the wrong
hands. We need to live up to our agreement with Russia and strengthen
our nuclear, chemical and biological nonproliferation program with that
nation. Our future could well depend on it.
I believe that Mr. Wagner's articles will be of interest to all of us
in Congress who care about these issues, and I ask that they be printed
in the Record.
The articles follow.
[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22, 1999]
U.S. Must Move Quickly To Buy Russia's Excess Nukes
(By Brett Wagner)
Without a doubt, what's been most frustrating about being a
national security specialist in the 1990s has been urging
that the United States buy the hundreds of tons of
undersecured excess weapon-grade uranium scattered across
Russia--only to repeatedly hear in response that this could
never happen in the real world because of Washington's never-
ending struggle to balance the federal budget.
My, how things change.
Today, Washington is awash in an unprecedented trillion-
dollar budget surplus--a surplus expected to surpass $100
billion in the next fiscal year alone.
Politicians from both major parties are busy, of course,
debating what to do with all the extra money. Unfortunately,
neither party has even mentioned Russia's offer to sell its
enormous stockpiles of excess weapon-grade uranium to the
United States as quickly as possible in exchange for badly
needed hard currency.
Congressional and presidential priorities aside, it's hard
to imagine a better time to reconsider this issue.
By now, almost everyone who reads the newspaper or watches
the evening news knows that Russia has yet to develop any
reliable means of securing its enormous stockpiles of weapon-
grade uranium and plutonium. It doesn't even have an
accounting system capable of keeping track of them.
And as the media often remind us, these materials have
already begun leaking into the West--troubling news, to say
the least, considering that:
The blueprints and non-nuclear components necessary to
build crude but highly effective nuclear weapons are already
widely available;
It only takes 20 or 30 pounds of highly enriched uranium to
arm a device capable of leveling a city the size of downtown
Washington;
Rogue states and terrorist groups openly hostile to the
United States have already attempted several times to
purchase nuclear warheads or material from Russian nuclear
workers;
There is no reliable way of keeping a nuclear weapon or
contraband from being smuggled into U.S. territory if it ever
does fall into the wrong hands.
What most people don't seem to remember, however, is that
for several years now Russia has been trying to sell these
same undersecured stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to
the United States for use as nuclear fuel in commercial power
plants and, what's more, that an agreement designed to help
further this goal was signed by President Clinton and Russian
leader Doris Yeltsin in February 1993.
[[Page 30628]]
Unfortunately, that agreement is a full year behind
schedule, with shipments from 1993 through 1999 representing
only 80 tons of highly enriched uranium--30 tons short of the
minimum goal by the end of its seventh year in force.
Moreover, even if the agreement were moving ahead at full
speed, it would still cover only a fraction of Russia's
excess weapon-grade uranium (500 of 1,200 tons), and none of
its plutonium. A frustrated Russia can't understand why
America wants to move so slowly.
Meanwhile, terrorism is spiraling out of control in and
around Moscow, war is breaking out again in the Caucus and
the nuclear materials from thousands of dismantled Russian
warheads continue to pile up in poorly protected makeshift
warehouses scattered across several time zones, many of them
far from the central government's watchful eye.
All of which begs the question: How long can things go on
this way, before we run out of luck? Or, in other words, how
long can Russia's hundreds of tons of missile materials be
stored so haphazardly before small but significant amounts
begin winding up in the hands of terrorists or rogue states?
The time has come for Washington to finally put its money
where its mouth is and use part of the enormous budget
surplus to purchase as much of Russia's fissile materials--
both uranium and plutonium--as Moscow is willing to sell, and
as quickly as Moscow is wiling to sell them.
The case for taking such a bold step should be easy to make
with the American people.
First, the sticker price would be remarkably low--less than
$20 billion. And since the U.S. government would presumably
one day sell most or all of the uranium and plutonium for use
as nuclear fuel, the expense would not have to be counted as
an expense--an argument sure to resonate well with fiscal
conservatives eager to keep pace with Gramm-Rudman.
Second, one could compare the price tag with the hundreds
of billions of dollars America spent to defend itself and its
allies against nuclear weapons during the Cold War; the
trillion dollars of human life that would result if a small
nuclear device were ever successfully detonated in a place
such as downtown Washington; and the billions of dollars that
rogue states and terrorist groups have already offered
Russian nuclear workers for extremely small amounts of the
same nuclear material.
And there is the tremendous sense of relief in purchasing
the very stuff that for so long threatened America's very
survival, and which now threatens the whole world.
With the 2000 election cycle beginning to pick up steam,
and with the possibility of a viable third-party presidential
candidate growing by the day, one would think that the two
major parties would be scrambling to take the lead on this
most serious of national Security issues.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 1999]
Nukes for Sale
(By Brett Wagner)
Strangely absent from the debate over how to spend
Washington's projected $1 trillion surplus has been any
discussion of Russia's longstanding offer to sell its
stockpiles of excess weapon-grade uranium. The time has come
to take Russia up on this offer.
Russia has never developed a reliable system for protecting
the enormous stockpiles of weapon-grade uranium and plutonium
it inherited from the Soviet Union. These stockpiles are
often stored in makeshift warehouses, some protected only by
$5 combination locks and soldiers who occasionally desert
their posts in search of food. Small caches of these nuclear
materials have already begun leaking out of Russia. It would
only take 20 or 30 pounds of highly enriched uranium to arm a
device capable of leveling a city the size of lower
Manhattan.
In February 1993 Presidents Clinton and Boris Yeltsin
signed an agreement for Russia to sell the U.S. highly
enriched uranium extracted from its dismantled nuclear
warheads in exchange for hard currency. Russia is currently
dismantling thousands of warheads. Unfortunately, this
unprecedented opportunity to advance U.S. and international
security has fallen behind schedule at nearly every turn,
primarily because Washington is constantly distracted by less
important issues. So far Russia has shipped only 50.5 tons of
highly enriched uranium--almost 30 tons short of the
agreement's stated goal by this point.
One major holdup has been the U.S. enrichment Corp., a
recently privatized company selected by the U.S. government
to implement the American side of the accord. It has resisted
accepting delivery of Russia's enriched uranium because,
among other reasons, it claims that the materials are not
pure enough for U.S. nuclear plants. But the corporation has
a fundamental conflict of interest. Since it also produces
enriched uranium, it wants to limit Russian competition in
the international market.
The question is: How long do we have before we run out of
luck? How long before some of Russia's uranium winds up in
the hands of terrorists like Osama bin Laden or regimes like
Saddam Hussein's?
Washington should switch the power of executive agent from
the U.S. Enrichment Corp. to the Department of Energy. Given
that most of the delays in implementing the agreement have
stemmed from America's insistence that the highly enriched
uranium be blended down into nuclear fuel in Russia,
Washington should reverse this policy and accept Moscow's
offer to ship its undiluted uranium directly to the U.S.
As soon as the agreement gets back on track, Washington
should ask Moscow to expand it to include all of Russia's
excess weapon-grade uranium, not to mention its excess
plutonium. It makes no sense to purchase one stockpile of
unsecured fissile material while leaving others in jeopardy.
The pricetag for such a deal would be remarkably low. The
cost of purchasing 500 tons of Russia's highly enriched
uranium, the quantity covered in the agreement, is
approximately $8 billion. Beyond what the agreement covers,
Moscow has some 700 tons of additional weapons-grade uranium
it has deemed ``excess.'' That would increase the price to
around $19 billion. And for an additional $1 billion or $2
billion. Moscow would probably throw in its excess weapon-
grade plutonium, which it has also been trying to sell for
use as nuclear fuel.
With Russian parliamentary elections scheduled for later
this year and a presidential election next June--which may
well bring in a government less friendly to the West than Mr.
Yeltsin's--the time to act is now rather than later.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask consent that there be a period for the
transaction of routine morning business, with any Senator permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL SALVAGE MOTOR VEHICLE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am proud to add the American Automobile
Association (AAA) and the California DMV to the long list of
organizations that support S. 655, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle
Consumer Protection Act that I introduced during this session to
protect consumers from title fraud.
Other supporters of my title branding legislation include the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), state DMV
directors around the country, the Michigan Secretary of State and other
Secretaries of State, the International Union of Police Associations
AFL-CIO, International Association of Auto Theft Investigators,
National Odometer and Title Fraud Enforcement Association, American
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers Association,
National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers, National
Independent Automobile Dealers Association, Honda North America, Nissan
North America, Carfax, CarMax, American Service Industry Association,
American Automotive Leasing Association, American Car Rental
Association, American Salvage Pool Association, Automotive Engine
Rebuilders Association, Automotive Parts and Accessories Association,
Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association, National Association of Fleet
Resale Dealers, National Auto Auction Association, and State Farm
Insurance.
I also think it is worth recognizing 23 of our colleagues who have
actively signaled their intention to protect motorists in their state
and throughout the nation by formally supporting S. 655. Senators
McCain, Breaux, Stevens, Conrad, Burns, Hutchison, Frist, Abraham,
Mack, Warner, Bennett, Sessions, Murkowski, Shelby, Inhofe, Grams,
Thomas, Roberts, Hatch, Thompson, Enzi, Kyl, and Hutchinson are to be
commended for cosponsoring this important consumer protection measure.
The American Automobile Association represents over 40 million
drivers. It is a nonpartisan organization that champions the interests
of the driving public in virtually every city, county, and state across
this great land. AAA supports S. 655 because it shares my belief that
national standards for titling salvage, rebuilt salvage, non-repairable
and flood damaged vehicles will help prevent the fraudulent sale of
damaged vehicles and protect consumers from unknowingly purchasing
them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
[[Page 30629]]
print AAA's letter of support for S. 655 in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
AAA Washington Office,
Washington, DC, November 17, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: As a representative of 42 million
motorists, AAA appreciates your effort to establish more
uniformity in the titling and registration of salvage and
other damaged vehicles.
AAA shares your concern about the practice of unscrupulous
individuals buying damaged vehicles at low cost, rebuilding
them, and then retitling them in another state with less or
no protections. A ``washed'' title does not disclose previous
damage to a vehicle and therefore, subsequent purchasers have
no knowledge of the damage. Unwitting consumers are the
victims of such fraudulent practices.
In an effort to help AAA members avoid the pitfalls of
buying damaged or rebuilt vehicles, AAA provides tips on ways
to identify damaged or flood vehicles. AAA also recommends
that consumers have used cars checked for safety and
reliability by a reputable auto technician before they
purchase the vehicle.
Minimum standards for titling salvage, rebuilt salvage,
non-repairable and flood-damaged vehicles will help present
the fraudulent sale of damaged vehicles and protect consumers
from unknowingly purchasing them. However, because states
often have unique and various problems relating specifically
to salvage vehicles, AAA believes states should be provided
flexibility to enact stricter standards that address
individual state concerns as your bill allows.
S. 655 represents an important step toward addressing the
problem, while recognizing the legitimate role states have in
motor vehicle licensing and titling laws. AAA commends your
leadership in working with all parties to craft a workable
solution and is pleased to support your bill.
Sincerely,
Susan G. Pikrallidas,
Interim Vice President,
Public & Government Relations.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, my goal from the outset has been to protect
used car buyers from title fraud. The solution I proposed was simple,
straightforward, and modeled after the recommendations of the Motor
Vehicle Titling, Registration, and Salvage Advisory Committee. S. 655
merely establishes model uniform definitions and disclosure
requirements for four basic terms: salvage; rebuilt salvage; flood; and
nonrepairable vehicles. Under the legislation reported out by the
Senate Commerce Committee, states would be free to utilize additional
terms and to provide additional disclosures beyond those provided for
in this bill. States that choose to adopt the four uniform terms and
related provisions would be eligible for incentive grants. No state
would be penalized for non-participation or for retaining different
standards.
While there is substantial and broad support for this much needed
legislation, there continues to be resistance to moving forward with
this legislation in the Senate. Unfortunately, this resistance has the
effect of allowing unsuspecting consumers to continue to purchase and
drive potentially life-threatening vehicles. Delaying this legislation
will cost used car buyers another $4 billion this year and place
millions of structurally unsafe vehicles back on America's roads and
highways. Roads that our family, friends, and neighbors share every
day.
Even though S. 655 has wide-spread support and follows the
recommendations of the Congressionally-chartered Salvage Advisory
Committee, a few groups have attempted to undermine this measure at
every stage of the process. Unfortunately, these groups seemed to have
convinced some of my colleagues that it is better to delay the
implementation of clearly needed consumer protections and continue to
press for the imposition of untried, untested and in many cases anti-
consumer requirements. Requirements that states have rejected time and
again. Provisions that focus on post-purchase redress rather than pre-
purchase disclosure. Definitions and standards that would perpetuate
confusion rather than promote uniformity among the states, undermining
the very purpose of this legislation. These groups claim to have the
interests of consumers in mind, yet the best representative of car-
buying consumers, the American Automobile Association, has rejected
their approach and supports passage of S. 655.
As I am sure my colleagues will agree, advancing titling definitions
and standards that states have rejected, and will continue to reject,
will only exacerbate title fraud. Such an approach only benefits those
who prey on unsuspecting car buyers and would jeopardize the minimum
standards required to make the program work, unnecessarily harm many
vehicle owners and buyers by needlessly reducing the value of their
vehicles, create unreasonable or untested standards, foster unnecessary
litigation, impinge on states rights, and promote a scheme that states
will reject.
During the 104th and 105th Congresses, this was a bipartisan, better
yet nonpartisan, initiative. My only interest has been to protect
consumers by encouraging the use of minimal uniform disclosure
standards for severely damaged vehicles--those involved in a serious
accident, severely damaged by falling objects, or vehicles that have
sustained significant and lingering water damage. Whether the used car
buyer is in Mississippi, California, Nevada, Minnesota, or in any other
state, he or she needs the pre-purchase disclosure information that S.
655 would provide.
I have made every effort to reach consensus on this legislation. In
that vein, a number of changes were incorporated throughout the
legislative process to address the concerns of State attorneys general,
certain consumer groups, and many of my colleagues. The latest version
of this legislation incorporates the full range of changes that DMV
administrators, including California's Administrator, believe are
practicable. The substitute makes it very clear that there is no
preemption of state law. The substitute also mirrors much of the State
of California's current titling requirements, ensuring that minimal
change will be required by our largest state should it choose to apply
for the bill's grant monies.
Mr. President, even though I have made numerous compromises on this
legislation, the goal post continues to move further away. Instead of
gaining acceptance, I was recently presented with yet another round of
proposed modifications. AAMVA reviewed these proposed changes and
determined they would eviscerate the purpose of this legislation. AAMVA
opposes these additional changes because they could potentially harm
the very people this legislation aims to protect, create a mountain of
unnecessary paperwork, and would create a substantial amount of
bureaucracy with no added value.
It makes no sense to adopt provisions that the experts on titling
matters believe are harmful to used car consumers, the very people this
balanced legislation aims to protect. AAMVA, Secretaries of State,
local and state law enforcement, state legislators, and the automotive
and insurance industries have repeatedly pronounced their support for
S. 655. AAA and the California DMV also agree that my substitute bill
is the right legislative solution.
Mr. President, if we do not pass this legislation, the real loser is
the unfortunate used car buyer in these and other states who
unknowingly purchases a wreck on wheels, perhaps a previously totaled
government crash test vehicle. Every day that Congress fails to act on
this prudent title branding legislation, thousands of individuals are
harmed and millions of dollars are lost to the unscrupulous practice of
title laundering. Let's pass this bill now.
____________________
S. 1949
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill, S. 1949, the ``Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act,''
introduced on November 18, 1999, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1949
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page 30630]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean
Power Plant and Modernization 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. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Combustion heat rate efficiency standards for fossil fuel-fired
generating units.
Sec. 5. Air emission standards for fossil fuel-fired generating units.
Sec. 6. Extension of renewable energy production credit.
Sec. 7. Megawatt hour generation fees.
Sec. 8. Clean Air Trust Fund.
Sec. 9. Accelerated depreciation for investor-owned generating units.
Sec. 10. Grants for publicly owned generating units.
Sec. 11. Recognition of permanent emission reductions in future climate
change implementation programs.
Sec. 12. Renewable and clean power generation technologies.
Sec. 13. Clean coal, advanced gas turbine, and combined heat and power
demonstration program.
Sec. 14. Evaluation of implementation of this Act and other statutes.
Sec. 15. Assistance for workers adversely affected by reduced
consumption of coal.
Sec. 16. Community economic development incentives for communities
adversely affected by reduced consumption of coal.
Sec. 17. Carbon sequestration.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States is relying increasingly on old,
needlessly inefficient, and highly polluting powerplants to
provide electricity;
(2) the pollution from those powerplants causes a wide
range of health and environmental damage, including--
(A) fine particulate matter that is associated with the
deaths of approximately 50,000 Americans annually;
(B) urban ozone, commonly known as ``smog'', that impairs
normal respiratory functions and is of special concern to
individuals afflicted with asthma, emphysema, and other
respiratory ailments;
(C) rural ozone that obscures visibility and damages
forests and wildlife;
(D) acid deposition that damages estuaries, lakes, rivers,
and streams (and the plants and animals that depend on them
for survival) and leaches heavy metals from the soil;
(E) mercury and heavy metal contamination that renders fish
unsafe to eat, with especially serious consequences for
pregnant women and their fetuses;
(F) eutrophication of estuaries, lakes, rivers, and
streams; and
(G) global climate change that may fundamentally and
irreversibly alter human, animal, and plant life;
(3) tax laws and environmental laws--
(A) provide a very strong incentive for electric utilities
to keep old, dirty, and inefficient generating units in
operation; and
(B) provide a strong disincentive to investing in new,
clean, and efficient generating technologies;
(4) fossil fuel-fired power plants, consisting of plants
fueled by coal, fuel oil, and natural gas, produce nearly
two-thirds of the electricity generated in the United States;
(5) since, according to the Department of Energy, the
average combustion heat rate efficiency of fossil fuel-fired
power plants in the United States is 33 percent, 67 percent
of the heat generated by burning the fuel is wasted;
(6) technology exists to increase the combustion heat rate
efficiency of coal combustion from 35 percent to 50 percent
above current levels, and technological advances are possible
that would boost the net combustion heat rate efficiency even
more;
(7) coal-fired power plants are the leading source of
mercury emissions in the United States, releasing an
estimated 52 tons of this potent neurotoxin each year;
(8) in 1996, fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United
States produced over 2,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide,
the primary greenhouse gas;
(9) on average--
(A) fossil fuel-fired power plants emit 1,999 pounds of
carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity
produced;
(B) coal-fired power plants emit 2,110 pounds of carbon
dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced; and
(C) coal-fired power plants emit 205 pounds of carbon
dioxide for every million British thermal units of fuel
consumed;
(10) the average fossil fuel-fired generating unit in the
United States commenced operation in 1964, 6 years before the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) was amended to
establish requirements for stationary sources;
(11)(A) according to the Department of Energy, only 23
percent of the 1,000 largest emitting units are subject to
stringent new source performance standards under section 111
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411); and
(B) the remaining 77 percent, commonly referred to as
``grandfathered'' power plants, are subject to much less
stringent requirements;
(12) on the basis of scientific and medical evidence,
exposure to mercury and mercury compounds is of concern to
human health and the environment;
(13) pregnant women and their developing fetuses, women of
childbearing age, and children are most at risk for mercury-
related health impacts such as neurotoxicity;
(14) although exposure to mercury and mercury compounds
occurs most frequently through consumption of mercury-
contaminated fish, such exposure can also occur through--
(A) ingestion of breast milk;
(B) ingestion of drinking water, and foods other than fish,
that are contaminated with methyl mercury; and
(C) dermal uptake through contact with soil and water;
(15) the report entitled ``Mercury Study Report to
Congress'' and submitted by the Environmental Protection
Agency under section 112(n)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7412(n)(1)(B)), in conjunction with other scientific
knowledge, supports a plausible link between mercury
emissions from combustion of coal and other fossil fuels and
mercury concentrations in air, soil, water, and sediments;
(16)(A) the Environmental Protection Agency report
described in paragraph (15) supports a plausible link between
mercury emissions from combustion of coal and other fossil
fuels and methyl mercury concentrations in freshwater fish;
(B) in 1997, 39 States issued health advisories that warned
the public about consuming mercury-tainted fish, as compared
to 27 States that issued such advisories in 1993; and
(C) the number of mercury advisories nationwide increased
from 899 in 1993 to 1,675 in 1996, an increase of 86 percent;
(17) pollution from powerplants can be reduced through
adoption of modern technologies and practices, including--
(A) methods of combusting coal that are intrinsically more
efficient and less polluting, such as pressurized fluidized
bed combustion and an integrated gasification combined cycle
system;
(B) methods of combusting cleaner fuels, such as gases from
fossil and biological resources and combined cycle turbines;
(C) treating flue gases through application of pollution
controls;
(D) methods of extracting energy from natural, renewable
resources of energy, such as solar and wind sources;
(E) methods of producing electricity and thermal energy
from fuels without conventional combustion, such as fuel
cells; and
(F) combined heat and power methods of extracting and using
heat that would otherwise be wasted, for the purpose of
heating or cooling office buildings, providing steam to
processing facilities, or otherwise increasing total
efficiency; and
(18) adopting the technologies and practices described in
paragraph (17) would increase competitiveness and
productivity, secure employment, save lives, and preserve the
future.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect and preserve the environment while
safeguarding health by ensuring that each fossil fuel-fired
generating unit minimizes air pollution to levels that are
technologically feasible through modernization and
application of pollution controls;
(2) to greatly reduce the quantities of mercury, carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides entering the
environment from combustion of fossil fuels;
(3) to permanently reduce emissions of those pollutants by
increasing the combustion heat rate efficiency of fossil
fuel-fired generating units to levels achievable through--
(A) use of commercially available combustion technology,
including clean coal technologies such as pressurized
fluidized bed combustion and an integrated gasification
combined cycle system;
(B) installation of pollution controls;
(C) expanded use of renewable and clean energy sources such
as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and fuel cells; and
(D) promotion of application of combined heat and power
technologies;
(4)(A) to create financial and regulatory incentives to
retire thermally inefficient generating units and replace
them with new units that employ high-thermal-efficiency
combustion technology; and
(B) to increase use of renewable and clean energy sources
such as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and fuel cells;
(5) to establish the Clean Air Trust Fund to fund the
training, economic development, carbon sequestration, and
research, development, and demonstration programs established
under this Act;
(6) to eliminate the ``grandfather'' loophole in the Clean
Air Act relating to sources in operation before the
promulgation of standards under section 111 of that Act (42
U.S.C. 7411);
(7) to express the sense of Congress that permanent
reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases that are
accomplished through the retirement of old units and
replacement by new units that meet the combustion heat
[[Page 30631]]
rate efficiency and emission standards specified in this Act
should be credited to the utility sector and the owner or
operator in any climate change implementation program;
(8) to promote permanent and safe disposal of mercury
recovered through coal cleaning, flue gas control systems,
and other methods of mercury pollution control;
(9) to increase public knowledge of the sources of mercury
exposure and the threat to public health from mercury,
particularly the threat to the health of pregnant women and
their fetuses, women of childbearing age, and children;
(10) to decrease significantly the threat to human health
and the environment posed by mercury;
(11) to provide worker retraining for workers adversely
affected by reduced consumption of coal; and
(12) to provide economic development incentives for
communities adversely affected by reduced consumption of
coal.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Generating unit.--The term ``generating unit'' means an
electric utility generating unit.
SEC. 4. COMBUSTION HEAT RATE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FOSSIL
FUEL-FIRED GENERATING UNITS.
(a) Standards.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the day that is 10 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, each fossil fuel-
fired generating unit that commences operation on or before
that day shall achieve and maintain, at all operating levels,
a combustion heat rate efficiency of not less than 45 percent
(based on the higher heating value of the fuel).
(2) Future generating units.--Each fossil fuel-fired
generating unit that commences operation more than 10 years
after the date of enactment of this Act shall achieve and
maintain, at all operating levels, a combustion heat rate
efficiency of not less than 50 percent (based on the higher
heating value of the fuel), unless granted a waiver under
subsection (d).
(b) Test Methods.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate methods for
determining initial and continuing compliance with this
section.
(c) Permit Requirement.--Not later than 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, each generating unit shall
have a permit issued under title V of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) that requires compliance with this
section.
(d) Waiver of Combustion Heat Rate Efficiency Standard.--
(1) Application.--The owner or operator of a generating
unit that commences operation more than 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act may apply to the Administrator
for a waiver of the combustion heat rate efficiency standard
specified in subsection (a)(2) that is applicable to that
type of generating unit.
(2) Issuance.--The Administrator may grant the waiver only
if--
(A)(i) the owner or operator of the generating unit
demonstrates that the technology to meet the combustion heat
rate efficiency standard is not commercially available; or
(ii) the owner or operator of the generating unit
demonstrates that, despite best technical efforts and
willingness to make the necessary level of financial
commitment, the combustion heat rate efficiency standard is
not achievable at the generating unit; and
(B) the owner or operator of the generating unit enters
into an agreement with the Administrator to offset by a
factor of 1.5 to 1, using a method approved by the
Administrator, the emission reductions that the generating
unit does not achieve because of the failure to achieve the
combustion heat rate efficiency standard specified in
subsection (a)(2).
(3) Effect of waiver.--If the Administrator grants a waiver
under paragraph (1), the generating unit shall be required to
achieve and maintain, at all operating levels, the combustion
heat rate efficiency standard specified in subsection (a)(1).
SEC. 5. AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED
GENERATING UNITS.
(a) All Fossil Fuel-Fired Generating Units.--Not later than
10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, each fossil
fuel-fired generating unit, regardless of its date of
construction or commencement of operation, shall be subject
to, and operating in physical and operational compliance
with, the new source review requirements under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).
(b) Emission Rates for Sources Required To Maintain 45
Percent Efficiency.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, each fossil fuel-fired generating
unit subject to section 4(a)(1) shall be in compliance with
the following emission limitations:
(1) Mercury.--Each coal-fired or fuel oil-fired generating
unit shall be required to remove 90 percent of the mercury
contained in the fuel, calculated in accordance with
subsection (e).
(2) Carbon dioxide.--
(A) Natural gas-fired generating units.--Each natural gas-
fired generating unit shall be required to achieve an
emission rate of not more than 0.9 pounds of carbon dioxide
per kilowatt hour of net electric power output.
(B) Fuel oil-fired generating units.--Each fuel oil-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(C) Coal-fired generating units.--Each coal-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.55 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(3) Sulfur dioxide.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating unit
shall be required--
(A) to remove 95 percent of the sulfur dioxide that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.3 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per million British thermal units of fuel
consumed.
(4) Nitrogen oxides.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating
unit shall be required--
(A) to remove 90 percent of nitrogen oxides that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.15
pounds of nitrogen oxides per million British thermal units
of fuel consumed.
(c) Emission Rates for Sources Required To Maintain 50
Percent Efficiency.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating unit
subject to section 4(a)(2) shall be in compliance with the
following emission limitations:
(1) Mercury.--Each coal-fired or fuel oil-fired generating
unit shall be required to remove 90 percent of the mercury
contained in the fuel, calculated in accordance with
subsection (e).
(2) Carbon dioxide.--
(A) Natural gas-fired generating units.--Each natural gas-
fired generating unit shall be required to achieve an
emission rate of not more than 0.8 pounds of carbon dioxide
per kilowatt hour of net electric power output.
(B) Fuel oil-fired generating units.--Each fuel oil-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.2 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(C) Coal-fired generating units.--Each coal-fired
generating unit shall be required to achieve an emission rate
of not more than 1.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt
hour of net electric power output.
(3) Sulfur dioxide.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating unit
shall be required--
(A) to remove 95 percent of the sulfur dioxide that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.3 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per million British thermal units of fuel
consumed.
(4) Nitrogen oxides.--Each fossil fuel-fired generating
unit shall be required--
(A) to remove 90 percent of nitrogen oxides that would
otherwise be present in the flue gas; and
(B) to achieve an emission rate of not more than 0.15
pounds of nitrogen oxides per million British thermal units
of fuel consumed.
(d) Permit Requirement.--Not later than 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, each generating unit shall
have a permit issued under title V of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) that requires compliance with this
section.
(e) Compliance Determination and Monitoring.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate methods for
determining initial and continuing compliance with this
section.
(2) Calculation of mercury emission reductions.--Not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall promulgate fuel sampling techniques and
emission monitoring techniques for use by generating units in
calculating mercury emission reductions for the purposes of
this section.
(3) Reporting.--
(A) In general.--Not less than often than quarterly, the
owner or operator of a generating unit shall submit a
pollutant-specific emission report for each pollutant covered
by this section.
(B) Signature.--Each report required under subparagraph (A)
shall be signed by a responsible official of the generating
unit, who shall certify the accuracy of the report.
(C) Public reporting.--The Administrator shall annually
make available to the public, through 1 or more published
reports and 1 or more forms of electronic media, facility-
specific emission data for each generating unit and pollutant
covered by this section.
(D) Consumer disclosure.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations requiring each owner or operator of a
generating unit to disclose to residential consumers of
electricity generated by the unit, on a regular basis (but
not less often than annually) and in a manner convenient to
the consumers, data concerning the level of emissions by the
generating unit of each pollutant covered by this section and
each air pollutant covered by section 111 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).
[[Page 30632]]
(f) Disposal of Mercury Captured or Recovered Through
Emission Controls.--
(1) Captured or recovered mercury.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations to ensure that mercury that is
captured or recovered through the use of an emission control,
coal cleaning, or another method is disposed of in a manner
that ensures that--
(A) the hazards from mercury are not transferred from 1
environmental medium to another; and
(B) there is no release of mercury into the environment.
(2) Mercury-containing sludges and wastes.--The regulations
promulgated by the Administrator under paragraph (1) shall
ensure that mercury-containing sludges and wastes are handled
and disposed of in accordance with all applicable Federal and
State laws (including regulations).
(g) Public Reporting of Facility-Specific Emission Data.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall annually make
available to the public, through 1 or more published reports
and the Internet, facility-specific emission data for each
generating unit and for each pollutant covered by this
section.
(2) Source of data.--The emission data shall be taken from
the emission reports submitted under subsection (e)(3).
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION CREDIT.
Section 45(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to definitions) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) solar power.'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``, and December 31, 1998, in the case of
a facility using solar power to produce electricity'' after
``electricity''; and
(B) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2010''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Solar power.--The term `solar power' means solar
power harnessed through--
``(A) photovoltaic systems,
``(B) solar boilers that provide process heat, and
``(C) any other means.''.
SEC. 7. MEGAWATT HOUR GENERATION FEES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 38 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended by
inserting after subchapter D the following:
``Subchapter E--Megawatt Hour Generation Fees
``Sec. 4691. Imposition of fees.
``SEC. 4691. IMPOSITION OF FEES.
``(a) Tax Imposed.--There is hereby imposed on each covered
fossil fuel-fired generating unit a tax equal to 30 cents per
megawatt hour of electricity produced by the covered fossil
fuel-fired generating unit.
``(b) Adjustment of Rates.--Not less often than once every
2 years beginning after 2002, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, shall evaluate the rate of the tax imposed by
subsection (a) and increase the rate if necessary for any
succeeding calendar year to ensure that the Clean Air Trust
Fund established by section 9511 has sufficient amounts to
fully fund the activities described in section 9511(c).
``(c) Payment of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section
shall be paid quarterly by the owner or operator of each
covered fossil fuel-fired generating unit.
``(d) Covered Fossil Fuel-Fired Generating Unit.--The term
`covered fossil fuel-fired generating unit' means an electric
utility generating unit that--
``(1) is powered by fossil fuels;
``(2) has a generating capacity of 5 or more megawatts; and
``(3) because of the date on which the generating unit
commenced commercial operation, is not subject to all
regulations promulgated under section 111 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of subchapters for
such chapter 38 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to subchapter D the following:
``Subchapter E. Megawatt hour generation fees.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced in calendar years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 8. CLEAN AIR TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 9511. CLEAN AIR TRUST FUND.
``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Clean Air Trust Fund' (hereafter referred to in this section
as the `Trust Fund'), consisting of such amounts as may be
appropriated or credited to the Trust Fund as provided in
this section or section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the
taxes received in the Treasury under section 4691.
``(c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the Trust
Fund shall be available, without further Act of
appropriation, upon request by the head of the appropriate
Federal agency in such amounts as the agency head determines
are necessary--
``(1) to provide funding under section 12 of the Clean
Power Plant and Modernization Act of 1999, as in effect on
the date of enactment of this section;
``(2) to provide funding for the demonstration program
under section 13 of such Act, as so in effect;
``(3) to provide assistance under section 15 of such Act,
as so in effect;
``(4) to provide assistance under section 16 of such Act,
as so in effect; and
``(5) to provide funding under section 17 of such Act, as
so in effect.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 9511. Clean Air Trust Fund.''.
SEC. 9. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR INVESTOR-OWNED
GENERATING UNITS.
(a) In General.--Section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to classification of certain property)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E) (relating to 15-year property), by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the
period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) any 45-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) 12-year property.--The term `12-year property'
includes any 50-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 168(i) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and special rules) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Fossil fuel-fired generating units.--
``(A) 50-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired generating
unit.--The term `50-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit' means any property used in an investor-owned
fossil fuel-fired generating unit pursuant to a plan approved
by the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, to place into service
such a unit that is in compliance with sections 4(a)(2) and
5(c) of the Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 1999,
as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
``(B) 45-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired generating
unit.--The term `45-percent efficient fossil fuel-fired
generating unit' means any property used in an investor-owned
fossil fuel-fired generating unit pursuant to a plan so
approved to place into service such a unit that is in
compliance with sections 4(a)(1) and 5(b) of such Act, as so
in effect.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table contained in section
168(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
applicable recovery period) is amended by inserting after the
item relating to 10-year property the following:
``12-year property...................................12 years''. ....
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property used after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 10. GRANTS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED GENERATING UNITS.
Any capital expenditure made after the date of enactment of
this Act to purchase, install, and bring into commercial
operation any new publicly owned generating unit that--
(1) is in compliance with sections 4(a)(1) and 5(b) shall,
for a 15-year period, be eligible for partial reimbursement
through annual grants made by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Administrator, in an amount equal to
the monetary value of the depreciation deduction that would
be realized by reason of section 168(c)(3)(E) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 by a similarly-situated investor-owned
generating unit over that period; and
(2) is in compliance with sections 4(a)(2) and 5(c) shall,
over a 12-year period, be eligible for partial reimbursement
through annual grants made by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Administrator, in an amount equal to
the monetary value of the depreciation deduction that would
be realized by reason of section 168(c)(3)(D) of such Code by
a similarly-situated investor-owned generating unit over that
period.
SEC. 11. RECOGNITION OF PERMANENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN
FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) permanent reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and
nitrogen oxides that are accomplished through the retirement
of old generating units and replacement by new generating
units that meet the combustion heat rate efficiency and
emission standards specified in this Act, or through
replacement of old generating units with nonpolluting
renewable power generation technologies, should be credited
to the utility sector, and
[[Page 30633]]
to the owner or operator that retires or replaces the old
generating unit, in any climate change implementation program
enacted by Congress;
(2) the base year for calculating reductions under a
program described in paragraph (1) should be the calendar
year preceding the calendar year in which this Act is
enacted; and
(3) a reasonable portion of any monetary value that may
accrue from the crediting described in paragraph (1) should
be passed on to utility customers.
SEC. 12. RENEWABLE AND CLEAN POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) In General.--Under the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Technology Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12001 et seq.),
the Secretary of Energy shall fund research and development
programs and commercial demonstration projects and
partnerships to demonstrate the commercial viability and
environmental benefits of electric power generation from--
(1) biomass (excluding unseparated municipal solid waste),
geothermal, solar, and wind technologies; and
(2) fuel cells.
(b) Types of Projects.--Demonstration projects may include
solar power tower plants, solar dishes and engines, co-firing
of biomass with coal, biomass modular systems, next-
generation wind turbines and wind turbine verification
projects, geothermal energy conversion, and fuel cells.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts made available under any other law, there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.
SEC. 13. CLEAN COAL, ADVANCED GAS TURBINE, AND COMBINED HEAT
AND POWER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Under subtitle B of title XXI of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13471 et seq.), the
Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to fund
projects and partnerships designed to demonstrate the
efficiency and environmental benefits of electric power
generation from--
(1) clean coal technologies, such as pressurized fluidized
bed combustion and an integrated gasification combined cycle
system;
(2) advanced gas turbine technologies, such as flexible
midsized gas turbines and baseload utility scale
applications; and
(3) combined heat and power technologies.
(b) Selection Criteria.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
promulgate criteria and procedures for selection of
demonstration projects and partnerships to be funded under
subsection (a).
(2) Required criteria.--At a minimum, the selection
criteria shall include--
(A) the potential of a proposed demonstration project or
partnership to reduce or avoid emissions of pollutants
covered by section 5 and air pollutants covered by section
111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411); and
(B) the potential commercial viability of the proposed
demonstration project or partnership.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts made available
under any other law, there is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $75,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2010.
(2) Distribution.--The Secretary shall make reasonable
efforts to ensure that, under the program established under
this section, the same amount of funding is provided for
demonstration projects and partnerships under each of
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a).
SEC. 14. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT AND OTHER
STATUTES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and the Administrator, shall submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of this Act.
(b) Identification of Conflicting Law.--The report shall
identify any provision of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-486), the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 791 et seq.), the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), or the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
(42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), or the amendments made by those
Acts, that conflicts with the intent or efficient
implementation of this Act.
(c) Recommendations.--The report shall include
recommendations from the Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the
Administrator for legislative or administrative measures to
harmonize and streamline the statutes specified in subsection
(b) and the regulations implementing those statutes.
SEC. 15. ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY REDUCED
CONSUMPTION OF COAL.
In addition to amounts made available under any other law,
there is authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2015 to provide assistance,
under the economic dislocation and worker adjustment
assistance program of the Department of Labor authorized by
title III of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1651
et seq.), to coal industry workers who are terminated from
employment as a result of reduced consumption of coal by the
electric power generation industry.
SEC. 16. COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR
COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY REDUCED
CONSUMPTION OF COAL.
In addition to amounts made available under any other law,
there is authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2015 to provide assistance,
under the economic adjustment program of the Department of
Commerce authorized by the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.), to assist
communities adversely affected by reduced consumption of coal
by the electric power generation industry.
SEC. 17. CARBON SEQUESTRATION.
(a) Carbon Sequestration Strategy.--In addition to amounts
made available under any other law, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Energy for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2003 a total of $15,000,000 to conduct research and
development activities in basic and applied science in
support of development by September 30, 2003, of a carbon
sequestration strategy that is designed to offset all growth
in carbon dioxide emissions in the United States after 2010.
(b) Methods for Biologically Sequestering Carbon Dioxide.--
In addition to amounts made available under any other law,
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2010 a total of $30,000,000 to
carry out soil restoration, tree planting, wetland
protection, and other methods of biologically sequestering
carbon dioxide.
(c) Limitation.--A project carried out using funds made
available under this section shall not be used to offset any
emission reduction required under any other provision of this
Act.
____________________
THE RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that Congress
included $10 million in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to
continue the Russian Leadership Program in Fiscal Year 2000.
The Russian Leadership Program was created earlier this year in the
FY 1999 supplemental appropriations bill in order to bring emerging
Russian leaders to the United States to see first hand how democracy
and the American free market economic system function. The program was
successful in bringing over 2,100 emerging leaders from 83 of the 89
states and republics in the Russian Federation during July, August, and
September of this year. Dr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and
one of the world's leading historians of Russian culture was asked to
administer this program. Our thanks go to Dr. Billington for doing an
excellent job implementing this program in a short period of time.
The program was modeled after the Marshall Plan which was implemented
after World War II. Between 1946-1956, the U.S. Government brought over
10,000 Germans citizens to the United States to learn ways to rebuild
their economy through technical assistance as well as cultural and
political contacts. The Marshall Plan was one of the most successful
foreign aid programs of the last century.
Similar to the Marshall Plan, participants in the Russian Leadership
Program visited more than 400 communities in 46 states and the District
of Columbia observing democracy in action at all levels of government.
They met and discussed the American system of government with current
and former U.S. Presidents, Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House,
Governors, state legislators, state supreme court justices, mayors, and
members of city and town councils.
Some of the participants also campaigned door-to-door with political
candidates, visited police and fire stations, met with students in
schools, visited hospitals, research facilities, businesses, soup
kitchens, shelters and experienced firsthand the partnership among
government, and the private sector.
This program was unique because more than 800 American families
hosted our Russian visitors, welcoming them into their homes and
communities, and spending the time to answer
[[Page 30634]]
questions about and show our guests the American way of life. Vadim
Baikov, one of the six Russians who visited Alaska, the State I
represent, wrote after the program that, ``In my opinion, the best
cultural aspect is that we stayed with the families, because in this
way one can actually gain insight of the genuine American lifestyle. I
think that is what counts the most.''
Organizations such as Rotary International, the United Methodist
Church, Freedom Force, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints played a key role in organizing the participants in the program
both in Russia and the United States. In addition to volunteering their
time, these families and hosting communities generously supplemented
the government's $10 million appropriations by providing approximately
$1.5 million worth of meals, cultural activities, additional
transportation and medical care.
Beyond the strong ties of friendship that developed between guests
and hosts, it is clear that the Russian Leadership Program
fundamentally changed how these Russian guests see America. They
constitute the largest single group ever to travel from Russia to the
U.S. They return to Russia with clear ideas and strong commitment to
positive change. A mayor from Tomsk spend time with the mayor of
Cleveland and said: ``If we were to meet more often, there would be
more peaceful relations.''
The Russian Leadership Program has had a tremendous impact in one
year. It is a good program and I am pleased that we were able to
provide the necessary funding to continue this program into the new
millenium.
____________________
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMMUNICATIONS OMNIBUS REFORM ACT OF 1999
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the revised
``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999''
(H.R. 1554). As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am particularly
pleased that this legislation includes as Title IV, the ``American
Inventors Protection Act of 1999.'' This important patent reform
measure includes a series of initiatives intended to protect the rights
of inventors, enhance patent protections and reduce patent litigation.
Perhaps most importantly, subtitle C of title IV contains the so-
called ``First Inventor Defense.'' This defense provides a first
inventor (or ``prior user'') with a defense in patent infringement
lawsuits, whenever an inventor of a business method (i.e., a practice
process or system) uses the invention but does not patent it.
Currently, patent law does not provide original inventors with any
protections when a subsequent user, who patents the method at a later
date, files a lawsuit for infringement against the real creator of the
invention.
The first inventor defense will provide the financial services
industry with important, needed protections in the face of the
uncertainty presented by the Federal Circuit's decision in the State
Street case. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial
Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir., 1998). In State Street, the Court
did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory
patentable subject matter. Consequently, this decision has raised
questions about what types of business methods may now be eligible for
patent protection. In the financial services sector, this has prompted
serious legal and practical concerns. It has created doubt regarding
whether or not particular business methods used by the industry--
including processes, practices, and systems--might now suddenly become
subject to new claims under the patent law. In terms of everyday
business practice, these types of activities were considered to be
protected as trade secrets and were not viewed as patentable material.
The first inventor defense strikes a fair balance between patent and
trade secret law. Specifically, this provision creates a defense for
inventors who (1) acting in good faith have reduced the subject matter
to practice in the United States at least one year prior to the patent
filing date (``effective filing date'') of another (typically later)
inventor; and (2) commercially used the subject matter in the United
States before the filing date of the patent. Commercial use does not
require that the particular invention be made known to the public or be
used in the public marketplace--it includes wholly internal commercial
uses as well.
As used in this legislation, the term ``method'' is intended to be
construed broadly. The term ``method'' is defined as meaning ``a method
of doing or conducting business.'' Thus, ``method'' includes any
internal method of doing business, a method used in the course of doing
or conducting business, or a method for conducting business in the
public marketplace. It includes a practice, process, activity, or
system that is used in the design, formulation, testing, or manufacture
of any product or service. The defense will be applicable against
method claims, as well as the claims involving machines or articles the
manufacturer used to practice such methods (i.e., apparatus claims).
New technologies are being developed every day, which include
technology that employs both methods of doing business and physical
apparatus designed to carry out a method of doing business. The first
inventor defense is intended to protect both method claims and
apparatus claims.
When viewed specifically from the standpoint of the financial
services industry, the term ``method'' includes financial instruments,
financial products, financial transactions, the ordering of financial
information, and any system or process that transmits or transforms
information with respect to investments or other types of financial
transactions. In this context, it is important to point out the
beneficial effects that such methods have brought to our society. These
include the encouragement of home ownership, the broadened availability
of capital for small businesses, and the development of a variety of
pension and investment opportunities for millions of Americans.
As the joint explanatory statement of the Conference Committee on
H.R. 1554 notes, the provision ``focuses on methods for doing and
conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal
commercial operations as well as those used in connection with the sale
or transfer of useful end results--whether in the form of physical
products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some other
useful results; for example, results produced to the manipulation of
data or other imports to produce a useful result.'' H. Rept. 106- , p.
31.
The language of the provision states that the defense is not
available if the person has actually abandoned commercial use of the
subject matter. As used in the legislation, abandonment refers to the
cessation of use with no intent to resume. Intervals of non-use between
such periodic or cyclical activities such as seasonable factors or
reasonable intervals between contracts, however, should not be
considered to be abandonment.
As noted earlier, in the wake of State Street, thousands of methods
and processes that have been and are used internally are now subject to
the possibility of being claimed as patented inventions. Previously,
the businesses that developed and used such methods and processes
thought that secrecy was the only protection available. As the
conference report on H.R. 1554 states: ``(U)nder established law, any
of these inventions which have been in commercial use--public or
secret--for more than one year cannot now be the subject of a valid
U.S. patent.'' H. Rept. 106- , p. 31.
Mr. President, patent law should encourage innovation, not create
barriers to the development of innovative financial products, credit
vehicles, and e-commerce generally. The patent law was never intended
to prevent people from doing what they are already doing. While I am
very pleased that the first inventors defense is included in H.R. 1554,
it should be viewed as just the first step in defining the appropriate
limits and boundaries of the
[[Page 30635]]
State Street decision. This legal defense will provide important
protections for companies against unfair and unjustified patent
infringement actions. But, at the same time, I believe that it is time
for Congress to take a closer look at the potentially broad and,
perhaps, adverse consequences of the State Street decision. I hope that
beginning early next year the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on
the State Street issue, so Senators can carefully evaluate its economic
and competitive consequences.
Mr. TORRICELLI. My colleague is correct. The State Street decision
may have unintended consequences for the financial services community.
By explicitly holding that business methods are patentable, financial
service companies are finding that the techniques and ideas, that were
in wide use, are being patented by others.
The Prior Inventor Defense of H.R. 1554 is an important step towards
protecting the financial services industry. By protecting early
developers and users of a business method, the defense allows U.S.
companies to commit resources to the commercialization of their
inventions with confidence that a subsequent patent holder will prevail
in a patent infringement suit. Without this defense, financial services
companies face unfair patent-infringement suits over the use of
techniques and ideas (methods) they developed and have used for years.
While I support the Prior Inventor Defense, as a member of the
Judiciary Committee, I hope we will revisit this issue next year. More
must be done to address the boundaries of the State Street decision
with the realities of the constantly changing and developing financial
services industry.
I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and my colleagues on
the committee on this important issue.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1999
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10
a.m. on Friday, November 19. I further ask consent that on Friday,
immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the
two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the
Senate then proceed to morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate
convenes, it will begin consideration of a number of legislative items
that have been cleared for action and need to be considered in the
House prior to adjournment. Following the consideration of these bills,
the Senate will resume debate on the final appropriations bill.
Further, as a reminder, cloture was filed today on the appropriations
conference report, and there is still hope that the Wisconsin
delegation will allow the cloture vote to occur at a reasonable hour
during tomorrow's session. However, if no agreement is made, the
cloture vote will occur at 1:01 a.m. on Saturday morning, and
abbreviated postcloture debate is anticipated. Therefore, Senators can
expect a vote to occur a few hours after the cloture vote.
In addition, the Senate may consider the Work Incentives conference
report prior to the pending adjournment.
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment
under the previous order.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Is there a unanimous consent request pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is, to adjourn.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent
with regard to the cloture vote which the Senator from Alaska
described, that the vote take place at 10 a.m. on Saturday; and that
should cloture be invoked, no more than 21 hours of debate remain.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I simply want to
indicate, as one member from the Wisconsin delegation, there is an
effort to be reasonable with respect to the hour of the vote and to
limit our rights with respect to the 30 hours respectively. Our goal is
certainly not to cause people to vote at a very extreme hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
adjournment until 10 a.m., Friday, November 19, 1999.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 10:44 p.m., adjourned until Friday,
November 19, 1999, at 10 a.m.
[[Page 30636]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
November 18, 1999
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, November 18, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. LaTourette).
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
November 18, 1999.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Steven C. LaTourette to act
as Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
The Reverend Douglas Tanner, Faith and Politics Institute,
Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, we come before You this week before Thanksgiving only
partially conscious of the many gifts You bestow upon us. We know that
while others are hungry, we are fed, and while others are without
shelter, we live in comfort. We give thanks for our material blessings
and often share a measure of our abundance with those less fortunate.
Yet, we can live as unaware of the gifts You give us in each other,
the gifts of those who think differently from the way we do, those
whose experiences shape their perspectives differently from ours, those
whose cultures cultivate different values and sensitivities, those whom
You have placed with us in a land which we call one nation,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Grant us, we pray in this season, a deeper appreciation of our
brothers and our sisters all across this land, and across the aisles in
this chamber. Open our hearts and strengthen our souls until we are
instruments of Your peace. 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 Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. MOAKLEY 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.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3308
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as
cosponsor of H.R. 3308.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 82, MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND H.J. RES. 83, MAKING FURTHER
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 385 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 385
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2000, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, before we begin on the rule, I am going to
yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from
South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for a matter of interest to all Members of the
House.
(Mr. THUNE asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
Tribute to Reading Clerk Bob Berry
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise today to recognize the contributions of
Bob Berry, a fellow South Dakotan.
Bob Berry has served the last several months as a Reading Clerk on
the House Floor. Bob's father is a legend in South Dakota, the former
Congressman E.Y. Berry, who represented South Dakota from 1951 to 1971.
After his father's service, Bob served this institution as the
Republican Reading Clerk. After several years of service, Bob was able
to retire from the House 11 years ago.
As a result of the temporary departure of another Reading Clerk, Bob
was asked to temporarily return to his old position in the House. The
institution greatly appreciated Bob's willingness to return and enjoyed
the last several months of his daily service.
The end of this session will allow Bob to return to retirement. We
know he and his lovely wife, Marilyn, are pleased that the need for his
services has passed and that they can enjoy their freedom to travel and
visit their children, grandchildren and friends again.
Bob, on behalf of the House, I want to express our thanks for your
service. You have truly helped this institution over the last several
months and your contributions are much appreciated.
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 14,
nays 375, not voting 44, as follows:
[[Page 30637]]
[Roll No. 598]
YEAS--14
Etheridge
Filner
Green (WI)
Kind (WI)
Manzullo
McCrery
Obey
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rahall
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Spratt
Towns
NAYS--375
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--44
Ackerman
Bateman
Bilbray
Burton
Capps
Carson
Conyers
Cox
Cubin
Dingell
Dooley
Dunn
Fattah
Franks (NJ)
Gutierrez
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hunter
Hutchinson
Kanjorski
Kasich
Klink
Martinez
McIntosh
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Oberstar
Pastor
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Scarborough
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Vento
Watts (OK)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Young (AK)
{time} 1028
Messrs. COBURN, BLAGOJEVICH, DICKEY, McHUGH, MORAN of Virginia,
LINDER, SALMON, BENTSEN, SPENCE, FROST, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. SANCHEZ, and
Ms. DANNER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin and Mr. PETRI changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 82, MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND H.J. RES. 83, MAKING FURTHER
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--Continued
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The pending business is
consideration of House Resolution 385 offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss).
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
my colleague, 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, today, we place before the House what will hopefully be
the last continuing resolution for fiscal year 2000. Yesterday, I
referred to the movie ``Groundhog Day'' to describe the events of the
past few weeks, where we seem to wake up each morning and do the same
things we did the day before. And while we are here again as we were
yesterday considering a rule to bring forward another short-term
extension of the budget deadline, we are confident that a final
agreement has been brokered and the process is finally now near total
completion.
Like yesterday's, this rule is a standard closed rule providing for
consideration of a continuing resolution whose expiration date is
November 23. The rule waives all points of order against consideration
of the joint resolution, provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations, and affords the traditional motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, we have all been struggling to find the right
negotiating mix to bring this budget process to a conclusion. Our firm
line in the sand has remained constant: we will not spend one dime of
the Social Security Trust Fund. While there has been the normal and
appropriate give and take between the White House and the Congress on a
host of other issues, our constituents, both young and old, I think are
the real winners today.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in over the 3 decades, Washington,
D.C., will not be using Social Security as a slush fund. We have made
the tough choices necessary to balance the budget without touching
Social Security. It has been a long, it has been an arduous process;
but the end result under the circumstances, I think, is well worth the
effort: a more secure retirement for all Americans.
Just as there was 5 years ago when our new majority pledged to
balance the budget, some cynical naysayers have claimed that we could
not do the job this year without borrowing from Social Security. They
were wrong in 1994, and they are wrong again today. We can do better,
and this budget proves it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly commend at this time the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), Speaker of the House, for his
persistence and leadership, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and all the
[[Page 30638]]
other Members who have made this day come to pass.
It is a good victory for Congress, and a good one for the American
people. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying CR, of
course.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss), who I have not seen since 4 o'clock this morning, for yielding
me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, even though we are 49 days into the fiscal year, only
eight of the thirteen appropriation bills have been signed into law.
Appropriation negotiations have been going on and on and on, with
little hope in sight. That is until very early this morning.
Early this morning at about 2 o'clock, the appropriators and the
White House reached agreement on an enormous omnibus appropriations
bill that lumps all unfinished business together in one massive
document nearly no one can understand. And supposedly, we just need to
pass a couple of more continuing resolutions to keep the government
open until the appropriation process is mercifully behind us, and the
President signs this behemoth bill.
Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today makes in order not
one, but two continuing resolutions. The first expires on November 23,
and the second expires on December 2. I am told this is done to
accommodate the deliberations of the Senate, so I see no reason to
oppose it, despite the strange and inefficient process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and support
the continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my colleague and friend, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) for yielding me the time, and I think we are going to pass
the rule without too much difficulty.
But, Mr. Speaker, if I could have the attention of the House, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) just mentioned the 4 o'clock
hour, and he is right on target. At 6 minutes after 3 a.m. this
morning, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in the chair,
I was able to file the final agreement on the last appropriations
package.
We went to the Committee on Rules at 20 minutes after 3:00 and by
3:45, my part of it was complete and I was home by 4:30 this morning. I
am not sure when the gentleman from Massachusetts got home, but the
important issue here is that I have the opportunity to compliment and
congratulate the Members of the Committee on Appropriations and the
subcommittee chairmen and all of those who have done such a good job
through this process.
But, Mr. Speaker, the unsung heroes do not often get those accolades,
and I think it is appropriate that they do. Those heroes are the
members of the Committee on Rules. They are here for early morning
meetings and late night meetings. I want to compliment the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) and all of the members of the Committee on
Rules for being available when the legislative process requires their
presence.
In the last 10 days of our very serious negotiation with the
representatives from the President's office, there have been numerous
evenings when the Committee on Rules was told, be available, because we
think we might have a bill for their consideration tonight. They have
had to wait here until 10 or 11 o'clock at night, or midnight, and then
the appropriators were not ready or the deal had not been struck yet.
They have been so faithful to their responsibilities, and I just think
it is timely to call attention to the work that they do and the
generous giving of their time to help this process move.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman
Dreier) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking
member, and all of the members of the Committee on Rules for being so
patient with us as we move this process through.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, before I begin, I simply want to
say something about two people. I would like to say that the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the most decent human beings I have
ever dealt with in the over 30 years I have been a Member of this
House. He and I do not share the same political philosophy on many,
many issues; and he and I have different institutional
responsibilities. We try to meet our institutional responsibilities to
this House as one.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say with all the sincerity at my command that
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), in the way that he deals
honorably with each and every other Member of this House, is the way
every Member of this place ought to deal with each and every Member. I
know that if the gentleman promises me something, he will stick to it.
And I know that he will do the best job that he can to deal with the
concerns of each and every Member of this House.
I also want to say that with respect to his counterpart in the other
body, Senator Stevens, Senator Stevens and I are both known for our
placid temperaments. I simply want to say that I regard Senator Stevens
as one of the easiest people to deal with. Not because he is easy in
negotiations; he is hard as nails. But one always knows where he is
coming from, and he plays it straight; and I, again, appreciate that
very much.
Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I called the last motion, and why
I will be calling a number of other motions today. I think there are
certain requirements that this House ought to meet in dealing with the
most basic responsibility it has each year, which is to pass the budget
for the coming year.
Budgets are not just numbers. They define our priorities. They
indicate our values. The budget is the primary document by which
Congress tries to influence the future direction of this country. We
owe it to the country to consider that budget in a serious, thoughtful,
fair-minded and honest way.
We are not going to do that today. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) indicated that this rule was put to bed at almost 4 o'clock this
morning. It looks like it. I saw Arianna Huffington, again a person
with whom I do not share much in common philosophically, but I saw her
on a television program on women's issues a few nights ago; and she
observed that she was very concerned about politicians who would brag
about the fact that they were up until 4 o'clock in the morning making
decisions. She said, ``I do not trust any decision that is made at 4
o'clock in the morning,'' and I think she is largely right.
My problem, and I have numerous problems with this bill and I will
explain more of them in detail when we get to the actual appropriation
vehicle later on today or tomorrow, but the fact is that there are two
problems that I have that override all others. First of all, we have at
least nine separate authorization measures which are being folded into
this bill. One of them, a more than 300-page authorization bill which
is yet to be conferenced, and yet it is being thrown in here. I defy my
colleagues to tell me what is in it, and I urge my colleagues to
remember that we will probably be, long after this bill is done, we
will be trying to find out what is in it.
There are nine separate authorizations. I believe instead of having
only 1 hour to debate all of those authorizations, plus the budgetary
decisions that were made here in the bill before us today, I believe
each of those authorizations should be pulled out of the bill. They
should be debated separately and sequentially for at least an hour
before we vote on each and every one of them.
Secondly, I think we should have had 24 hours to understand what is
in this bill. We are going to be haunted by a number of things that are
in this bill.
[[Page 30639]]
Mr. Speaker, among the authorizations that are added to this bill are
the Medicare, Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance program,
which I probably favor. But I think we ought to know more about how
they are being put together.
Second, we have the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign
Relations Authorizations Act. I do not have the foggiest idea what is
in that and neither does anybody else on the floor. We have H.R. 3428,
which brings several dairy authorization measures to this floor,
including the Northeast Compact. That compact was slipped into the law
in the first place several years ago without ever having been voted on
by either body. It was slipped in by the Senate, and now we are again
slipping it in without it ever having been considered by either body. I
think that is illegitimate.
The Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act. That
is the satellite bill. I understand, coming from a rural area, the loan
guarantees that are useful in rural areas have been taken out of that
bill.
{time} 1045
I understand there are also patents and trademark items in that bill.
I think we ought to know more about that.
We have the Superfund Recycling Equity Act. This bill reminds me of
what Churchill said about Russia, ``A riddle wrapped in a mystery
inside an enigma.'' We do not have any idea what that bill is really
going to do in the fine print.
Then we have the Canyon Ferry Reservoir provisions, and international
debt relief (again which I favor); but I am concerned, very, very
concerned, about one section of that bill, which I think may not in
fact deliver what it appears to promise.
Then we have a number of private bills which have been attached, one
of which I think I would favor and the other which I am concerned about
because it only includes a few people out of a much broader class that
ought to be included in the kind of relief contemplated by that bill
that is going to be given.
In my view, every time I make a motion which requires a rollcall
before we can proceed to the next stage, that gives Members more time
to find out what is in this bill before they actually cast the most
important vote of the session. That is why I intend to make numerous
motions today, and I most definitely would not count on being out of
here by 4 p.m. or 5 p.m., or maybe even today.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members that it is not appropriate to make references to the
characteristics of Senators, even favorable characteristics.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating myself
with the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Today, we have before us an omnibus bill which, unfortunately, bears
many similarities to the legislation that we considered a year ago at
the close of the session. And for many of us, we promised we would
never again let ourselves be trapped in this situation. We had a
bipartisan budget process reform task force that worked. We came up
with a series of recommendations. But, tragically, none of these
recommendations was even brought to the floor for debate. I hope that
in the year 2000 we can indeed take up this budget reform proposal and,
hopefully, avoid an omnibus catch-all bill of the type that is being
criticized today.
I recognize there are many good points to the bill, and I too would
compliment the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his
work. I have deep respect for him. But I would like to point out that
there are many things in there that ought to be separately considered
or are simply inappropriate in the bill, and commitments were made
earlier in the session by the Speaker, by the majority leader and
others that these provisions would not show up in an appropriations
bill.
One such provision relates to dairy policy. In this country we have
endured a dairy policy which has split our Nation into separate zones
for no good reason other than to try to maintain some anti-competitive
framework in dairy. This is crazy. In early December, we will go to
Seattle, many will go to Seattle, for the WTO conference where we will
be urging that Congress expand our international trade opportunities.
And why is it at the same time that we are expanding international
trade opportunities we continue to balkanize our country with respect
to dairy programming?
Mr. Speaker, it makes absolutely no sense that we would continue to
balkanize this country for purposes of dairy policy so that fluid milk
from one part of the country, namely the upper Midwest, is at a
competitive disadvantage because of government policy with fluid milk
from other parts of the country. We cannot allow this type of
antiquated dairy policy to survive, and for this reason and others I
will be opposing the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, marginally, to
delay proceedings, but I do not think that significant deaths should go
unnoticed. Unmourned, yes, but not unnoticed. And I am talking about
the caps of 1997.
In 1997, this House engaged in a great orgy of self-congratulation by
adopting a budget bill which not only cut Medicare, apparently without
anybody here realizing that that was happening, but which enacted a set
of restrictions on total spending. They would have lasted from 1997
until 2002, and they would be a template for the future. Alas, they did
not last very long. The great balanced budget accomplishment of 1997,
the caps, which were unnecessary and unrealistic at the time, have
died. And it does not seem to me in this Chamber, where we are so given
to ceremonial oratory, that we ought to allow that death to pass
unnoticed.
The premature passing of the caps, as I said, is not an occasion for
mourning. I think it is an occasion for celebration that reality has
finally broken through the ideological miasma, but it ought to be
noted. And it ought to be noted for a couple of reasons.
First of all, there were many of us who, in 1997, thought that the
caps were, to use technical parliamentary language, a very stupid idea.
They were clearly unrealistic, unsustainable, and they were a farce.
And I find, Mr. Speaker, having been one of those who said that in
1997, that as I get older one of the few pleasures that increases with
age is being able to say, ``I told you so.'' So I do want to say that I
and others told you so in 1997. Welcome to reality.
But it also is important because it shows that the vision of the role
of the public sector that motivated this House, and particularly the
majority in 1997, was flawed deeply. The American public understood
better than this House did that there are needs that can best be served
by private expenditures, but for a civilized society to achieve the
right quality of life, some things have to be done together;
transportation, the environment, compassion for people in need, public
safety.
And the reason the caps died unceremoniously, hopefully unnoticed,
according to the people on the other side, they have a new thing about
Social Security spending, but I urge people to go back and read the
budget debates of 1997. Never has an entity, the caps, been so widely
praised and so quickly thrown over the side when reality broke in.
But the important point is that this is simply not a mistake made in
numbers. It was a miscalculation about the American people's
understanding of the importance of a public sector. The problem the
people who put the caps had is this. It is a mathematical problem. They
tried to construct a whole that was smaller than the sum of the parts.
All year we have been dealing with the parts. And as we look at those
parts, public safety, education, the environment, highways, et cetera,
et cetera, as we look at the parts, we find
[[Page 30640]]
that they add up to more than that whole. And, therefore, the whole
with the ``W'' has become a hole with an ``H.'' It has become a hole in
the ground into which the caps have been interred and over which today
we will shovel the dirt.
So Members should be aware that when they vote today on the major
bill, the multi-omnibus appropriation bill, they are funding the
government at a reasonable level. And funding the government at a
reasonable level means the end of the caps. And I hope that we will not
again put ourselves through that.
Now, of course, it is also the case that that bill will undo part of
what we did with Medicare. And as I look at the extent to which this
bill today will repudiate what was so enthusiastically held in 1997, I
do wonder whether or not the crack investigative team, assembled by the
gentleman from Indiana on the Committee on Government Reform, ought not
to be set forward. Because there is a possibility that in 1997
imposters invaded this House, impersonated Members and voted into
public policy Medicare and spending programs that were so foolish that
today we have to repudiate them.
Now, back in 1997, DNA evidence was not as developed, so we may never
know whether it was the real Members of the House or a group of mass
invaders who did it. But whatever the reason was, the fact that the
bill today will be a thorough repudiation of the mistakes of 1997, is
something to be noticed, although not mourned.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish we could vote. I wish
we had something of consequence to vote on. I wish my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would have provided us with real legislation.
I thank my good friend from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules; but unfortunately, what we have here is a bag of
tricks. This is a continuing resolution with an extension to November
23. It is a rule for that. I would ask, though I do realize that we are
facing the Thanksgiving holiday, that we take our responsibilities in
this body seriously. And though I appreciate the work of the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member for their
individual intensity in the negotiations of this particular omnibus
bill, it is sad and it is not worthy of the American people.
Earlier this morning we heard a point that I think is very well
taken. The American people do not even know what we are doing up here.
They do not understand the concept, and all of the mishmash and
misinformation that has been given to them leaves them confused.
I think this bill has some valuable points to it. Ultimately, when it
comes to the floor, we are told that teaching hospitals, Medicare
payments to hospitals, and health care providers are included. That is
a positive. It helps my community in Houston. My own school district
suffered for the lack of teachers, so 100,000 teachers will be
valuable. Fifty thousand police will be valuable as well.
But I cannot tell for the life of me whether we are spending the
Social Security surplus or whether we are saving it. And because my
seniors are extremely important to me, I have great doubts about this
bill. And, in fact, since it is not here on the table, I think all the
Members should be questioning this bill.
Then it is interesting that although we have argued continuously
about riders and legislating on appropriations bills, because every
time we bring up the idea of a patients' bill of rights, which 80
percent of the American people would like to see us pass, or
prescription protection for our seniors, who are begging for relief
because they cannot pay for housing and food and prescriptions at the
same time, we get an argument that we cannot legislate on
appropriations bills. Yet we have a 300-page State Department bill,
which nobody knows what is in it; we have satellite TV special
interests, and I am sure they are interested in that. I happen to
support the resolution on that. But here we are lumping all of that
together. We have the dairy issue, which some of our Members are for
and against.
{time} 1100
We are lowering the maintenance and readiness of our military by
cutting into that very deeply. We have literally taken women for
granted and thrown them aside because we have said family planning for
women around the world, protecting their lives is irrelevant; here goes
women again; just throw them off the side of the Earth.
And then I have been meeting for the families of the victims of the
Tanzania and Kenya bombings. We agree we were in error. We know we did
not have the kind of secure premises that we should have had in our
embassies overseas. And yet, nobody has responded to the plea of these
families to provide them with any relief. At least no one has called my
office and said that we have given relief to the victims of those
bombings who have lost loved ones. Some family members lost two members
of their family.
And then we leave in a deep, dark hole 300,000 immigrants who have
been paying taxes in this country who pleaded to simply allow them to
apply for legal citizenship because the INS messed up procedurally
their right to apply for citizenship. We have been begging for relief
for these individuals who own homes, who pay taxes, whose children are
in school, but we have thrown them aside.
Human lives around here does not matter. But if they have got a big
checkbook, they can write a check to somebody, you can be sure, to get
their stuff in an omnibus bill.
I would tell Members who are considering voting for this that it is
not worth voting for and sacrificing principles when they do not know
whether they are saving Social Security or whether they are digging a
big, deep hole.
If we had gone through this process the way we were supposed to go
through it and had the appropriate review of these appropriations
bills, maybe we would be able to have a considered process in dealing
with this omnibus bill.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that this continuing resolution
really needs to be extended so that we can go to the drawing boards and
deal with this bill in the way that the American people would like us
to do so. And that is to include the likes of prescription protection
for our seniors; include a patients' bill of rights; to discuss a real
hate crimes bill; to provide compensation for the families who lost
loved ones in the bombings in Africa; to keep family planning in; and,
yes, to take care of our teaching hospitals, the 100,000 teachers and
the 50,000 police.
But for God's sake, let us not vote on a ghost of a bill when we do
not know whether we are saving Social Security or spending every dime.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to today associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is no way to do the process
and the work of the House.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, we have nine
authorizations in this bill. I would like to focus on one of them.
I have had the misfortune, I guess you might call it, of serving on
the Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee of the Committee on
Agriculture the last 4 years and went through the process when Steve
Gunderson and myself, as ranking member, and tried to bring some
legislation to the floor.
At that time, we were told that this was too complicated; we could
not legislate it; so we had to give this to the Department and set up a
process to figure out how we are going to untangle this convoluted
system that puts one part of the country against another.
So we went through that process. The results did not please the
people that put this forward, so now they have
[[Page 30641]]
turned around 180 degrees and they say, well, now it is not appropriate
to do this by rule; now we are going to legislate it.
But what people need to understand, in addition to that, the fact
that we are legislating 1(a), which is basically the current fluid milk
differentials, we are also legislating the Northeast Compact again in
this bill, we are taking probably the most important part of the dairy
provision and suspending it until December 1, 2000. And that is the new
manufacturing price maneuver that was established under this rule that
USDA put forward.
Now, those of my colleagues that have dairy farms in their district
should understand this. I represent a district that in some places we
have more cows than we have people. I have one county that has 63,000
cows. I have more cows in my district than they have in the whole
entire Northeast Dairy Compact. And so, we are very concerned about
this. But the people that represent dairy farmers understand that the
basic formula price that we have got in place has caused some
tremendous volatility in the prices for dairy farmers.
We have seen a drop of $6 a hundredweight a few months ago. We just
saw another big drop recently. We are not going to fix this by stalling
this whole process and legislating, basically, the status quo on dairy.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is certainly a very
terrible process, and it is no way to run a railroad.
There are many things that I would add, or there are many things that
I would take out if I were in charge and was able to do it. But that is
not the way the process works. And now we are at this particular point.
I think that there are more good things in this package than there
are things that cause me concern to vote against it. One, I would like
to focus on in particular is dairy.
The policies that we have been hearing talked about as it pertains to
dairy does not take away from the issue of recognizing that the USDA's
policy was going to cost small dairy farmers $200 million. It was not
going to leave things the way they were. It was going to take $200
million from small dairy farmers who are on the verge of collapse or
death and be put out of business. It retains an extension in a dairy
compact that was a compact between the consumers and the dairy farmers.
If we look at the price differentials, we will see that the price of
milk in the Northeast is five cents cheaper than the national average.
So that has been a benefit between the farmers and the consumers.
I am also a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, and we work
on these issues; and there is no unanimity to these issues, but there
are always disagreements. I appreciate the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations and the concerns that he shares, because
some of us look at this glass of milk as half full rather than half
empty.
I would also like to focus on the teachers, the teacher training, the
smaller classrooms, more discipline, higher test scores. We are talking
about 50,000 more police officers, safer schools, more protection in
our community. We are looking at veterans' health care. And we are
talking about corrections in the balanced budget amendment that
impacted on hospitals and home health agencies.
So there are many things that I think that when we look at that we
could be in opposition towards. And, believe me, there are many things
that I would rewrite. But, as I have learned in this process, we will
have an opportunity in the future to change those things, to fight for
those things, and another day will be in front of us.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for
the observation that this has been a debate about the continuing
resolution rule, and I think it has been properly described.
I think it is a worthy rule. We all know we have to have the
continuing resolution. We have provided for contingencies as this, as
has been explained by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley)
and myself. No matter how the Members feel about individual pieces of
the appropriations process, I do urge their consideration and in a
favorable way for this continuing resolution, which is necessary for us
to get on with our business and the rest of the day's work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
This will be a 15-minute vote followed by a possible 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375,
nays 45, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 599]
YEAS--375
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
[[Page 30642]]
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--45
Baird
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Carson
Condit
DeFazio
Doggett
Evans
Filner
Forbes
Gutierrez
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Klink
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
McDermott
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Napolitano
Pastor
Rahall
Rangel
Scott
Shows
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Wise
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Capps
Conyers
Dunn
Fattah
Franks (NJ)
Hoekstra
McIntosh
Meehan
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Wexler
Weygand
{time} 1129
Mr. Inslee changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. GEJDENSON, Ms. DeLAURO, Mr. WAXMAN, and
Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (LaTourette). Did the gentleman from
Wisconsin support the previous question?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I did.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Goss
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 316,
noes 101, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 600]
YEAS--316
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--101
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Costello
Coyne
DeGette
DeLauro
Doyle
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Petri
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rivers
Rothman
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Capps
Chenoweth-Hage
Conyers
Dunn
Franks (NJ)
Hoekstra
Kleczka
McIntosh
Meehan
Peterson (MN)
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Strickland
Wexler
Weygand
{time} 1139
Messrs. HOLT, OBERSTAR, and GUTKNECHT changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. HERGER, DICKS, HALL of Ohio, and BOYD, and Mrs. MYRICK, Ms.
BERKLEY, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
[[Page 30643]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 352,
noes 63, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 601]
AYES--352
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--63
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
DeFazio
Delahunt
Doggett
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
Lee
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Oberstar
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Wise
NOT VOTING--18
Ackerman
Barton
Berman
Capps
Conyers
Dunn
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Hansen
Lowey
McIntosh
Meehan
Moore
Riley
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Wexler
Weygand
{time} 1148
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, and Messrs. OBEY, LUCAS of Kentucky and
PETRI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Did the gentleman vote in
favor of the resolution?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I did.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Goss
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 294,
noes 123, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 602]
AYES--294
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
[[Page 30644]]
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--123
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Danner
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shows
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Capps
Clay
Conyers
Dunn
English
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Jones (NC)
McIntosh
Meehan
Riley
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Wexler
Weygand
{time} 1157
Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 25,
noes 395, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 603]
AYES--25
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Berry
Dingell
Filner
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Kind (WI)
Manzullo
McDermott
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Minge
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rahall
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Wise
NOES--395
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Capps
Clay
Conyers
Deutsch
English
Hansen
Hilliard
McIntosh
Meehan
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Wexler
{time} 1213
Mr. EWING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2420
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2420.
[[Page 30645]]
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to adjourn offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 24,
nays 378, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 604]
YEAS--24
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Berry
Dingell
Filner
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Manzullo
McDermott
Minge
Oberstar
Obey
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Visclosky
Waters
Wise
NAYS--378
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Ackerman
Barr
Boucher
Cannon
Capps
Clayton
Conyers
Danner
DeFazio
Doyle
Ehrlich
Emerson
Frost
Johnson, Sam
Meehan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nussle
Olver
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Riley
Ros-Lehtinen
Salmon
Scarborough
Shadegg
Slaughter
Velazquez
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
{time} 1233
Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
Mr. KLECZKA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication from
the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Washington, DC, November 17, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I have the honor to transmit herewith a
copy of the original Certificate of Election received from
the Honorable Bill Jones, Secretary of State, State of
California, indicating that, according to the semi-official
canvas for the Special General election held November 16,
1999, the Honorable Joe Baca was elected Representative in
Congress for the Forty-second Congressional District, State
of California.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk.
____________________
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE JOE BACA OF CALIFORNIA AS A MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE
The SPEAKER. Will the Member-elect from California (Mr. Baca) come
forward, accompanied by the California delegation, and raise your right
hand?
Mr. Baca appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of
office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear the true faith and allegiance to the same;
that you will take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to
enter. So help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations. You are now a Member of the House of
Representatives.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE HONORABLE JOE BACA, MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to
be cochair of the California delegation. I share that responsibility
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) for remarks.
[[Page 30646]]
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California very much for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, what a great day for the State of California. All of us
in this House know the honor of being sworn in as a Member of the House
of Representatives, the only place in Washington where everyone has to
be elected in order to take the oath of office.
It is a distinct pleasure that we honor another Californian in that
regard, a person who has a great deal of experience in public life, and
brings to this Chamber experience as a member of the board of trustees
with a community college, was elected to the California State Assembly,
was elected as the first pro tempore, the first Latino pro tempore in
California history to that job, served in the California State Senate,
and now is elected to serve his district in Southern California.
He is following in the footsteps of a great Member of this House,
George Brown. We all remember the great service that he gave to this
country and the deeds that he left, the great record that he left.
So Joe Baca comes to us with his own career of distinction, and I
think he will be a great addition to this House. So I congratulate you.
On behalf of the California Democratic delegation, which I am Chair
of, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who is Dean
of the Republican delegation from California, and as a joint bipartisan
effort, we welcome the newest Member of our delegation, a delegation
which has had over eight Members elected in special elections. So we
know the special moment you are having right now, you are sharing with
your family who is watching this on C-SPAN, and we appreciate the fact
that you are here today to get sworn in. Congratulations on a great
race and a great election.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, Joe, you
should note with interest that a very sizable number of the Members on
the floor happen to be from the California delegation. It was not
always the case that we would have an occasion like this and we would
have almost the entire delegation present.
But in recent years, we have had kind of a reawakening of our State.
In the past, we have often been laughed at by States like Texas who
come together regularly on issues relative to their own interests.
Today, California is working together as it never has in its history,
and our numbers are here to have a positive impact on the country.
So working with you in the seat of the former Dean of the California
delegation, you have a great career ahead of you. We look forward to
your help as we go about attempting to improve the country as we work
on behalf of California's interest. So welcome, Joe. It is a great day
for all of us.
____________________
OPENING REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE JOE BACA
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to address the House for 1
minute. I wanted to make sure that I followed the rules and procedures
that are here.
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr)
lowering this podium. I used to be 6 foot 5 as a paratrooper, but I
made a lot of jumps; that is why I am only 5 foot 6.
It is really an honor to be here. I would like to thank the
leadership for their support, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), all of the Members, the DCCC individuals who are very
helpful.
I want to thank God because God gave me the courage to run and to
serve. Too many times we forget that it is the strength that we have,
and God provided that strength to give us that courage. So I want to
thank God.
I want to thank my family. I wish my mom and dad were here to see
this. They are both deceased, but I know it is a proud moment in their
lives. I know that somewhere up above they are seeing this even though
they cannot be here right now. But I know very well that they are proud
of their son, because I am one of 15. I am the 15th child.
Like a lot of us, I come from a poor family, an individual, the only
one that graduated from high school and college. My other brothers and
sisters graduated, but I was able to pursue that. I know that they are
very proud.
I wish my wife were here right now. She is watching this right now.
She is Barbara Dominguez Baca, with whom I will be celebrating 31 years
of marriage next week. On November 23, it will be our anniversary, so
it will be 31 years of marriage to one wife, not two wives or three
wives, but one wife.
I would like to also thank my children, because my children were
supporters. I believe in strong family values, because family values
are the core of what makes America great. It is what makes our country.
I would like to thank my family, because they have been very
supportive.
I would like to thank Joe, Jr. That is my first son. He is now 30.
Then Jeremy Baca; that is my second son. Then my daughter, first
daughter, and that is Natalie. Then, of course, my daughter that is 13
years of age. She is the reason my wife cannot be here because we
believe it is important to have our children in school and to obtain
that, and we did not want to take her out of school during that time.
It was important for her to be there. My wife realizes that, because
she is also a great student, a 4.0 student, doing well in school, so we
want to make sure she continues to receive those grades. Of course, Mom
is always there to help her.
So I love my family very much. I want to thank them.
But I also want to thank the voters, the voters of my district who
made it possible for me to be here. Without the voters' support, I
would not be here today.
I look forward to working in this House. It is going to be an honor
for me to work on a bipartisan basis. I look forward to working with my
colleague directly associated with me, and that is the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis). I look forward to working with him on issues
that are important to all of us, the issues that are important to the
State of California, because all of us care about the economy. All of
us care about education, public safety, protecting Social Security,
Medicare, drug prescriptions, areas that are important to a lot of us,
health reform.
But most of all, we want to make sure that, as I look at the 52
Members of California, that we work together on a bipartisan basis to
make California, like everybody else wants to make their State, a lot
better. But I also look forward to working with the 52 delegates from
California in assuring that we get our fair share of revenue coming
back to California. No offense to the rest of the Members. But I
believe, in reference to California, it is pretty big in population. We
have over 34 million people in California. But it is important that we
address those issues.
I want to work with them and also work with you on a bipartisan basis
on other issues that are important with us as well that impact all of
us.
What we all want is to improve the quality of life. We cannot do it
by ourselves. We have to come together collectively. It has to come
from a compromise, individuals willing to come together and do what is
necessary to make our State and our Nation a lot better. It is not
going to happen if we have political wedges that divide us. There are
times that we have to come together to address those areas. We need to
address those areas.
I want to thank you. I want to thank my family. I want to thank the
leadership. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) very
much for coming and getting all of the colleagues, the whips, you know,
that raised all of the funds that were necessary.
I look forward to additional help from the other side in giving me
additional monies. So it is very important for your support as well as
we begin to work on a bipartisan effort.
Again, I thank the Speaker and my colleagues very much.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) yield back
the remainder of his time?
[[Page 30647]]
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to adjourn offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 24,
nays 379, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 605]
YEAS--24
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Berry
Brown (FL)
Filner
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Luther
Manzullo
McDermott
McKinney
Minge
Oberstar
Obey
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rahall
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Wise
NAYS--379
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Berman
Capps
Conyers
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Ehrlich
Fowler
Frost
Gekas
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hutchinson
Jefferson
Kilpatrick
Maloney (CT)
Meehan
Mica
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Pombo
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryun (KS)
Scarborough
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Watt (NC)
Wexler
{time} 1304
Messrs. TANCREDO, BRADY of Texas, and NORWOOD changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 82 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 82
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-62 is further amended by striking ``November 18,
1999'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof
``November 23, 1999''. Public Law 106-46 is amended by
striking ``November 18, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``November 23, 1999''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 385, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.J. Res. 82, and that I may include tabular and extraneous
material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This continuing resolution extends the current CR for 5 days, until
November 23, specifically for the purpose of allowing the Senate to
have time to consider the measures that we will send them today.
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of allowing our Members to get home to
their families and preparing for the Thanksgiving period, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to see Members get home for
Thanksgiving, but I think my public duty is to help Members understand
what they are going to be voting on before they go home, because
otherwise when they do go home, their experience with the news media
and angry constituents is not going to be a very pleasant one; and I am
afraid there are a lot of nasty surprises in this bill, some of which I
will be discussing over the next 12 to 15 hours.
Let me say, first of all, that this bill has been a battleground
about national priorities and national direction. It has
[[Page 30648]]
been the arena for battles between the President and his allies on one
side and his political opponents on the other. By any measure, I think
it is safe to say that the President has won victory after victory. We
are going to be stuck having to extend the government, I am afraid,
several times through CRs like this one because of some of the
decisions made in the bill that is coming next, and people need to
understand how they interrelate.
I think you can say, for instance, that in the area of international
leadership, the President and those of us who agree with him have won a
great victory in funding the Wye peace process agreement. We have won a
very important battle in making sure that debts that would never be
repaid are going to be wiped out so that Latin America and Africa can,
in fact, become good markets for our products as well as stable
neighbors in an ever more complicated world.
We have won the fight to, at least for now, take the U.S. off the
list of U.N. deadbeats. On the environmental front, the President has
beaten down virtually every antienvironmental rider that was tossed his
way. In the fight against street crime, the President won 50,000 new
cops.
On the education front, it is important to understand some of the
major achievements that we have made. We have seen a lot of people
denigrate the President's effort to provide for 100,000 new teachers. I
want to put that effort in context. What Democrats have been fighting
for on education in this package is a four-pronged research-based
attack on educational incompetence and poor performance. The research
shows, for instance, that children do much better in smaller classes.
That is why the President fought so hard for and won the battle for
100,000 new teachers. That research also shows that, especially at the
high school level, students perform better, they exhibit less
antisocial adolescent behavior, and there is far less violence in high
schools that are smaller.
And so we have an initiative that will provide for smaller high
schools, or at least to help local school districts build smaller
learning centers within their high schools. The research also shows
that students do best when their teachers are welltrained. It sounds
obvious, but some people seem to have missed it. So we have an
initiative in this bill that will add additional funding for
partnership grants between university schools of education and local
school districts so that those schools of education are producing the
kinds of teachers that the districts actually need. And also in the
process, we are trying to raise the standards for those teachers so
that they are actually getting a degree in the subject that they are
going to wind up teaching, also I guess a shocking idea in some
quarters.
And lastly, research also shows that if you want to reform schools,
you need to do it from bottom to top and around again, that reform has
to be comprehensive, systemic; and that is why this bill adds
additional money to the Obey-Porter bipartisan comprehensive school
reform package.
All of those are very good things. I say that there is no doubt on
the major issues that have divided us the last 3 months, the President
has run the table. He has won on issue after issue. But I think there
are some things that are just as important as winning and losing, and I
want to talk about some of them as we discuss this continuing
resolution. We are being asked to continue the government a few more
days so it gives us time to pass the next bill that is coming at us. I
think we need to understand what is in that bill before we vote on this
resolution.
There are many things in that package that disturb me. The protracted
battle to persuade the majority to allow the United States to pay its
back dues to the United Nations has resulted in a compromise that may
still prevent release of all of the funds that are needed to return the
U.S. to a position of good standing in the U.N. I think that is
regrettable.
The Republican majority was also steadfast in its refusal to provide
the Justice Department with the $14 million that they need to pursue
tobacco litigation. This money is needed for efforts to recover the
hundreds of billions of tax dollars paid through the Medicare trust
fund, the Public Health Service, the veterans and military medical
systems, and the Social Security disability fund in dealing with
tobacco-related illnesses. The tobacco companies that lied repeatedly
to the American people about the health effects of smoking should pay a
substantial portion of those costs. The Republican majority is clearly
trying to protect them from having to repay the taxpayers.
I believe funds will be found by the administration to initiate
litigation; but as everybody knows, legal outcomes are often dictated
by the relative size of legal war chests. That is one of the things,
for instance, that I am told CBS news had to take into account when
they discussed whether or not to put on that famous ``60 Minutes''
special which went after the tobacco companies for not telling the
truth. I would say that while the appropriation requested by the
Justice Department to augment their ability to pursue that issue is
small, the long-term fiscal impact on the Federal Government could be
enormous; and we have failed to recognize that in the bill that is
coming to us.
The Republican majority also repeatedly refused to include language
that both the White House and I asked them to include to ensure that
100 percent of the money paid from the Medicare and Social Security
trust funds is returned to those trust funds if it is recovered in
litigation. That item was repeatedly raised during negotiations. It is
the fair thing to do with those funds. I find it hard to construct an
argument that they should be used for a different purpose, but the
Republican leadership flatly rejected that concept in both the Senate
and the House.
{time} 1315
I think the reason (and this was even said in conference,) they did
not want to approve this language is because it would provide
incentives to proceed with the lawsuit. Well, we ought to proceed with
that lawsuit.
I think nothing more clearly underlies or underscores the hollowness
of the claim of the majority that they have suffered a recent
conversion and are now strong supporters of Social Security. Nothing is
more clearly underscoring of the hollowness of that claim than their
new-found concern over the solvency of those trust funds. It is a
concern that suddenly emerged around here after Labor Day when polling
data demonstrated to them how badly they had been damaged by their
attempts to pass a huge tax bill that rewarded the rich, using all of
the resources needed to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
Another issue at the center of negotiations was whether to include a
small across-the-board cut. This cut was not necessary to reach the
offset targets to make sure the bill was paid for; more than enough
money was available from other sources. It is simply an attempt by the
majority to create a symbol that could be used to pretend that in the
midst of this orgy of gimmickry in spending, that they are continuing
to be fiscally responsible.
If my colleagues take a look at the dollars being provided across the
board by the majority, it is apparent, it is apparent to me that the
Republican leadership is willing to spend almost any amount to get out
of town, just so long as we can obscure how much that really is through
accounting gimmicks. I think that is a big mistake.
The problem with an across-the-board cut is that people say, ``My
God, any agency head ought to be able to administer a half a percent
cut across the board.'' Of course they could. They could easily find
waste if they are left to their own devices. But that is not the way
this across-the-board cut is designed. Their across-the-board cut
completely abandons the core responsibility of Congress to determine
spending priorities. There are programs that could afford a 1 or 2 or
even 10 percent cut. But, instead, the Congress requires much more
limited authority be given to the President, and that means that this
Congress ignores the fact that there are some programs that require a
[[Page 30649]]
precise amount of money in order to protect the taxpayers' interest.
Those kinds of programs fall into two categories: one, to protect
public safety, and the other to control the in-flow and out-flow of
public funds. These are largely accounts that include things like the
FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Air Traffic Control,
Customs Service, and Border Patrol. Numerous studies have demonstrated
that cuts in the administration of the Social Security agency can drive
up the error rate in the disbursement of those funds enough to cost the
Federal Government as much as $6 for every dollar saved in reduced
expenditures in Social Security Administration; and yet those studies
are ignored in the way this cut is applied.
Then we get to the question of national defense. The way national
defense is treated in this across-the-board cut is very interesting. It
was treated the way this bill treats it in order to protect
congressional pork. So what the provision requires is that we will have
to see about a $520 million reduction in operation and maintenance
accounts, which is the core of our military readiness, and that is
occurring at the same time that the Pentagon reported that two out of
the 10 divisions in the U.S. Army are now rated at C-4; in other words,
not close to having the parts, people, and maintenance that are
necessary to undertake military action. Yet, operation and maintenance
is going to be required to be cut by a larger percentage than anything
else in this bill. The reason for that is because the folks who put
this bill together wanted to protect the projects and the pork in the
research and procurement accounts. So we get that weird anomalous
result.
I will insert in the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker, extraneous
material related to my remarks, and I will expand further on that
subject for the Record.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed, for instance, that on pay-fors,
that the conferees chose to ignore the opportunity to recoup for the
taxpayers money that we should be recouping from the sale of what is
known as the Block C portion of spectrum sales. Several years ago when
block seed portion of the spectrum was auctioned off a number of
winning bidders went into bankruptcy without paying the Government for
the spectrum rights that they had purchased. They have been allowed to
hold on to those spectrum rights, refused to make any payments, and now
they have the prospect of reemerging from bankruptcy by selling their
share of the spectrum for a good deal more than they paid for it. It is
a good deal if you can get it, but the American taxpayers are taking a
bath; and we were blocked from correcting this specifically by one
Member of the House Republican leadership.
But what bothers me the most about this proposal is the fact that it
is laced through with accounting fixes to conceal an orgy of spending
that every Member would deny if confronted with it by his constituents.
I will insert in the Record a chart which shows that when this bill is
passed, the Congress will have spent $17,400 million that will not be
counted in determining how much that we have spent. It also has
declared almost $15 billion in expenditures to emergency spending so
that they are also exempt from spending limits we are supposed to be
abiding by.
LIST OF GIMMICKS IN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING NOT COUNTED BY CONGRESS
Directed CBO to reduce their spending estimates,
but actually spends Social Security:
AG--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..... ......... -163
CJ--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..... ......... -336
DOD--Directed outlay scoring.................. ......... -10,500
E&W--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).... ......... -103
FO--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..... ......... -144
INT--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).... ......... -170
L-HHS--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).. ......... -970
Directed outlay scoring (highway and transit ......... -1,341
firewalls)...................................
TRANS--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).. ......... -143
TPO--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).... ......... -151
VA HUD--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA). ......... -820
DOD--Spectrum asset sales..................... -2,600 -2,600
---------------------
Subtotal.................................. -2,600 -17,441
=====================
Declaration of emergencies for normal program
spending:
Declare Year 2000 Census an emergency......... -4,476 -4,118
Defense emergency designations................ -7,200 -5,500
Declare part of Head Start an emergency....... -1,700 -629
LIHEAP emergency declaration.................. -1,100 -825
Refugees emergency declaration................ -427 -126
Forest Service Wildland Fire Management....... -90 -3
Public health emergency declaration........... -584 -310
---------------------
Subtotal.................................. -15,577 -11,511
=====================
FY 2000 SPENDING COUNTED AGAINST 1999 OR 2001
Legally delay spending until the final days of the
fiscal year so it is counted next year:
DOD--Delay contractor payments................ 0 -1,250
Labor HHS--Delayed Obligations $5.0 B in BA ......... -1,674
delayed until 9/29/00........................
VA medical care delay obligation of $900 M.... ......... -720
FO--Delayed obligations....................... ......... -104
CJS--Delayed availability of balances in Crime -485 -485
Victims Fund until after FY 2000.............
Rescind section 8 housing funds............... -1,300 0
---------------------
Subtotal, delayed obligations............. -1,785 -4,233
=====================
Legally count spending against last fiscal year -1,800 -1,800
even though it is available for FY 2000: DOD--
Advance Appropriations...........................
Legally count spending against next fiscal year
even though it is available for FY 2000:
DOE--Elk Hills School Lands Fund.............. -36 -36
L-HHS--Increased advance funding for FY 2001 -10,100 -532
(total FY 2001 advances are $19 billion).....
HUD--section 8 advance appropriation for FY -4,200 0
2001 (37% of program total)..................
---------------------
Subtotal.................................. -16,136 -2,368
=====================
MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS
Across the Board cut 0.38%........................ -2,143 -1,206
Capture Federal Reserve Surplus................... -3,752 -3,752
New Hires Data Base for student loan collection -878 -876
(incl directed scoring)..........................
Slip military and civilian pay by one day......... ......... -3,589
Labor HHS-HEALTH loan recapture................... ......... -27
United Mine Workers Combined Benefit Fund......... -68 -39
L-HHS--Title XX, social services block grant, cut -608 -430
below mandatory level............................
TRANS--Mandatory offsets (rescission of FAA -30 -10
contract authority)..............................
---------------------
Subtotal...................................... -7,479 -9,929
=====================
Grand total................................... -43,577 -45,482
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in this bill, for instance, they have decided
now that they are going to declare Head Start to be an emergency. It
has only been on the books since 1965. I guess we just found out that
it is an emergency to deal with these kids. What they are really saying
is they have a political emergency that requires them to hide the real
cost of this bill from their taxpayers. That is the real emergency
designation that is going on here.
Then they move about $4.2 billion in outlays into different years.
That saves no money. It simply hides money. They have miscellaneous
spending, accounting gimmicks all told of $45 billion on the outlays
side, and $43 billion on the budget authority side. If my colleagues
want to go home and explain to their constituents that kind of hide-
and-seek attention to fiscal affairs, be my guest. That is not my
flavor of ice cream.
Let me make one other comment, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons that I
have been so unhappy with this bill, as I said earlier, is that it
stands over 1 foot high. I defy anyone to tell me, and I have a ruler
to prove it, I defy any of my Republican colleagues, I defy any of my
Republican colleagues to tell me what is in these authorization bills
that they are asking us to swallow. How much are we going to hear? How
much are the reporters in the gallery going to dig out after we have
left that we do not know about? I am afraid, a lot. But I have to say
that what bothers me more than anything is that these accounting
gimmicks may appear to be funny, but in fact, they are not funny at
all. I would not laugh too long, because what we are witnessing here is
something that is immensely corrosive of democracy and this
institution's role in democracy.
Mr. Speaker, the primary job that the Congress has each year is to
pass a budget. If we cannot be honest with the American people about
what we are doing in that budget, I think they have a right to question
whether we are being honest with them on anything that we say to them.
And the fact is that the list of accounting shell games that are in
this bill, not for policy reasons, but for political reasons, I think
brings discredit on the entire institution. That is because I guess we
are determined to live under a fiction that requires us to pretend that
we are spending billions of dollars less than we are actually spending.
Frankly, a lot of this spending is perfectly justifiable. I think
that the Republican educational priorities are good. I support them as
well as our own. But I do not like the fact that we are hiding what we
are doing in the process. I will have more to say about this along the
line.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers except
myself
[[Page 30650]]
to close, so I will continue to reserve my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I came to this body this morning prepared to
vote for a bipartisan omnibus bill, prepared to support reforms in the
quality and in the resources for our education budget and for our
schoolchildren across the country; prepared to defend firewalls on
Social Security and further reduce the deficit and the debt, which is
the best tax cut for all Americans. I have spent the last hour and a
half to 2 hours in the parliamentarian's office reading through this
bill and getting through a little bit of it; and the more I read of it,
the more concerns I have about Social Security and debt reduction.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said that there are some
gimmicks and games, and I think maybe a hope and a prayer in this
budget that we do not dip further than CBO has already said, which they
have stated that Congress has dipped $17 billion into Social Security.
The most important thing for me in this budget is to not touch Social
Security, further reduce the debt, and get quality education reforms. I
do not see any firewalls on Social Security in this. CBO has not even
scored this. We do not know what it does to Social Security.
Furthermore, when we have Head Start at $1.7 billion declared as an
emergency, I am not sure what that does to Social Security. I am not
sure saying that $2.4 billion becomes available on October 1, 2000, the
next fiscal year, what is that impact on Social Security? Delayed
obligations, $3 billion for NIH, $450 million for the Centers for
Disease Control. What is the impact there on Social Security?
So all of these things give me a great deal of hesitation and
reservation and concern, and I do not intend to vote for this omnibus
bill.
Now, on education, Mr. Speaker, we have $145 million for public
charter schools. I think that is a step in the right direction. We have
$1.4 billion for more teachers, not just for more numbers; but we say
25 percent of the funds can go to quality improvement, to professional
development. That is good progress, and I highly support that
discretion and flexibility.
{time} 1330
We furthermore have $335 million for the Eisenhower Professional
Development Program, again to try to address the shortage in quality of
teaching and too many teachers teaching outside their subject area. So
I think there are some high concerns for success in education but I do
not think this addresses the Social Security firewalls. It does not get
scored by CBO, and I would encourage my colleagues to read this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the budget process obviously allows us to say what is
important to the American people. It is a process where we say some are
winners and some are losers. It is a process for the Nation to declare
what the priorities are. Obviously we cannot win everything we want so
it has to be a compromise, but I can say, Mr. Speaker, the people in
North Carolina, where there was actually a disaster, never was an
emergency declared because it was not politically the right thing.
Maybe those who indeed would have said that would have come from Social
Security, we are trying to get the kind of basic relief, not all of it,
just the basic relief, for our farmers which is in doubt.
Now, I want to vote for this bill because there are good things in
it. I know there are winners and losers but I can say, Mr. Speaker,
that as we go forward I think it says something about the American
people when we ignore that over 72,000 people were affected in the
region, farmers lost a tremendous amount of their crops. Many of them
are going bankrupt and yet there is not the kind of relief that even
responds in a very basic way to their needs, not all the relief because
we knew an emergency was not declared.
We were willing to fight for that next year, but we need at least the
$81 million that was there for marketing. So I would urge, Mr. Speaker,
that we look at that to try to make sure that this budget process, as
we vote on it, indeed is speaking to the basic need. Some will be
winners, some will be losers, but the American nation should not lose
the principle of responding to those who are most desperately in need,
while we go forward with such an enormous amount of resources. Eighty-
one million dollars is a pittance; it is what is symbolic of what we
stand for that we should make sure that as we consider this bill that
at least the American farmers know that they were part of the
consideration in this budget process.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate and thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member,
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach yet another CR, with all of the terrible
problems that the ranking member has described, I think it fair to say
that none has been more harmed by the procedures of the House this year
than the people I represent.
Shall I paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning? How shall I dislike
it? Let me count the ways.
What is this bill? The Commerce, Justice, State, Foreign Ops,
Interior, Labor, HHS, DC bill, plus? All of our appropriations that
remain have been packed on to the tiny D.C. appropriation. Five hundred
thousand people are being used to take 300 million, or bills for 300
million, across the finish line, and the Nation's capital be damned; we
just have to wait to spend our own money, understand, because almost
all of the money in the D.C. appropriation is money raised in the
District of Columbia.
Obviously I have to be for it. What kind of position does that put me
in? The disgrace as affects the Nation's capital is outflanked only by
what the procedures of the House this year have done for democracy
itself and how we have displayed ourselves before the people of the
United States. We have become, in and of ourselves, a threat to
democracy. We have made democratic procedures a living joke on C-SPAN.
We are going to have before us a bill brimming with controversy.
There is the international family planning gag rule that is certain to
take the lives of countless of the poorest women in the world, with no
chance to debate it up and down. There is the dairy controversy we have
heard so much about today.
In a democracy, we vote our differences up and down. In a democracy
we even vote our compromises up and down. This House has become an
embarrassment to itself. However, I am very glad the Nation has been
able to see it because maybe when we go home there will be a backlash
that will keep us from ever doing this again.
The delay, with another CR, has needlessly harmed the people of the
District of Columbia right at a time when we have gotten a new reform
mayor and a reform city council. This has not made an ounce of
difference to this body. The reputation of the House has been
permanently damaged as an institution. We can reclaim it only by
returning to regular order and democratic procedures.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it section 1001 of the omnibus bill
effectively waives the pay-as-you-go rules for all of the authorizing
legislation included in the omnibus package. It also effectively, as I
understand it, waives the pay-as-you-go rules for the outyear effects
of other legislation passed this legislation.
I would like to ask the leadership of this House why these rules are
being
[[Page 30651]]
waived and how much spending is not being counted as a result of that?
We have seen no CBO scoring on the omnibus package. Can anyone tell
us the amount of spending covered by these budget waivers?
I would also ask why Members' pay was exempted from this across-the-
board cut when it was included in the previous across-the-board cut
that was made?
I think those are but some of the questions that Members ought to be
asking before they vote on the budget that is coming at us later this
afternoon.
I would also say, Mr. Speaker, I regret the time that we have taken
but I think every hour that we spend gives Members an additional
opportunity to understand what is in these bills, and I think in the
end that serves the interest both of every Member and the taxpayers
that they are trying to represent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to all of the discussion and the
debate from the Members on the other side of the aisle, and if any of
that debate related to this CR that is presently before us I would have
a lengthy response, but none of that debate relates to this CR. So at
this point I would just like to make this suggestion, let us pass the
CR and then get on to the appropriations bill that has been the subject
of debate using this as a vehicle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, regrettably I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The Chair would announce that if a vote on passage of the joint
resolution is required, pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will
reduce to 5 minutes the time for votes on final passage and questions
incidental thereto.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 1, nays
420, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 606]
YEAS--1
Forbes
NAYS--420
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Bachus
Brady (TX)
Burton
Capps
Conyers
Delahunt
Hutchinson
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Meehan
Visclosky
Wexler
{time} 1359
Messrs. TANNER, HEFLEY, BATEMAN, DAVIS of Illinois, MOLLOHAN, LINDER,
CLYBURN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
[[Page 30652]]
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1400
Motion Offered By Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
House voted to reject the motion to recommit the bill to the Committee
on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Did the gentleman from
Wisconsin vote on the prevailing side of the question on the motion?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.
Motion To Table Offered By Mr. Young of Florida
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the
motion to reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. An insufficient number having arisen, a
recorded vote is not in order.
So a recorded vote was refused.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 403,
noes 16, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 607]
AYES--403
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--16
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Coburn
Forbes
Green (WI)
Kind (WI)
Manzullo
Miller, George
Oberstar
Obey
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Souder
NOT VOTING--15
Ackerman
Brady (TX)
Capps
Clyburn
Conyers
Delahunt
Herger
Jones (OH)
Meehan
Mink
Porter
Price (NC)
Visclosky
Wexler
Woolsey
{time} 1408
Mr. COYNE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 329
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 329.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3194,
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2000
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 386
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3194) 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. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of the conference report addressed in
the first section of this resolution, the House shall be
considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution consisting
of the text printed in section 3.
Sec. 3. The text of the concurrent resolution addressed in
section 2 is as follows:
[[Page 30653]]
``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the enrolled copy of the bill (H.R. 2466)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes, shall not be presented to the
President, to the end that the bill be, and is hereby, laid
on the table.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 386 is a typical rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 3194, the conference report for the District of
Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule waives all
points of order against the conference report and its consideration and
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
H. Res. 386 also provides that, upon the adoption of the conference
report, the text of the concurrent resolution printed in the rule
tabling the conference report accompanying the Department of Interior
appropriations bill shall be considered as adopted.
Finally, House rules provide 1 hour of general debate divided equally
between the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on
Appropriations and one motion to recommit with or without instructions
as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and this conference report bring the budget
process for the fiscal year 2000 to a close by implementing a
bipartisan compromise on the remaining appropriations bills, District
of Columbia, Interior, Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, and
Education, Labor, Health and Human Services.
Only three times in the last two decades has the Congress passed all
13 appropriations bills by the fiscal deadline. I point out one was
recently when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was chairman. It
is true that we did not make this deadline this year. However, it is
also true that keeping our fiscal house in order does take a little
longer than the free-wheeling, big-spending days of the past because we
must ensure that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is
needed the most.
{time} 1415
The conference report before us this afternoon not only holds the
line on the President's additional spending requests, but also
responsibly funds areas important to every American citizen and
protects the American people from waste, fraud and abuse across the
entire Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Republican Congress made a
commitment to end the 30-year raid on Social Security and, according to
the Congressional Budget Office, we have now completed that task. The
President began the budget negotiations by taking a large step toward
our position on the Social Security issue and joined us in locking away
every penny of Social Security. We worked with him in a bipartisan
fashion to protect retirement security. We were determined to protect
American seniors and this Congress and its leadership denied any piece
of legislation on the House floor that spent one penny of it.
To achieve our goal of protecting American seniors and responsibly
funding important programs, we are including in this bill a plan to
direct every Federal agency to reduce spending by less than one-half of
one percent, .38 percent of 1 percent, by routing out waste, fraud, and
abuse. Surely the government can save less than about half a penny out
of every dollar. This Republican Congress is simply asking those who
run Federal agencies to make fiscally responsible budgeting decisions
with the money taxed out of our paychecks. We all know the agency
directors and executives know where the waste is, and I am relatively
certain they will be able to weed out at least that much in savings
with this sensible plan.
In addition to meeting the fiscally responsible objectives, this
conference report also ensures that our principles of quality and
flexibility in the funding for teachers have been met. In the Labor-HHS
section of the bill, this Congress ensures that funding may no longer
be used to hire unqualified teachers, provides that schools will have
more flexibility in using their funding for improving the quality of
uncertified teachers, and increases the amount of funding that may used
for professional training for teachers.
The administration pushed for a one-size-fits-all mandate in which
Washington controlled the 100,000 New Teachers program. Not every
district needs new teachers. Some need better-trained teachers. Other
districts need books, high-tech equipment, and updated math and reading
programs. I think it is foolish for the Washington bureaucracy to tell
every school district in America that Washington knows best how to
spend tax dollars to educate our children.
The debate in Washington is not only about money. It is also about
how that money should be spent. This bill moves us closer to the right
balance of education funding by providing additional funds for
America's students through programs like Pell grants and special
education while lowering the bureaucratic burden imposed by Washington
through programs like Goals 2000.
The Commerce, Justice, State section of the conference report
maintains our commitment to enhancing local law enforcement without
involving Washington bureaucrats. We also provide funding for 1,000 new
border patrol agents, funds for increased criminal and illegal alien
detention, and the resources necessary to end the severe naturalization
backlog at the INS.
The District of Columbia continues to receive the high level of
funding provided in each round of this process. The conference report
paves the way for dramatic improvement in the education of Washington's
children, the safety of our streets, and the management of our Nation's
Capital.
H.R. 3194 also brokers a responsible compromise on the environment in
the Interior appropriations section of this conference report.
Republicans rejected attempts to impose the restrictions of the Kyoto
global warming regime on Americans without Senate consideration of the
treaty. Nevertheless, the bill maintains our high environmental
standards and ensures our air and water will be cleaned into the next
millennium.
While I will permit the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
to describe fully all the contents of the appropriations bill, I did
want to note the inclusion of the satellite copyright legislation about
which many of our constituents have expressed concerns during the past
year. I am pleased that this bill will provide a new copyright license
to satellite television that will allow constituents to receive their
local television channels over their satellite service.
In addition, this bill will bring real competition, ensure better
prices and choices for our constituents, protect existing subscribers
from having their distant network service shut off, and make it easier
for consumers to get either a waiver or an eligibility test for distant
network service in the event the waiver request is denied. This bill is
good for our constituents, and I am pleased to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), each of the
subcommittee chairmen on the Committee on Appropriations, and the
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for
their tireless efforts over the past few weeks to reach an agreement on
the budget.
This rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules yesterday,
I think that might have been this morning, at about 3:30 a.m., and I
urge my colleagues to support the bill on the floor so we may proceed
with the general debate and consideration of this important conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 30654]]
Mr. Speaker, at 3:20 a.m. this morning the Committee on Rules was
convened to report this rule. The chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), said at that
time that he would like to take the time to explain to the committee
what was in this conference agreement, but that to do so might take 4
days. While I know he was engaging in a little hyperbole, I cannot
think he was too terribly off the mark.
Mr. Speaker, this rule rolls five appropriation bills, agriculture
disaster assistance funding, and $576 million for Hurricane Floyd
disaster assistance, all into one bill. The conference agreement also
contains a much-needed Medicare reimbursement fix for hospitals and
nursing homes, the authorization for the Department of State, which
contains terms and conditions that must be met in order for U.S.
arrearages to be paid, as well as other matters that were not made
clear to the Committee on Rules early this morning.
I am perfectly aware that Members are anxious to end the session of
the 106th Congress, but could we not wait an extra hour or 2 to give
Members an opportunity to find out what is really in this bill? I am
also concerned that this enormous bill is only going to get 1 hour of
debate when in fact each one of these bills in it should be considered
separately. Evidently, the Republican leadership does not think that it
is necessary for Members to know what they are voting on.
This is a very bad way to do business, Mr. Speaker. And no one should
be surprised if Members raise objections to considering this rule at
this time. While the contents of this omnibus appropriations bill might
be known to negotiators from Congress, the White House, and a few
select others, most of the Members of this body know what is in the
bill only through news reports and summaries.
This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the
last; but, Mr. Speaker, how hard would it be to give Members of this
body a few extra hours to ask questions? The Republican leadership is
obviously making contingent plans in case the other body does not act
quickly on this conference agreement. The Committee on Rules reported a
rule making in order two additional continuing resolutions that will
carry us through November 23 and December 2. A few hours more today is
not an extraordinary request, Mr. Speaker.
So what is in this bill? There are currently some significant
improvements over the earlier appropriations vetoed by the President,
and these represent a victory for Democrats and for the people of this
country. The Commerce, Justice, State appropriation contains increased
funding for the COPS program, increases for the Office of Civil Rights,
the EEOC, and for Legal Services.
The Foreign Operations appropriation fully fund the Wye Agreement,
allowing the United States to meet its obligations in the Middle East.
The Interior appropriation contains increases in funding for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and for Indian schools and tribal community colleges,
provides funding for the Lands Legacy program, and deletes the most
objectionable riders that have been added to the bill in the Senate.
The Labor-HHS, Education appropriation provides $35.7 billion in
funding for one of the top Democratic priorities, class size reduction.
This is a major victory for the President and for Democrats in
Congress; but even more so, it is a victory for parents and their
children and for quality public school education. This conference
agreement also includes funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant, for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and for the
Older Americans Act programs.
This bill represents a lot of hard work and many hard-won
compromises. However, there is one provision that is problematic for
many Members of this House. While the bill funds the arrearages owed to
the United Nations, these funds have been won at an extraordinarily
high cost, a cost that for some Members may be too high. The fact that
this bill trades off payment to the U.N. for family planning around the
world is tragic. Women's lives and health are being held hostage, Mr.
Speaker; and for many of us in this body, such a situation is
deplorable. No one should be surprised if Members vote against this
conference agreement because of that issue alone.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill does contain an across-the-board cut.
Granted, it is far smaller than originally proposed by the Republican
majority, but the symbolism is hard to miss. Because this bill has only
been whole for a matter of hours, it is doubtful that the Congressional
Budget Office has had an opportunity to cost it out. But this across-
the-board cut is a fig leaf designed to conceal the fact that gimmicks
and bells and whistles have been used to mask the fact that this bill
most likely does cut into the Social Security surplus. The White House
may have bought into this charade, but this is one Member who
understands that in this case the emperor and all his men have no
clothes.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is a mixed bag; and Members should really
be given the time to look at it so they can intelligently make a
decision about how they want to vote. There is a lot at stake here, and
surely it is worth a little more time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the
rule as well as the bill.
There are numbers of issues here that are well taken care of in this
bill, but I specifically want to say for people in New Jersey that we
have not only help here for the victims of Hurricane Floyd, but also
for New Jersey farmers who have suffered a terrible drought over the
past year or more.
The FEMA use of money in this bill, $250 million, to buy out homes
that were severely damaged by Floyd, is very, very necessary in New
Jersey; and it will help to not only have mitigation efforts but also
do the buyout of some of these homes.
But I rise particularly today to point out, as a member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services as well as a member of the
board of directors of Bread for the World, that we do have in this bill
a wonderful effort to help debt burden relief for those poorest
countries, and I think that is very important. I want to commend the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), because it was
through his efforts that we were able to get this money in there, help
the hungry and the poorest countries of the world, and really help put
in place reforms for the next year that will address the questions of
transparency in the International Monetary Fund.
But for my part, aside from the fact that this is long overdue to
help feed those poor people in the poorest countries, I also want to
say that I will continue to track the distribution of that debt relief
and ensure that it is not being diverted by corrupt government actions.
This is a wonderful activity. We cannot forget these poor people, and
it is in the grand tradition of our great country, the United States of
America.
Although we have spent many weeks trying to get to this point I
believe we have a fair compromise for all. Although there are many
items in this bill that I could speak about today there are a few I
would like to mention today.
First I am pleased that this bill contains extra funding to help
victims of Hurricane Floyd and the disastrous drought suffered by our
New Jersey farmers.
This legislation allows FEMA to use $215 million to buyout homes
severely damaged by the flood caused by Hurricane Floyd. This is very
important to my state of New Jersey where many homes were damaged. This
will help relocate some of those homes outside of the natural flood
plain.
This bill also has additional funds to help our farmers who have
suffered from weather related disasters.
I would also like to put my colleagues on notice--we, in New Jersey,
are still tallying the price tag of Floyd. When the totality of the
damage from this unprecedented hurricane is determined, we will most
likely have to address this issue again early next year. And
[[Page 30655]]
when we do, I strongly urge my colleagues to address the unique
circumstances of small businesses that were damaged by the storm. These
small businesses are the economic backbone of many of our communities
and need and deserve direct grants to help them back on their feet.
Also I am pleased that this bill contains many of the provisions of
H.R. 1402 which implements the Option 1-A milk pricing system that is
so important to the small dairy farmers in New Jersey and the
northeast. It also extends the dairy Compact for two years.
Finally, I am pleased that this bill advances the international plan
to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries.
Mr. Speaker, I am on the Board of Directors of Bread for the World--
one of the distinguished and notable groups that have been spearheading
the debt relief movement. Indeed, much of the religious community is
urging us to write off some of the unpayable debt of the world's
poorest countries during the year 2000. And under the right conditions,
it's the right thing to do.
The language Majority Leader Armey has negotiated with Treasury is
very helpful and I commend him for his efforts. It will increase the
impact of the funding the House has already voted to appropriate for
the relief of debts that very poor countries owe to the United States.
This language will ensure that the International Monetary Fund and
other governments also help provide for this debt relief. In addition,
I believe it will require accountability to ensure that the monies will
be directed to feeding the hungry in these poorest countries.
For my part, I will continue to track the distribution of this debt
relief to ensure that it is not being diverted by corrupt government
actions.
Mr. Speaker, this language will also give Congress another
opportunity next year to push for IMF reform. Many Members--from both
parties--agree that the IMF should be more transparent and more
accountable--to the taxpayer's of the United States and to people in
the countries where it works.
There is also widespread agreement on the basic goal of debt relief--
to support economic development and the reduction of poverty in the
poorest countries. Treasury, the World Bank and IMF have adopted
promising new policies and procedures recently, and Congress will need
to be vigilant that these changes really do translate debt relief into
help and opportunity for poor and hungry people.
Mr. Speaker, this nonomnibus package is far from perfect. Like many
Members, I could find certain parts of this bill problematic. But, we
must look at the whole picture. And on the whole this bill is fair.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, once again I want to make clear why I have offered the
motions that I have offered for the past 2\1/2\ hours. I did so because
it was the plan of the leadership to bring the rule and the continuing
resolution that just passed, to have that up right away at 10 o'clock,
whiz it through the House, immediately move to the rule, which we are
now on, and then move immediately to the omnibus appropriation bill,
which none of us have read and none of us understand. And that vote
would have been taken by noon without even having a single copy of that
bill on the floor.
{time} 1430
What I was trying to do is to give Members, first of all, enough time
to simply get a copy on the floor; secondly, to give our staffs an
opportunity to try to determine with greater certainty exactly what is
in the authorization attachments and what is not; and thirdly, to
develop at least some pieces of information available to rank and file
Members so that those Members who were not in the negotiations
understand just how replete with gimmicks and replete with fraud this
upcoming bill is.
Now, we have done I think as much as we could reasonably do. It has
never been my intention once the debate on the bill starts to offer
further motions because I think both parties are entitled to lay out
their views on that bill without interruption, and I have no intention
of making future motions once we get to the bill itself.
I do ask the House, on this bill, to vote against this rule because
we have no business doing business this way. We have no business adding
nine separate authorization bills to the underlying appropriations
bill. We have no business hiding from Members the $45 billion in
spending gimmicks that are in these bills.
It just seems to me that the way we should proceed is to have an
hour's debate on each of the provisions being added to the
appropriations bills so that, whether Members are for them or against
them, the House at least has an opportunity to understand what it is
doing.
Nobody knows what we are doing on these bills except perhaps a few of
the staffers who put them together, I will grant that. But I doubt that
any Member is fully aware of all of the provisions in these bills. And
we are going to regret a good many of them, I am sad to say.
I would simply say, for instance, that there are pieces of this bill,
and this is not true of the appropriation items, but there are other
pieces of the bill which we will consider which have not yet been
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. We ought to know what they
estimate the cost to be before we vote on this bill.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in dissertation on the floor it was mentioned
that the President won something in the area of education. I want to
make sure, and I will do this several times this afternoon, that
everybody understands that the President did not win anything in
education.
The chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce did not
win anything in the area of education. The children of the United
States won a lot in the area of education. And, above all, the most
disadvantaged children in the United States won in the area of
education.
When I was able to show to the administration that 50 percent of many
of the teachers in the schools in New York City and duplicated in large
cities all over the country were totally uncertified and, beyond that,
probably not qualified, some that were certified, they agreed there is
no reason to put one more teacher in there. We better get those who are
there properly qualified.
When they realized that last year 10 percent of all those new
teachers that were hired were totally unqualified, they realized
putting one teacher in there was not going to help anything, they
better get the people who are there more qualified. And so, we say in
that legislation agreed to by the administration that any new hires
must be properly qualified and anybody that was hired last year that
was not qualified must be qualified within 1 year.
That is why the administration agreed that we should move from 15 to
25 percent in the area of flexibility. That is why the administration
agreed that we should move it 100 percent in those school districts
where they have all the uncertified and unqualified teachers.
That is why the administration agreed that public school choice
should be available to the 7,000 schools that are Title I schools who
are not doing anything about improving the quality of their education,
and they said those parents should have the right, and we agreed.
We brought it up. They agreed. So nobody won except the children of
the United States and, above all, those children who are most
disadvantaged.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the calendar and explain that
Thanksgiving does not come until Thursday, a week, and the ``turkey''
that we are about to consider today is
[[Page 30656]]
stuffed with a lot of horrendous gifts and failures.
For example, stuffed away in this bill, unknown to many of my
colleagues, is a gift of over $500 million a year to drug companies who
have their pharmaceutical drugs exempted from certain protections under
the Medicare bill. But at the same time we are giving $500 million a
year to these pharmaceutical companies, members of the Committee on
Ways and Means, all of them, all of the Republicans who were there
voted to deny seniors a discount on their prescription drugs.
That means that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) all voted to deny the seniors in their
district a discount on their prescription drugs, which would have cost
the Federal Government not one penny. Yet, grandly, they are going to
vote to give $500 million a year to the pharmaceutical companies.
Now, this bill is not paid for. There is a $4 billion gift to the
medical providers. Yet it shortens Medicare solvency and raises the
Part B premium on all of our seniors by $12.
At the same time, this bill has failed to give Medicaid to children
of legal immigrants. Young children are denied medical care if they
came to this country after 1996.
Yet, we had a great gift to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield company by
weakening quality control standards for managed care under Medicare. We
weakened the standards when this same Congress has been unable to
finalize the managed care bill of rights. We are doing nothing under
the Republican leadership except giving big dollars to the
pharmaceutical companies in exchange for their donations, giving big
gifts to Blue Cross and for-profit managed care plans who are reaming
our seniors.
And yet, in the next bill to be considered, if this turkey that we
will consider in the extenders happens to have a bowel movement, we are
going to spend $40 million or $30 million a year turning the results of
that activity into energy.
I would suggest, if we are going to put up with all this Republican
alchemy, why do we not ask these same poultry producers to turn that
by-product into gold; and then they might find the $17 billion they
cannot find to pay for in this bill and, so, it is going to come out of
the Social Security trust fund.
All in all, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is correct. It is a
bill we should not be voting on in the dark. Vote ``no'' on the rule
and the bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the Chairman of
Appropriations, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be talking about a rule. But,
obviously, we are into the substance of these measures. There has been
a characterization of some of that substance by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark), and I would like to take just a couple of
minutes to set the stage for those of our colleagues who may be nervous
about the fact that the body does not know what we are doing in terms
of the Medicare reform or that items have been slipped into this bill.
Perhaps the gentleman does not remember that we had a subcommittee
mark-up on October 15. We examined the bill at that time and voted it
favorably to the full committee.
In between subcommittee passage and the full committee vote, the
President wrote a letter to me dated October 19 and said, ``Dear Mr.
Chairman, I am writing to respond to your request about administrative
actions.''
He goes on and provides an outline for what the administration has
been trying to do notwithstanding the Y2K computer problems that the
administration has had the day after he signed the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997. We were not aware of them prior to signing the bill, but they
discovered them immediately after they signed the legislation.
His next-to-last paragraph said this: ``We believe that our
administrative actions can complement legislative modifications to
refine BBA payment policies. These legislative modifications should be
targeted to address unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 that can expect to adversely affect beneficiary access to
quality care.''
That was exactly what we did. We targeted it. This is a refinement
bill. And on October 21, it passed the full committee with a bipartisan
vote. This is not something that was done in the dead of night at 3
a.m. in the morning. It went through the subcommittee. It went through
the full committee. And then it came to the floor on November 5. And
with 388 Members of the House supporting the very specific provisions
that have been characterized as insidious or give-backs or rip-offs,
388 Members of the House voted for it.
But beyond that, after we worked with our sister committee on this
side in jurisdiction, the Committee on Commerce, with the Senate
Finance Committee, and with the White House to craft an agreement that
looked virtually exactly like the House bill, there was a comment by
White House representative Chris Jennings, who is identified as the
health policy coordinator at the White House, in news stories published
on November 11, Mr. Jennings said, ``This is an honorable compromise.
It lays down a foundation for more significant Medicare reforms next
year.''
It is quite true that the gentleman from California tried to offer a
number of killer amendments to fundamentally alter Medicare, to change
the entire structure on a modest bill that the President agreed needed
to correct some flaws in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 refinements.
No refinement bill could carry the kind of amendments the gentleman
from California offered. And clearly, the purpose of those amends was
to be able to stand up on the floor and then make a statement that
somehow we refused to provide prescription drugs to seniors.
It seems to me that if less of that kind of hyperbole were employed
and more of a willingness to work together, as has been indicated by
the White House, health care coordinator, we could accomplish much. In
a letter dated November 15 that was addressed to the Speaker signed by
John Podesta, Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, in
which he said, for example, in the third paragraph, ``As Office of
Management and Budget Director Lew indicated in his letter to Mr.
Thomas on October 18, findings or clarifications by Congress do not
change the law and do not result in scoring. Therefore, the attached
clarifying language on the hospital outpatient department policy would
not be scored by the OMB. With this in mind, we would not characterize
such legislation as having an adverse effect in any way on the Social
Security surplus.''
A letter from the White House says it does not affect the Social
Security surplus. The comments from the White House people we worked
with said it was an ``honorable compromise''. CBO has scored it, and I
will put it in the Record in terms of the dollar amounts on a 1-year,
5-year, 10-year, in fact, a detailed scoring.
Why anyone would stand up on the floor of this House and characterize
the Medicare legislation as reckless or inappropriate, when Democrats
that we worked with to put the package together, such as the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), White House representatives, Chief of Staff
John Podesta and their health care coordinator say this is an honorable
agreement, that we have it scored that it does not affect the important
hospital outpatient area, any adverse effect on Social Security, I have
got to say it sounds a little desperate on the part of some individuals
who voted no in subcommittee, no on the floor, and are voting no now
that, frankly, their colleagues do not agree with them.
This is a good package. People are pleased to and it is endorsed by
Republicans, some Democrats, most Democrats, 388 votes on the floor of
the House, and the White House.
I am pleased to work together with those who want to improve Medicare
to
[[Page 30657]]
make sure that it is better for our seniors today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
The White House,
Washington, November 15, 1999.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: We are pleased that we have been able to
work out a strong, bipartisan agreement on the Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999. All parties to the agreement,
in particular Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. McCrery, Senator Roth,
Senator Moynihan and Senator Nickles, played critical roles
in achieving this outcome. We know that this was as high a
priority for you as it has been for the President and we
appreciate your leadership.
As you know, a technical drafting change in the BBA has
resulted in some confusion over the outpatient payment
formula that could result in a reduction in payments. Aside
from correcting a payment formula flaw, the hospital
outpatient PPS was not designed to impose an additional
reduction in aggregate payments. We continue to believe that
such a reduction would be unwise. During our deliberations on
the balanced Budget Refinement Act, we agreed to resolve any
confusion through a Congressional intent clarification
provision. Earlier today, language to this effect was worked
out between the White House and Mr. Thomas.
As Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Law
indicated in his letter to Mr. Thomas on October 18, findings
or clarifications by Congress do not change the law and do
not result in scoring. Therefore, the attached clarifying
language on the hospital outpatient department policy would
not be scored by OMB. With this in mind, we would not
characterize such legislation as having an adverse effect in
any way on the Social Security surplus.
Achieving a bipartisan consensus on addressing the
unintended consequences of the BBA is an important
accomplishment. The President hopes that we can build on this
achievement and pass legislation to strengthen and modernize
Medicare.
Sincerely,
John D. Podesta,
Chief of Staff to the President.
Enclosure.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE ``MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND S-CHIP BALANCED BUDGET
REFINEMENT ACT OF 1999''
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO estimate
Program refinement -------------------
5 year 10 year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House-Senate agreement:
Hospitals....................................... 3.4 5.3
Skilled Nursing Facilities...................... 2.1 2.1
Outpatient Therapy Services..................... 0.6 0.6
Home Health & Hospice........................... 1.3 1.4
Dialysis & Durable Medical Equipment............ 0.3 0.8
Pap Smears & Immunosuppressive Drugs............ 0.2 0.4
Medicare+Choice................................. 1.9 2.5
Medicaid........................................ 0.7 1.2
S-CHIP.......................................... 0.2 0.4
Part B Interaction and Medicare+Choice 0.8 1.8
Interaction....................................
-------------------
Total spending (reflecting House-Senate 12.4 17.1
agreement) \1\...............................
Addition per administration's request:
Administration's Request for Hospital Outpatient 3.9 9.6
PPS Clarification \2\..........................
-------------------
Total spending (reflecting Administration's 16.0 27.0
request) \1\.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Components may not add to total due to rounding.
\2\ Request detailed in letters from the OMB (10/18/99). Clarification
will not be scored by OMB on its baseline.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this rule because I
believe that it is not fair and it is not in keeping with the great
tradition of this House for us to have an open debate and for Congress
to work its will on important matters that affect our country.
{time} 1445
There are at least nine bills rolled into this bill that this rule is
for, five appropriations bills. I do not like to spend a good deal of
time talking about process, but when the rule for a bill for at least
nine pieces of legislation allows for 1 hour of debate, one-half an
hour on each side, that is not serving the American people well.
One of the issues that I wish we could debate more fully if our bill
on foreign operations were brought up separately, which it should have
been, is the issue of international family planning. I think it is very
instructive to the American people to see that the Republican majority
in this House was willing to hold hostage the United States
international role in the world. The Republican majority was willing to
hold hostage the poorest women in the world and their access to family
planning. They were willing to hold hostage our position at the United
Nations at a time when we are calling out for multilateralism and not
the U.S. carrying the full burden.
I think it points to the extremism of the Republican Party that this
is, and I point out, my colleagues, this is not about abortion; it is
about family planning, that a majority of the Republicans have voted to
oppose all funding for all international family planning, that they
would take that position and use it against the administration and
force the administration's hand to agree to their position in order for
us to maintain our vote at the U.N. while we paid our dues.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule in the hopes that we
could bring back the substantive matters before this House in a fair
and open and democratic way.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and wish to set the
record straight on the swirling misperceptions that have surrounded the
West Virginia delegation's efforts to provide a balance between
protecting jobs so essential for our Nation's energy security and
protecting our environment at the same time. Over the past several
weeks, the national media, environmental organizations, and the White
House have engaged in a campaign of misinformation regarding a proposal
by the West Virginia congressional delegation to address a coal mining
crisis in our State.
Over the years, litigation in the State of West Virginia has resulted
in some of the toughest mining reclamation laws in the Nation. Indeed
our coal industry in West Virginia operates under greater environmental
scrutiny than the industry does in any other State in our Nation. As a
result of litigation, environmental plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement with the United States on matters involving both
the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.
On October 20 of this year, a Federal court decision rendered a
rather unique interpretation of the relationship between provisions of
the Clean Water Act and SMARA. This interpretation in my view is
contrary to congressional intent in enacting the applicable statutes.
Our delegation has sought to reaffirm the interpretation of these
provisions of law and regulations that have been upheld by the EPA, the
Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department. Nothing, and I repeat,
nothing in our efforts have sought to undercut the Clean Water Act. In
fact, the provision of our legislation clearly states, and I quote,
``nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces
or amends any requirement or any regulation issued under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.''
I do not know how to better state it, how to make it more clear. Yet
despite these facts, a campaign of misinformation has been trumpeted
around this Nation and has been unfair to our West Virginia
congressional delegation. The White House certainly is to blame. This
is unfortunate, because the White House and the President's senior
advisors particularly have turned their back on the many hundreds of
hard-working men and women whose livelihoods, whose families and whose
futures now hang in the balance. These are the individuals who have
toiled beneath the surfaces of this Nation in order to provide us
energy security that lights this very chamber today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the
final spending bill. There may be many laudable provisions, but
unfortunately this bill does not include the important Byrd-McConnell
mining amendment that the West Virginia delegation has sought so hard
to include. Failure to include the West Virginia delegation's language
which would rectify a Federal court decision means months, perhaps even
years of uncertainty, uncertainty about whether to enter into coal
contracts, uncertainty about whether to
[[Page 30658]]
make investments in future mining, uncertainty in families' lives about
whether they will continue their jobs in the mining industry and,
finally, uncertainty, yes, even for the environmental advocates,
because there are no final rules of the road.
If this day ends without the important Byrd-McConnell language, I
believe, though, we must continue working. First, all parties must
agree that the present stay of the court decision has to remain in
effect. Second, the DEP and Federal agencies must work together to
analyze the full impact of the court's decision. And, third, all
parties, mining, State and Federal officials, and environmental
representatives must undertake serious negotiations to see if agreement
can be reached to deal with the most severe impact of the court's
decision.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me make a point. Great progress has been made
in improving surface mining. As a result of environmental legislation
and a sweeping environmental settlement just months ago, surface mining
will never be the same again in the State of West Virginia. So great
progress has been made. The question is whether balance will be
preserved. And the court's decision takes it too far the other way. The
important Byrd-McConnell language would guarantee that there would be
balance, that gains in regulating mining would be preserved and at the
same time the important mining jobs, particularly in those areas of
high unemployment, would be preserved.
Mr. Speaker, mountaintop removal will never be conducted the same
again. That is already a given. The Byrd-McConnell language, though,
would guarantee that as we improve regulation in mountaintop removal,
we do not automatically result in job removal. I wish this language had
been included.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
I reluctantly have to rise in opposition to this rule. I want to at
least explain why. Early in the process we were told that there was not
going to be an omnibus bill. We now know that that is not true. We were
also told that very controversial issues would not be included in the
final bill. We know that is not true, either. But part of the reason I
have to rise in opposition to this rule is I remember several years ago
when one of my favorite Presidents stood right there and he held up a
bill that weighed about 45 pounds and he dropped it on the desk right
here with a big thud, and he said, Congress should not send bills like
this to my office, and he said, and if they do, I will veto them. He
did not keep that promise. He probably should have.
But in many respects, we all know, everybody in this body knows it is
wrong to have these omnibus bills where we throw almost everything into
it. If anybody here can say with an honest expression on their face
that they know what everything is in that bill, well, God save you. We
know that there is a lot of stuff in that. We are going to read over
the next several months about issues that are in the bill, and we are
going to be embarrassed by it.
But I am most embarrassed about what is happening to the dairy
farmers in the upper Midwest. Every morning at 4:30 lights go on all
over the upper Midwest, 3,000 in my district. Nobody works harder than
dairy farmers, and this is a knife in the back to those people. For 62
years they have labored under the yoke of an unfair milk marketing
order system, and this leadership has knifed them in the back in the
11th hour in a back-room deal. I can live with the outcome if we have
regular order. I understand democracy. If we have an honest up or down
vote and we lose in the House; we have an honest up or down vote and we
lose in the Senate, I can live with that. That is called democracy. But
when it is done at the 11th hour by a handful of leaders in a back-room
deal, well, I cannot live with that, and I cannot vote for a rule that
would support it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference
report and to commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) specifically, and those in the
administration for their efforts. Bringing this package to the floor
has not been easy. I want to applaud the patience and the determination
both sides showed in reaching this agreement. I reluctantly opposed the
conference report for the Interior appropriations bill earlier in the
year because of numerous anti-environmental provisions that were
attached by the other body. Thankfully we have removed or modified
nearly all of those riders and significantly improved the Interior
bill.
Additionally, though, through our negotiations with the White House,
we were able to increase funding levels for some key programs that will
better protect our environment. In the last few weeks, we negotiated
millions of additional dollars for the President's land legacy
initiative to protect sensitive or threatened lands in this country.
The administration and Congress should be proud of the benefits this
compromise means to our public lands.
Funding was included in both the Commerce Department as well as the
Interior Department to help my State and three other West Coast States
address the recent salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act.
Funding for these programs was my top priority. I want to sincerely
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for
working with me to provide these critical funds that will help our
State protect and restore West Coast salmon provisions.
Additionally, funds were included to help implement the recently
negotiated treaty between the United States and Canada that will aid
our efforts to recover these fish by substantially reducing their
harvest. I regret that the conference agreement did not provide the
requested increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, but
appreciate the modest increase for the National Endowment for the
Humanities. I believe there is strong public support for both of the
endowments and wish the funding levels to the arts better reflected
that support.
Again I wish to warmly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for
his tireless work on the Interior appropriations bill. These
negotiations were lengthy and tedious, but he demonstrated
extraordinary leadership and was instrumental in bringing this
agreement to the floor today.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak out in
opposition to not only this rule but to this final bill for many
reasons, but chief among those reasons why I am opposing this rule and
why I am opposing this bill is because of the dairy policy provisions
contained within this bill. Blame can be spread all over the place. The
President did not adequately protect his own agency's reform. The
majority of Congress swept against us.
The point is this: we are preserving a 62-year-old antiquated program
that pays a farmer more for the price of milk he produces the farther
away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, he lives. This Congress, which is
elected to defend the Constitution, freedom, this Congress which
contains most Members of Congress who proclaim to be in favor of free
market principles, are voting in this bill to destroy those very free
market principles. What I say to those Members of Congress from the
Northeast, from the South, you like milking cows, I understand that,
``Just don't milk our dairy farmers in the upper Midwest.''
The problem with this bill is that half of this dairy policy never
came to this body. It did come to the Senate and it was defeated. So
why on earth are we dealing with this legislation in this big
appropriations bill? This should be done through regular order. It
should not be done in this appropriations bill. Worst of all, it pits
one, two,
[[Page 30659]]
three regions of dairy farmers against one region, the upper Midwest.
We simply want a chance to compete fairly on a level playing field in
the upper Midwest, and we are being deprived of that because of this
legislation that is being tacked onto this bill like a giant, ugly
ornament on a big Christmas tree.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this body to vote against this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. There is so much to say and so little time, but I would like
to focus on two specific items of importance to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I consider the health-related provisions of this bill to
be a mixed bag. I am extremely pleased to see that Congress is
continuing its commitment to double the budget of the National
Institutes of Health over 5 years. This is the lifesaving research
which families fighting cancer and other dread diseases are depending
on. The bill increases the NIH budget by another 15 percent, raising it
from $15.6 billion last year to $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2000.
{time} 1500
But, unfortunately, the shell game continues in order to pay for this
spending.
The bill delays the release of $4 billion of the NIH appropriations
until September 29, 2000. Twenty of our colleagues wrote to the
conferees urging them not to take this action, because medical research
is not a faucet that can be turned off and on. No disease will wait for
a clinical trial to get to the next round of funding. A colony of
bacteria is not going to hibernate until the researcher receives the
promised grant. Frankly, I am not too sure the researcher will stick
around either. I am deeply concerned about the impact of this delayed
appropriations on vital medical research.
In addition, I am appalled that Congress and the administration have
conspired to imperil the health and welfare of women across the world
by attaching onerous conditions to international family planning
spending. Under this bill, United States funds are not only barred from
going to groups that perform abortions directly or indirectly, but also
to any group that lobbies in any way regarding governmental policies on
abortion. An organization could even be barred from informing a
government how many women were being harmed by unsafe or botched
abortions, not just lobbying for abortion rights.
If the President uses his authority to waive this provision,
international family planning funds are cut by 3 percent. At that
point, thousands of women will not receive birth control, leading to
unintended pregnancies and abortions. It is simply beyond my grasp how
abortion opponents believe that policies like this one help their
cause.
This provision will not prevent a single abortion. It will only cause
more and more dangerous abortions to occur. A woman in the Third World
dies every 3 minutes. Surely that is the harshest kind of birth
control, and we will be prevented from telling them how to prevent
unintended pregnancy.
I am pleased that the bill makes progress in restoring the
unexpectedly deep cuts made in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals,
home care and other facilities under the Balanced Budget Act. Although
the relief provided itself is modest, it will make a major difference
in my district of Rochester, New York, in enabling our health care
community to continue to provide world class care.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, what I think is important to note today as this House
appears poised apparently to vote for this bill with the anti-dairy
reform in it, is it is important to point out why it was added to this
bill.
It was added to this bill because these anti-reform provisions could
not pass Congress in the normal fashion. Extension of the compact and
1(a) have not passed both Houses of Congress. Right now, there is a
fight going on in the Senate that I think proves that point. Because
they could not pass it in the normal fashion, they had to add it in the
wee hours of this debate. That is unfortunate, but maybe it means that
there is hope for those of us who believe in free market reforms. Maybe
it shows to us, the fact that they have to try to get it done this way,
maybe it shows us that there are more people behind us than we
realized.
I can only hope that in the future, if given a chance to proceed in
the normal order, maybe, just maybe, we will prevail, and maybe, just
maybe, we will have true dairy reform.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to the final
bill. Where does a promise mean nothing anymore? Right here on the
floor of the House of Representatives. Where is one of the last
remaining vestiges of a Soviet style, state-controlled economic
industry? Right here in the blessed United States of America, with a
depression-era Federal milk marketing order policy. Unfortunately,
because of a last minute deal brokered behind closed doors, the first
significant step to reform an antiquated, senseless dairy policy will
be blocked by language contained in this bill.
Just a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with some
of the leaders in the Republican Party on the House floor, where they
promised me and other representatives that they would not allow any
anti-dairy reform legislation to be attached to one of the year-end
spending bills. But we wake up this morning and, lo and behold, there
it is. Promises made, promises broken. And you would think an
administration whose own reform proposals are under attack after three
years of exhaustive work would stand a little more firm and fight for
it, but that did not happen.
Now, it is never fun or pleasant to hold up the business of the House
with delay tactics, and it is unfortunate we have had to resort to that
tactic today. But I for one am willing to stay here until the cows come
home, until we get this budget right, right for the American people,
and right for the family farmers across the country.
For those of you who believe in budget integrity and fiscal
discipline, there are a number of reasons for voting against it. It is
$35 billion over the spending caps from the 1997 budget agreement. We
are dipping into the Social Security surplus by $17 billion to $18
billion according to our own Congressional Budget Office. We have done
absolutely nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security and
Medicare by one day in this budget. To top it all off, we are milking
family farmers across the country and consumers and taxpayers with this
11th hour, back-room deal that will prohibit reform of a depression-era
national dairy policy. We can do a lot better. I think the American
people demand that we do a lot better.
I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this budget agreement.
Let us start over, let us get it right, and then let us go home.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the bill, and particularly want to call attention to the Medicare
``salvation'' section. It is really a testament to the vitality of our
democracy.
This Medicare salvation section is the direct result of a lot of us
getting out there, visiting our nursing homes, talking to the people
who run them and hearing from seniors who were being denied critical
care because of mistakes made in past legislation or in administration
policy.
Let me tell you, democracy is not a spectator sport, and this bill
reflects that truth. Members of the subcommittee were out there, other
Members of Congress were out there, and
[[Page 30660]]
our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), whose very
bright mind and big heart wrote this bill, also took the time to get
out there into the facilities and talk with the seniors. That enabled
us to build a very precise effective package, providing relief to
hospitals, home health care agencies and nursing home facilities.
And it is a very fine job we've done. It helps all of our providers,
but it does not fundamentally step back on this Congress' commitment to
save Medicare in the long run, from financial crisis, and to be there
for our seniors with quality health care.
I just want to say that while the administration was very helpful and
has really worked with us in many ways, it is unfortunate that the
process, because it costs money, does not allow them to make specific
proposals to help us. We did all of this, and it was heavy lifting,
just as Members, listening to seniors and care providers and putting
together an honest package that goes right to the heart of the problem
and addresses it.
Members can take great pride in having saved Medicare quality health
care for our seniors. As we go home, we can help our hospitals, nursing
homes and health care agencies understand this expansion of resources
and provide the care our seniors richly need and deserve.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I have been trying to do in the last few
minutes, is to review what this House has brought to the American
people and calling it a budget, that has who knows what and does not
address many of the concerns that the American people have asked them
to address.
Just as an example, Mr. Speaker, this is what part of the bill looks
like, lines drawn through, scribbles being made, and no one knows what
was in it and what is out of it.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, and this rule concerns me
and I rise to oppose the rule, is that what we have is a mishmash that
includes a number of addendums that have nothing to do with the
appropriation process.
The satellite issue is an important issue that I would argue that we
needed to support. The State Department authorization is likewise very
important, and I have fought long and hard for Medicare help for our
hospitals and health providers and will continue to fight for that. But
we do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights, we do not have the
protection of seniors for prescription drugs, and we have two inserts
on the family planning issue typed up that deny family planning for
women around the world.
Though I am certainly concerned about those who have a different view
from me, I am likewise concerned about developing nations where women
will be violated, intimidated, forgetting family planning because of
this legislation.
I can say that I am gratified that my office worked to increase the
amount of money for mental health services in the Community Mental
Health Program, but I do say we are doing a tragic injustice to have
Members be responsible for voting for a bill whose paperwork has yet to
come to the floor and who has given us the responsibility of reading
this within the few hours that we have.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule, this is a bad process, and I am
sorely disappointed that this is what we have come to. We need to go
back to work and present to the American people the kind of legislative
initiative that will be warranted of this country and this Congress.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and support of the bill.
First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the work of the
appropriators. The new chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), has done a tremendous job at a time when we are really laying
out some new rules for appropriations, and all the members of
appropriations on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to try to
redefine this culture of what we are trying to achieve: A balanced
budget, without spending Social Security.
We have heard a lot of debate about whose numbers may be right, whose
predictions may be right. We really did not debate those things.
Apparently the Congress did not debate them for 40 years, because we
did not have a balanced budget without spending Social Security and
nobody seemed to care.
It is great that we are down now to debating whose projection about
income may be the closest to accurate next September, because that is
really the projection date that counts. I am convinced we are not going
to spend for the second year in a row a penny of Social Security
income.
I like the way the committee put this package together. It is a big
package, but it is a package of individual bills. You can go to each of
those bills and see exactly what was in them, and what is in them are
the items that should be in them. This is not a package that people
have put things in that should not be there or are not understood to be
there.
Social Security was not spent. That gives us a chance to really look
at the future of Social Security. We cannot really talk about Social
Security reform if we cannot stop spending the trust fund.
Somebody said the problem with the Social Security trust fund has
been there was no trust and there is no fund. Well, this restores both
of those concepts.
The balanced budget adjusters do tremendous things for home health
care, for rural hospitals. This is a good bill, this is a good rule. I
urge my colleagues to support both.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues who insist they do not know what is in
this bill, they have not been paying attention during regular order,
because within this bill are the multitude of bills that have been
discussed in committee, discussed on this floor, and now rolled into
one bill as we leave this process.
The others that suggest somehow we are dipping into the Social
Security trust fund, the only reason we are here still is because the
President keeps asking for more money, more spending, more funds for
programs that he needs.
Now, some have suggested somehow we have been held hostage on
international family planning. The President of the United States
agreed to that provision in the bill.
Now, let us talk about why some people will vote against the fine
bill here today. I challenge them to vote against increasing funding to
Medicare choice. Organ transplant patients will have an extended
coverage on anti-rejection drugs. Vote no to that today. I urge you to
today.
Rehabilitation services, increasing therapy caps, something we have
heard complaint after complaint from our citizens about, the need to
increase physical therapy and rehabilitation.
Women's health. Pap smear tests now and cervical cancer screenings.
Go ahead and vote against those fine initiatives. I challenge you to do
it.
Increased flexibility for rural hospitals. Cancer hospitals, ensures
that cancer hospitals will not face any reduction due to new outpatient
prospective payment systems.
Changing the prospective payment system for hospital outpatients.
Nursing home skilled facilities will be, in fact, have increased
patients.
Home health care, reduce the scheduled reduction and increase benefit
caps for some citizens.
Hospice care. Matt Lauer and I and several others were with hospice
this week in Palm Beach County raising money for hospice.
{time} 1515
This bill includes an increase in hospice coverage. Tell your hospice
friends that you rejected this bill today because, I do not know why,
but increased funding for them.
[[Page 30661]]
Teaching hospitals for New York and other places who have been belly-
aching about not enough money for teaching hospitals. Thanks to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and
Means, we have increased money for teaching hospitals. Durable
equipment, increased senior access to durable equipment. Rural health
care. On and on goes the list. For my Floridians who say they are going
to vote against the bill, they are going to be voting against $142
million for Everglades restoration. Go back and tell that to the
Floridians who depend on the Everglades for water. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' and go home and explain that.
Indian programs. You name the list of things that are accomplished in
this bill through the hard work of the committee in order to make this
a better country. Money for national forests, bettering education,
continuing our commitment to block grants. On and on goes the list of
fine things in this bill.
Those that live in rural farming areas, please pay special attention,
because in this bill is a $178 million loan authorization for disaster
relief, okay? My colleagues can go home and face their farmers this
weekend and explain to them that they voted against this very important
provision, if they have experienced a drought. Anyone from North
Carolina, anyone from Florida, I urge you to go home and tell your
farmers you had a chance to help them today and you chose not to from a
partisan perspective. Juvenile accountability. On and on goes the list.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule, support the bill. It
is a good bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the
Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply address two points, since other
Members have also addressed the dairy issue.
I believe that in this House a handshake is as good as a contract,
and I believe that the day that one's word ceases to be one's bond is
the day that we lose something very precious in this democratic
institution.
I was told in August and again in September, and this was confirmed
by one of the two Members of the Republican leadership 3 days ago in a
conversation with me, I was told that if I would cooperate procedurally
on appropriation bills with the majority, they would assure me that no
extraneous dairy provision would be attached to any appropriation
vehicle. The three key words were ``any appropriation vehicle.'' That
promise has now been violated. I think that says more about the people
who violated it than it says about anybody else in this institution. I
deeply regret it.
I find it incredibly ironic that at a time when people are cheering
with great huzzahs over the World Trade Organization-China deal, when
they are earnestly pushing for free trade internationally, they are
supporting internal trade barriers to the free flow of dairy products
in the United States. That is absurdly old-fashioned, and no self-
respecting free marketeer should be supporting it.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 1999]
Lott Has a Cow
There are a million stories inside the Beltway, most of
which the pols don't want you to know. But we thought you
might be amused by the one about Trent Lott, dairy queen.
As Public Works Chair . . . sorry, Senate Majority Leader,
Mr. Lott has already built himself a pork-barrel legacy for
the Mississippi ages. But who would have thought his largess
was big enough for all New England? There's apparently
nothing the guy won't do to re-elect a fellow ``singing
senator,'' in this case the liberal James Jeffords of
Vermont.
Vermont has lots of dairy farmers, most of whom are much
less efficient than those in the Upper Midwest. Worse yet,
Congressional permission for a six-state price-fixing dairy
cartel known as the Northeast Compact is about to expire. So
Mr. Jeffords who is running for a third term next November,
got hold of Mr. Lott, who promised to jam an extension past
an otherwise reluctant Senate.
Never mind that this milks consumers to the tune of about
20 extra cents a gallon. (Milk consumed by the same ``poor
children'' who liberals like Mr. Jeffords and Vermont
Democrat Pat Leahy are constantly invoking to sell their new
programs.) Never mind that the Senate voted down and
extension earlier this year.
And never mind that in the process of helping Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Lott is sticking a shiv in the back of another vulnerable
GOP incumbent, Rod Grams of Minnesota. ``I guess Jeffords is
in a tough race,'' Mr. Grams told us ruefully. ``But it can't
be tougher than mine. And this is going to hurt me back in
Minnesota, because it will hurt our farmers.''
Mr. Lott likes to complain that he lacks a real
conservative majority. Yet Mr. Jeffords is a routine
apostate, agreeing with Ted Kennedy on demand, while Mr.
Grams is a reliable conservative. It's nice to know how much
Mr. Lott values ideological loyalty when he's doling out
backroom favors.
Not that Mr. Lott deserves all of the credit. He has help
in the House, where Speaker Dennis Hastert has caved in to
Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt's attempt to gut the free market
dairy reforms that Congress urged on a reluctant Clinton
Administration as recently as 1996. Mr. Blunt's affront would
add another 16 cents or so to a gallon of milk around the
country. Mr. Lott wants to ram this into the end-of-session
budget bill too.
Beyond the muscle politics, all of this is one more
embarrassing sign that Republicans seem to have kicked over
the reform stool. They're mainly into incumbent protection
now. Messrs. Blunt and Lott are supposed to be GOP leaders.
But the difference between them and Dick Gephardt is more and
more a matter of whose special interest gets gored.
As of this writing, Mr. Grams and Wisconsin Democrat Herb
Kohl were promising to filibuster the Lott-Jeffords-Blunt
cartel plans. But the way these things usually go, the
dissenters get run over by the Members stampeding to leave
town to brag about all of the pork they just voted to
deliver. Cow-abunga, Trent.
____
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1999]
GOP Chiefs Sour on Milk Reform--White House, Wisconsin's Kohl Balk at
Lott-Hastert Agreement
(By Michael Grunwald)
Three years after Congress ordered the Agriculture
Department to revamp the nation's convoluted system for
setting milk prices, Republican leaders agreed yesterday to
send a new message to the department: Never mind.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) settled on language undoing
the department's modest market-oriented dairy reforms and
largely preserving the depression-era ``Eau Claire system''
that sets milk prices according to distance from Eau Claire,
Wis. They also agreed to a two-year extension of the
controversial Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional milk cartel
that sets prices even higher in New England.
But the last minute maneuvering faced stiff opposition from
the White House, which warned that plans to attach the dairy
provisions to a giant year-end spending bill could jeopardize
the entire budget deal. ``It would create all sorts of
obstacles,'' said presidential spokesman Jake Siewert, who
noted that Clinton had promised to veto other spending bills
including the milk language.
The upshot of the proposal--which lott pushed on behalf of
Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.), who is up for reelection in
2000--would be a bitter defeat for dairy farmers in the upper
Midwest, a huge victory for dairy farmers in the Northeast,
and a status-quo solution to a battle that could have
resulted in lower prices for consumers. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-
Wis.) yesterday vowed a last-ditch effort to hold up
congressional business to block the deal, and he could have
assistance from the administration.
``This is a very big thing for us, and I'm going to do
whatever I need to do to try to make sure this doesn't
happen,'' said Kohl, who noted that his state has 25,000
dairies, compared with 3,000 for all of New England.
The byzantine Eau Claire system was designed to ensure that
every region of the country maintained a local supply of
fresh milk, at a time when it was not possible to transport
milk long distances in refrigerated trucks. The 1996 farm
bill, touted as an effort to introduce free-market principles
to America's farm economy, required the Clinton
administration to propose a replacement for the Eau Claire
regime. And while it authorized the Northeast Compact, it set
its expiration date for this year.
Now Congress appears set to change its mind.
The Agriculture Department plan, which was supposed to go
into effect last month before it was held up by a lawsuit in
Vermont, would have smoothed out the formulas that favor
farmers farther away from Eau Claire. Consumer advocates
estimated that it would have cut milk prices by at least 2
cents a gallon nationally, saving consumers $185 million to
$1 billion a year and saving taxpayers $42 million to $149
million on food programs. But the House passed a bill last
month to
[[Page 30662]]
suspend the new plan, and congressional leaders have agreed
to include a version of that bill in the overall budget
agreement. And yesterday's deal will extend the compact until
February 2001.
Kohl complained that maintaining the status quo would mean
maintaining an unfair playing field, providing government
protection to help inefficient dairies compete with
midwestern farmers. John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Lott,
cautioned that no deal is final until the budget agreement is
complete, but he suggested that midwestern senators such as
Kohl and Rod Grams (R-Minn.), who also is up for reelection,
will be unable to stop it.
``It's all done but the fireworks,'' Czwartacki said. ``I'm
sure people will voice their unhappiness in tried and true
ways. But on this issue, you can't make everyone happy.''
Not even the regional alliance of compact supporters--who
include likely New York Senate candidate Hillary Rodham
Clinton, but not her husband--got everything it wanted. It
did not get a permanent extension of the Northeast Compact.
And the agreement did not create a Southern Compact. Still,
Kohl vowed yesterday to protest the deal by filibustering
anything that hits the floor. And Grams warned that he might
force the Senate clerk to read the entire budget bill aloud,
which could take days.
``We have the government picking winners and losers, and
that's wrong,'' Grams said. ``It's the whole country ganging
up on the Midwest.''
The Agriculture Department proposals, while somewhat more
market-oriented that the current system, would have
maintained the government's guarantee of a minimum milk price
in all regions. But according to Christopher Galen, spokesman
for the National Milk Producers Federation, they would have
cost dairy farmers across the country about $200 million a
year, at a time when prices have dropped precipitously after
several good years.
``We know people are upset in the Midwest, but we think
this deal would create a rising tide that will lift almost
all dairy farmers,'' said Galen, whose organization took no
position on the compacts.
I also want to note that this bill is replete with gimmicks. This
bill walks away from the majority party commitment to stick to the
budget caps; it walks away from their ``let-us-pretend'' argument that
they are saving Social Security; it hides $45 billion in budgetary
sleight of hand.
We have in this bill, first of all, in spending that is not counted
by Congress, $17 billion, $17 billion. We then have in so-called
emergency spending, which is another way of avoiding the spending caps,
we have over $11 billion in outlays; again, spending that is hidden in
terms of whether or not it is going to be counted against the so-called
budget limits that my Republican colleagues promised to live by in
their own budget resolution.
Then we have what is called ``delayed outlays.'' What this really
means is that we legally delay spending until the final days of the
fiscal year, so it is not counted this year, but it is still spent.
That accounts for $4.2 billion. Then we have what is called ``advance
appropriations,'' spending that illegally counts spending against last
year, even though it is available for this year, and that comes in at
$2.4 billion. Then we have other gimmicks worth $9.9 billion. This from
the new centurions who came in this place 5 years ago promising that
under the Republican Party, things were going to be different. They are
different. They have gotten worse.
So it seems to me, as I said earlier, this would be laughable if it
was not so corrosive of the public's ability to believe what we are
doing.
LIST OF GIMMICKS IN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
[in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Not Counted By Congress
Directed CBO to reduce their spending estimates,
but actually spends Social Security:
AG--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..... ......... -163
CJ--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..... ......... -336
DOD--Directed outlay scoring.................. ......... -10,500
E & W--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).. ......... -103
FO--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA)..... ......... -144
INT--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).... ......... -170
L-HHS--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).. ......... -970
Directed outlay scoring (highway and transit ......... -1,341
firewalls)...................................
TRANS--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).. ......... -143
TPO--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA).... ......... -151
VA HUD--Directed outlay scoring (1.14% of BA). ......... -820
DOD--Spectrum asset sales..................... -2,600 -2,600
---------------------
Subtotal.................................... -2,600 -17,441
=====================
Declaration of emergencies for normal program
spending:
Declare Year 2000 Census an emergency......... -4,476 -4,118
Defense emergency designations................ -7,200 -5,500
Declare part of Head Start an emergency....... -1,700 -629
LIHEAP emergency declaration.................. -1,100 -825
Refugees emergency declaration................ -427 -126
Forest Service Wildland Fire Management....... -90 -3
Public health emergency declaration........... -584 -310
---------------------
Subtotal.................................... -15,577 -11,511
=====================
FY 2000 Spending Counted Against 1999 or 2001
Legally delay spending until the final days of the
fiscal year so it is counted next year:
DOD--Delay contractor payments................ 0 -1,250
Labor HHS--Delayed Obligations $5.0 B in BA ......... -1,674
delayed until 9/29/00........................
VA medical care delay obligation of $900 M.... ......... -720
FO--Delayed obligations....................... ......... -104
CJS--Delayed availability of balances in Crime -485 -485
Victims Fund until after FY 2000.............
Rescind section 8 housing funds............... -1,300 0
---------------------
Subtotal, delayed obligations............... -1,785 -4,233
=====================
Legally count spending against last fiscal year
even though it is available for FY 2000:
DOD--Advance Appropriations................... -1,800 -1,800
Legally count spending against next fiscal year
even though it is available for FY 2000:
DOE--Elk Hills School Lands Fund.............. -36 -36
L-HHS--Increased advance funding for FY 2001 -10,100 -532
(total FY 2001 advances are $19 billion).....
HUD--section 8 advance appropriation for FY -4,200 0
2001 (37% of program total)..................
---------------------
Subtotal.................................... -16,136 -2,368
=====================
Miscellaneous Special Accounting Gimmicks
Across the Board cut 0.38%........................ -2,143 -1,206
Capture Federal Reserve Surplus................... -3,752 -3,752
New Hires Data Base for student loan collection -878 -876
(incl directed scoring)..........................
Slip military and civilian pay by one day......... ......... -3,589
Labor HHS--HEATH loan recapture................... ......... -27
United Mine Workers Combined Benefit Fund......... -68 -39
L-HHS--Title XX, social services block grant, cut -608 -430
below mandatory level............................
TRANS--Mandatory offsets (rescission of FAA -30 -10
contract authority)..............................
---------------------
Subtotal.................................... -7,479 -9,929
=====================
Grand total................................. -43,577 -45,482
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the minority has expired.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 30 seconds remaining.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Linder
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Linder:
At the end of the first section of the resolution add the
following:
The conference report shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
conference report to final adoption without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I urge my colleagues to support
the rule and the amendment to the rule, and I move the previous
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what the import of
the previous motion was. I understand that this is the method which
will gag us and prevent any further motions being offered in protest to
the rule that is brought before us. That is the effect of the
gentleman's motion. It is, in fact, a new gag order, which will prevent
us from doing anything except obediently moving toward passage of the
bill. I am not going to contest it, but I think people need to know
what it is. It is another symptom of how this House is run.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. The
gentleman from Georgia managing the rule is offering an amendment to
the rule.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment
and on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:
[[Page 30663]]
[Roll No. 608]
YEAS--226
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Brady (TX)
Capps
Conyers
Wexler
{time} 1543
Messrs. BONIOR, DICKEY, MATSUI, FLETCHER, BALDACCI, HINCHEY, WEYGAND,
Ms. MALONEY of New York and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1598
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1598.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Mr. Sherman Williams, one of his
secretaries.
____________________
{time} 1545
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3194, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS AND
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 386,
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3194) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Pursuant to the rule, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 17, 1999, Part II.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3194, and that
I may include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are coming to the successful conclusion of a long
road toward completion of our fiscal responsibilities. I thank my
friend and colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for calling for order in
the House. I want to say ``thank you'' to him for the many, many long
hours and long days we have spent together during this process as the
House concluded its work on 13 separate appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, the bills that are included in this conference report
today, all of these bills, have gone before the House in one form or
another. They have also gone before the House as part of a conference
report. Most of those bills have not even been changed to any great
extent from their previous forms.
The District of Columbia bill, which is the main vehicle for this
conference
[[Page 30664]]
report, has only one minor change that was acceptable to all parties
involved. The bill on Foreign Operations is basically the same as
passed the House, except for a minor change that was agreed to by all
the parties. As for the other three bills remaining, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Interior Appropriations, will make some comments on that as we go
through the debate.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education Appropriations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter),
will have some comments on that portion of the bill. And the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary
Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), will have
some comments on that bill.
During the various discussions that have led up to the point where we
are about to conclude consideration of our appropriations
responsibilities, one of the complaints has been the size of the bill.
And it is true that a number of nonappropriations issues have been
added by virtue of reference to their bill number. But the fact is that
the administration, the President's team, was here until nearly 3
o'clock this morning reading all of those pages, and they did read them
all and gave us a sign-off to go ahead and file the bill. Not that we
needed that, but it was a courtesy that we extended to the
administration.
Mr. Speaker, of course, the staff representatives of the majority
leadership and the minority leadership had access not only to this
process last night and early this morning, but there has been ample
opportunity for those who wanted to read the agreement and spend the
hours late last night and early this morning to do so. They had that
opportunity.
We have spent a considerable amount of time, long days and long
nights, in negotiation with the representatives of the President. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a lot of time
together in that room where we did the negotiating. But it is important
to note, Members ought to know this, the negotiations were basically
managed by the leadership of the subcommittees involved. This was not
done at some high level with someone who was not involved in the day-
to-day activities relative to these bills.
So, this is a real product of the Committee on Appropriations and the
appropriations process. I can give at least 237 reasons to vote against
this bill. But also I could give hundreds of reasons why this is a good
bill. Throughout the debate we will do that, Mr. Speaker. I hope that
we can get a good bipartisan vote for a good bipartisan bill that is
even agreed to by the administration.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all of our colleagues on our side of
the aisle show the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the courtesy of
listening to what he has to say. There are some very strong differences
here, and I would hope that the House would remain in order so that we
could all hear what each of our speakers has to say.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I would like to insert
tables showing the details of the District of Columbia Appropriations,
Foreign Operation, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations, and Miscellaneous Appropriations.
[[Page 30665]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.001
[[Page 30666]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.002
[[Page 30667]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.003
[[Page 30668]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.004
[[Page 30669]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.005
[[Page 30670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.006
[[Page 30671]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.007
[[Page 30672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.008
[[Page 30673]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the honorable minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members of the
Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle for tremendous
long hours and hard work. I want to thank all of the Members of the
President's staff for the work that they did in trying to bring this to
a successful conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, this has been an imperfect process, and this is an
imperfect bill. But on balance, it has more to recommend it than not,
and I will support its final passage. Procedurally, this bill repeats
many of the same mistakes that were made last fall by the leadership.
Despite the promises of the Speaker last January, once again we have a
bill that was not done on time and was not done in regular order. We
have an omnibus bill that reflects a ``kitchen sink'' approach to
governing and, once again, Members did not have adequate time to read
the bill to understand all of its provisions.
On the substance of the bill, I am disappointed over the family
planning provision that was contained and attached to the U.N. funding.
I do not think it is the right thing to do. And I am upset that we
failed to include a hate crimes provision in this bill, and I think we
had a chance to do that.
But on balance, this budget is an overall victory for our priorities.
The President and Democrats in Congress hung together in support of an
agreement that has made a real commitment to the priorities that we
feel are critical to the continued health and well-being of America's
families. Once again, as we did lasted fall in our negotiations with
Speaker Gingrich, we snatched a modest victory out of a misguided
Republican budget process that cared more about providing a tax cut for
the wealthy and corporate special interests than about doing the right
thing for average Americans.
We achieved a big win for our efforts to educate our children for the
challenges of the next century. This bill contains funding for 100,000
new, qualified teachers to reduce class size and increase discipline
and accountability in America's classrooms. I am very happy that that
priority has been recognized in this budget.
It makes a strong commitment to after-school programs to keep kids
off the street and in safe and productive environments until they go
home. And it advances us substantially on our goal towards getting 1
million children included in Head Start finally in this country, and I
am very happy that that priority has been advanced.
We achieved a big win in the effort to fight crime. This budget will
allow local police departments to hire an additional 50,000 officers
over and above the 100,000 that have already been hired to continue our
progress in making our neighborhoods safe.
Mr. Speaker, we achieved a big win for the environment by stripping
out the most extreme Republican anti-environmental provisions that were
sneaked into the back door of this budget.
But for all we have accomplished in this bill, this Congress has this
year failed the American people. Despite the progress we made in the
last several weeks on behalf of these priorities, we have not done
enough on the agenda of the American people. And instead of doing the
people's business, we squandered at least 2 months debating a failed
trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy and special interests.
Despite the chest beating, the button wearing and the commercial
airing of the Republicans, this Congress failed to extend the life of
Social Security by 1 day. We have done nothing to provide a
prescription drug benefit for seniors to modernize Medicare to meet
their current needs. We failed to enact key bipartisan reform efforts,
the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill
into law.
We dropped the ball, and we lost a real opportunity to modernize our
health care system once and for all. And we did not help low-income
families get a step up into the middle-class with a minimum wage
increase. We did not strike a blow against violence in our schools and
our playgrounds by passing common sense gun safety legislation.
Our work, in short, is not finished. In many ways, it has not even
yet begun. We intend to be back here in January ready and prepared to
fight for the priorities and the agenda of the American people. And I
simply say to our friends on the other side of the aisle, we have
achieved a certain level of agreement here today on some important
priorities. I am glad for that, and I thank them for their help in
bringing that about.
Mr. Speaker, in that same spirit of can-do, I say to our friends in
the Republican Party today: let us continue to work together next year.
Let us get a Patients' Bill of Rights that really gets the job done.
Let us get campaign reform. Let us get something done on gun safety.
Let us pass a minimum wage increase. Let us get Medicare reform. Let us
extend the solvency of Social Security. Let us get a prescription drug
benefit for our senior citizens. If we could do this, we can do that,
and the American people would be very happy for it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) for yielding me this time. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I
believe this is a very, very proud moment for this body. To think that
we could in just these few short years move ourselves from where we had
been in 1994, perpetual debt as much as $250 billion a year for as long
as anybody could see to the point where with this budget deal we will
consummate and finalize forever an end to the raid on Social Security.
Beginning in 1998, fiscal year 1999, and now with this budget
agreement in fiscal year 2000, we will have retired a third of a
trillion dollars' worth of debt for the American people. We will have
stopped the raid on Social Security forever. We will have enforced this
with an across-the-board spending reduction that acknowledges truly it
is time now to be disciplined to eliminate waste, inefficiency, fraud
in the use of the taxpayers' dollars. A new commitment of good
government in government.
{time} 1600
Then when we start looking at the details, some of the things we did
in education to bring a real opportunity for the schools that serve the
children better, and for those children in the most desperate of
economic circumstances in their families who find themselves with the
most desperate of situations in their schools, to actually have the
opportunity now in this bill for public school choice is a wonderful
new break, through reinforcing the consistent pattern of this year of
providing respect for local communities as they manage their schools,
providing greater opportunity to use the resources provided through the
Federal Government for better management, better performance on the
school on behalf of the children. It is just another good example of
the good work we have done.
So I say to our colleagues, we saw the opportunity that was presented
to us to stop the raid and to write good policy on education and
defense and any number of ways. We seized the opportunity, and we saw
it through, and today is the day.
Let us vote it through, and let us go home and enjoy the results with
our schools, our communities, our families, and our constituents.
I say to everyone congratulations, and I thank all of my colleagues
for their long, hard work. I know we are all tired at this time of the
year, but we all should have such a sense of gratification. We did the
right thing, and we did it well.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), my leader, with respect to the process in
which we have
[[Page 30674]]
been engaged. Seven weeks late on a budget, and of course this budget
is minus many important issues that he enumerated: Nothing for Social
Security solvency, nothing on Medicare reform, nothing on prescription
drugs, nothing on Patients' Bill of Rights, nothing on the minimum
wage.
We, indeed, have not done the people's work, and we have squandered a
good deal of our time debating a tax bill that did not meet the
approval of the American public.
But the bill that we have before us today does have some good
features in it. It is with that in mind that I rise in support of it.
It is a victory, first of all, for our children because it provides
funding to hire and train 100,000 new teachers and dramatically expand
the after-school program.
It is a budget victory, in a sense, for public safety because it
provides funding to hire and train 50,000 police officers to patrol our
streets and neighborhoods and keep our children safe in school.
Third, this budget is a victory for the environment because it
increases funding to protect our clean water, to preserve community
parks and forests and historic sites through the Lands Legacy Program,
and to fight the congestion and pollution that threaten our quality of
life of our constituents.
The fourth issue that I would mention here this afternoon is in the
foreign policy area. This provides the resources to move the Mideast
peace process forward, providing resources for the Israelis, the
Palestinians, and the Jordanians. I think that moves on successes that
we have had in the past.
This year, Federal funding allows schools in my congressional
district Macomb and St. Clair Counties in Michigan to hire 60 new
teachers. What that has done is it has translated into smaller classes,
greater discipline, more learning, higher academic performance. This is
an investment in our future, and it is an investment that will pay
dividends in years to come.
This year's budget also provides funding to enable 675,000 students
to participate in the after-school program where they can mentor with
seniors and other adults working in athletic and crafts and the
computer rooms and the libraries and all the things that are necessary
to keep them safe in a safe environment after school, to help them
mentor in a way in which they can learn the respect of their elders and
work with their elders and learn the skills of those who have gone
before them.
Programs like the Kids Klub in Macomb and St. Clair Counties will
directly benefit from this budget and will help young people set off on
the right foot.
This budget will also help keep our families safe through the hiring
of 50,000 new police officers. As with the teacher initiative, this
builds on our past successes.
Because of Federal funding, 85 extra officers patrol in my district
today. That makes people safer in their homes and their businesses, and
serves as a strong deterrent to would-be criminals. It also makes our
students strong in their places of education.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that I am very
pleased that we Democrats were able to strip some of these
environmental riders from the bill, protecting the environment,
protecting the budget process itself. We have done good things for
education. We have done good things to protect our communities in terms
of its safety with the addition of the police officers. We have done
the responsible thing to move peace forward in foreign lands.
So for these reasons, for our children, for our communities, for our
environment, for our international responsibilities and obligations, I
am voting yes on this budget.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
on an outstanding performance in bringing this bill to the floor and
finalizing the budget process. This chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations and the chairmen of the subcommittees have done an
outstanding job.
I rise in support of this bill, but more importantly, I rise to set
the record straight. The Republican majority in Congress has redefined
the way that budgets are crafted. In so doing, we have set the Nation
down the path to fiscal responsibility.
When I ran for office the first time, I ran because I found a
situation where we were running up the debt on my children and my
grandchildren and no one wanting to pay down the debt; that we had
budgets that ran deficits as far as the eye could see and no one trying
to balance the budget; that we had a situation where we raised
surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund so that we could spend the
money on big government programs.
I ran for office and never really thought that I would be standing
before my colleagues today very, very proud of the work of this House
over the last 5 years. At this time, it is important for everyone to
reflect on how far we have come.
When Republicans took control 5 years ago, we pledged that we would
change the scope of government; and we are delivering on that promise,
going down the line of issues that are important in this country. The
fact is unavoidable that this Congress has been an overwhelming
success.
Even when people would like to rewrite recent history, this is the
first time in my 15-year career that we put 13 appropriations bills on
the desk of the President. He signed eight of them and vetoed five
because there was not enough spending to suit him.
We negotiated each bill individually. This is not an omnibus bill.
Each bill was negotiated individually, and each authorizing bill that
is in this package has been voted on by this House.
We have rebuilt our military after years of neglect. We took
significant power over education away from the Federal Government,
returned it to the States. We tried to cut waste by just suggesting a 1
percent across-the-board cut. Incredibly, the Democrats maintain that a
measly 1 percent of waste could not be found in the Federal Government.
Well, even the President eventually agreed with us. Now we have an
across-the-board spending cut.
We have stopped the raid on Social Security. We have balanced the
budget for the second time in 50 years without raising a dime of taxes
to do it. We are paying down the debt, $99 billion last year. We will,
next year, pay $130 billion down on our children's debt.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the last step in a very successful budget
season. We have worked hard to balance the budget and pay down the debt
without raising taxes or raiding Social Security. The hard work has
paid off. Vote for this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my
colleagues to vote against this. It is not necessarily that it is an
entirely bad bill. But a year ago right now, all of us went around our
respective districts and asked for the opportunity to spend the
people's money wisely.
The problem that I have with this bill is that, for the next 3 weeks,
The Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times are going
to be running a series of articles every day of what was in this bill,
and one is not going to know it was there. But one is going to have to
tell one's constituents, well, gosh, I did not know that money for a
fleet buyout in Alaska was there or for a wood lot in North Carolina
was there or for all the other silly things.
I encourage my Republican colleagues to vote against it because many
of them ran against Goals 2000. Yet, there is $491 million for Goals
2000 in here. Many of them said they were against the Department of
Commerce. Well, it has got a $3.6 billion increase, but they call it
emergency because it has got money for the census that apparently no
one knew was coming even though the Constitution says we are going to
do it every 10 years.
But more than everything else, I think my colleagues are playing a
shell game with the men and women of the
[[Page 30675]]
United States military. Everyone was real proud a couple weeks ago when
they said we increased the defense budget. Well, today, my colleagues
are cutting it back by $1 billion, $1 billion.
To make matters worse, those troops who are already underpaid, who
got a minuscule pay raise just a few weeks ago, my colleagues are now
telling them we are going to delay the time they are paid. Now, for a
Congressman, we make pretty good money. Getting paid a day or two later
really should not affect us. But when one is an E-1, E-5, O-1, O-2, and
one is just barely getting by, to move payday back, in many instances,
is the difference between them being able to buy diapers for their kids
or one can put food on the table.
It is not right. We should not do it. If it takes us waiting a couple
more days to do it right, then I encourage us to do so.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Interior.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, Webster defines ``perfect'' as being without
fault or flawless. He defines ``good'' as being praiseworthy, useful,
or beneficial.
Well, the document before us is not perfect under Webster's
definition. It abundantly does fit Webster's definition of good. It is
praiseworthy. It is useful. It is beneficial.
In the conference report, we have modified a number of the riders. I
believe many of my colleagues will be pleased with our changes. Most
importantly, they are fair. I am especially pleased with this report as
it continues our commitment to the American people in protecting the
environment, in providing for our national parks, forests, wildlife
refuges, and public lands, as well as our cultural resources.
As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said, this bill is a
victory for the environment. It is a bill that will provide pride in
America's heritage, not only now, but far into the future. I think it
is something we all could take pride in.
I urge each of my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage) for a colloquy.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, to
clarify some matters concerning the President's so-called American
Heritage Rivers initiative that concerns the Interior and related
agencies portion of the appropriations act.
Is it the understanding of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) that
there is nothing in his bill that authorizes the American Heritage
Rivers initiative?
Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that matter.
There is no language whatsoever in the Interior portion that provides
an authorization for the American Heritage Rivers initiative.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, in addition, is it true that there
is no separate appropriation for the American Heritage Rivers
initiative in the Interior portion of the bill?
Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true there is no appropriation
for the American Heritage Rivers initiative in the appropriations act.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is no
appropriations, nor authorization, but on their insistence on spending
money on this unauthorized and unappropriated initiative, how have you
instructed the Forest Service managers in this?
{time} 1615
Mr. REGULA. There is no such authorization or appropriation, Mr.
Speaker. The statement of the managers provides a limitation on
spending for the Forest Service for purposes related to designated
American Heritage Rivers.
This is not an appropriation, but provides the maximum that may be
spent. It is language of limitation on what can be spent from existing
funds.
Mr. Speaker, Webster defines ``perfect'' as being without fault, or
flawless. He defines ``good'' as praiseworthy, useful or beneficial.
While the document before you is not perfect under Webster's
definition, it abundantly does fit Webster's definition of good.
In this new conference report we have modified a number of the riders
and I believe that many of you will be pleased with our changes. Most
importantly they are fair.
I am especially pleased with this conference report, as it continues
our commitment to the American people in protecting the environment and
in providing for our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and
public lands, as well as our cultural resources. As the gentleman from
Michigan said, ``This bill is a victory for the environment to the
State of Florida.'' I urge you to support this new bill.
At this point Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
table detailing the various accounts in the bill. It is a bill that
will provide pride in America's heritage not only now but far into the
future.
[[Page 30676]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.020
[[Page 30677]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.021
[[Page 30678]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.022
[[Page 30679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.023
[[Page 30680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.024
[[Page 30681]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Yes, my colleagues, there is good news in this bill; but there is a
strong commitment to the education of our young people, there is a
significant increase to Title X, America's family planning program, and
there is desperately needed relief for hospitals, which have been
struggling with budget cuts.
The bill demonstrates our ongoing support for a secure and lasting
peace in the Middle East. The Wye River package will help bolster
Israel's security and provide the momentum needed to carry both parties
through this delicate period in the peace process.
The bill also fulfills our obligation to pay our U.N. arrears. I have
fought hard with my colleagues to make this a reality, but my
enthusiasm has been dampened by the dangerous family planning
restrictions that were forced upon us by the majority in return for
these critical dues. The restrictions are unreasonable and
irresponsible, and my colleagues can be sure I will fight to ensure
that they are never again codified in U.S. law.
I am also very disturbed that Federal employees' access to
contraceptive coverage has been damaged in this bill. The majority has
modified the provisions which the President just signed into law only 2
months ago to dramatically expand the number of individuals who can opt
out of providing contraceptives. My colleagues, this is sneaky
politics, and it is bad policy.
I want to make it clear today that I will not rest in my efforts to
ensure that Americans have true access to family planning services. We
cannot continue to let a few extremists hold good public policy hostage
to their narrow agenda.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
Today, America's seniors will be able to breathe easier and worry
less about their health care. Why? Because with the passage of the
Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, health care providers
who have been struggling under the burden of money-saving regulations
imposed in 1997 will now be getting some much-needed relief.
For several years Medicare Providers have been caring for Medicare
patients day in and day out--often for Medicare payments that are not
adequate to cover their costs. In my district, for example, the
Sylvester Cancer Hospital was losing approximately $700,000 a year
caring for Medicare cancer patients. Until now. This bill will give
cancer hospitals the opportunity to break even. Hospices, which care
for the most vulnerable Medicare patients will also benefit. They will
get the help they need to provide the newest medications to comfort
their patients.
In the last year I have worked with Chairman Thomas, who I want to
thank for his efforts in addressing the many concerns that have been
brought to my attention by Medicare providers and beneficiaries in my
district. The result of that work is this bill. While it doesn't
provide all the Medicare fixes that are needed--it does address the
most urgent needs immediately.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the majority leader in a
colloquy regarding the satellite legislation which has been added to
this omnibus bill.
As the majority leader is aware, I have been working for some time
with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and many
others, to pass legislation that will reauthorize the compulsory
license for satellite broadcasts and encourage the development of
technology that will deliver local network signals to satellite owners.
We passed the Satellite Home Viewer Act reauthorization earlier this
year with overwhelming bipartisan support and engaged the other body in
a lengthy and difficult conference. The conference report was filed and
passed last week in the House by a vote of 411 to 8. Few bills of this
magnitude have passed by such a wide margin. Included in this
conference report was important language supported unanimously by the
conferees to ensure that rural Americans are not left behind as this
new local-into-local technology is rolled out by the satellite
companies.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and let me simply compliment my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for the excellent work he has done in
the face of very difficult circumstances in order to obtain a way that
viewers in the cities, medium-sized and small, and throughout rural
America will have the opportunity to have their local TV stations
delivered to them by satellite.
We have had a range of problems. We are about to have those resolved
in a manner that I think is satisfactory, and I want to thank my
colleague and friend from Virginia for his very able assistance in
reaching that satisfactory result.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for his kind words and for his critical support in this effort.
Yesterday, we delivered to the Speaker a letter that included over
245 signatures from Members who supported the rural provisions of this
conference report. Similar letters were delivered to the Senate
majority leader from rural Senators.
Mr. Speaker, Rural America should take note of the high level of
support for this language in Congress and the hard work of members like
Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator
Jonn Warner of Virginia, Senator Patrick Leahy of Virginia,
Congresswoman Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, and Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson
of Missouri.
Unfortunately, problems in the other body have doomed this language
for the year. Because the other body did not wish to take the steps
required to pass the bill over a threatened filibuster, they have
reached an agreement with our leadership in the House to attach the
Satellite Home Viewer Act to the D.C. appropriations bill next year.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) so that the gentlemen might continue their
colloquy.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this legislation understand that along
with this agreement comes a commitment from our leadership to work to
pass similar legislation early next year, and if the gentleman will
yield to him, the majority leader will clarify the details of this
commitment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on his
hard work on this important issue. I share the gentleman's commitment
to ensuring that rural Americans can receive their network signals over
satellite.
The Satellite Home Viewer Act conference report, which included the
loan guarantee language, was supported by myself and the majority of
both parties in the House. I share the gentleman's concern that time
constraints prevented the conference report from being enacted as it
passed the House; however, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to
reach an agreement that will ensure passage of the rest of this
satellite legislation that is so important to satellite subscribers.
To address my good friend's concern, I commit to the gentleman from
Virginia that we will move rural satellite loan guarantee legislation
through the House early next year. It is my hope that the relevant
committees of jurisdiction will engage in a full debate and discussion
of the merits of this loan
[[Page 30682]]
guarantee package and move appropriate legislation forward
expeditiously.
However, if for whatever reason such legislation is not ready for
floor consideration in the House under regular order by early spring, I
further commit that I will allow the gentleman from Virginia an
opportunity to have an up or down floor vote by March 31, 2000, on the
rural loan guarantee program, similar to that which appeared in the
Satellite Home Viewer Act conference report which passed in the House.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader
for his support and commitment to scheduling floor time for this
important legislation by April of next year.
Am I to understand that the legislation to be scheduled for a vote
will authorize a level of appropriations that is both sufficient to
accomplish such a program and at least $1.2 billion?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my
understanding that is consistent with the language in the Satellite
Home Viewer Act conference report; that is correct.
Mr. GOODLATTE. It is also my understanding that the Senate leadership
has made a similar commitment to floor consideration by a time certain
next year.
Mr. ARMEY. That is also my understanding, yes.
In addition, I will commit to placing time limits on the referral of
the legislation to committees in such a way that causes the legislation
to be discharged by all relevant committees by the March 31 deadline,
and I will work with the Speaker on committee referrals and understand
that he shares my commitment to this timetable.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a victory for the
American agenda. In my portion of the bill there is extra money for
disasters through the disaster loan program in SBA. We fully fund the
year 2000 census, every penny that is needed; we increase the drug and
crime funding, FBI, DEA and local law enforcement block grants, as well
as the COPS program of the President, which is fully funded at less
than half of what he requested; and there is embassy security money
here to beef up the security for our personnel serving overseas in our
embassies.
But most importantly to me is a final vindication in this bill of an
effort started by this subcommittee many years ago to reform the U.N.
Along with the monies in the bill to fully pay the U.N. arrears
payments of the U.S., there are conditions which the U.N. must agree
to. This subcommittee several years ago began what now has become a
full-blown U.N. reform agenda which now requires the U.N. to consider
our payments of arrearages to be payment in full, reduces the rate of
U.S. contributions to the U.N. from 25 to 22 percent for the annual
assessment, plus a reduction from 31 to 25 percent for the peacekeeping
rate of contributions, requires the U.N. to live with a zero-growth
budget, requires personnel reforms at the U.N., opens their books to
GAO scrutiny, requires IGs, inspectors general, in the affiliated
organizations of the U.N., like the ILO, the WHO, and the FAO, and
gives the U.S. a voice on the budget committee of the U.N., among other
reforms. This is an effort that now is vindicated.
This subcommittee led the way many years ago. It gained a head of
steam, and it has been a rough and rocky road; but now we can say that
with these payments of the arrearages to the U.N. comes the conditions
of reform in the U.N. that will make the U.N. a better agency for all
of us.
I would like, at this point, to insert into the Record a table
detailing the funding for the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary
section of the bill.
[[Page 30683]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.009
[[Page 30684]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.010
[[Page 30685]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.011
[[Page 30686]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.012
[[Page 30687]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.013
[[Page 30688]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.014
[[Page 30689]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.015
[[Page 30690]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.016
[[Page 30691]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.017
[[Page 30692]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.018
[[Page 30693]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.019
[[Page 30694]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise how much
time is remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has 15\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership in bringing this bill to final passage.
Mr. Speaker, compromise is the nature of our process under the
Constitution, and the American people are the winners with this
legislation.
In the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the
bill we have plussed up Job Corps, consolidated health centers, and
Ryan White AIDS they are at the highest priority. I am particularly
proud that we have funded biomedical research through the National
Institutes of Health with a 15 percent increase, or $2.3 billion. This
is the second 15 percent increase in a row toward our goal of doubling
funding for biomedical research over 5 years. This is the best spent
money in all of government and lengthens and protects the lives of
every American.
In education, we increased the overall account by $2.2 billion over
FY 1999 and included large increases for impact aid, for Pell Grants,
for the TRIO program, and a very large increase for special education,
allowing our local school districts a great deal more flexibility with
their own money.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to ensure that our intent on
section 210, the provision concerning the Secretary's organ
transplantation rule, is totally clear. Section 210 delays for 42 days
publication of the organ transplant rule to allow the Secretary to
consult with the transplant community. The provision is the result of
difficult negotiations between Members of both bodies and the
administration.
{time} 1630
Our provision originally provided for a 90-day delay with a required
60-day comment period. Based on the agreement between myself; the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee; the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
subcommittee and the full committee; the chairman of the Senate
subcommittee, Senator Specter; and the administration, we changed the
comment period from 60 days to 21 days and provided 21 days for the
Secretary to review the comments.
There has been a major study by the Institute of Medicine Study on
this issue and several periods of comment either have occurred or will
occur under the proposed rule. The compromise assures that those with
an interest in this issue will have one more chance to comment and have
these comments reviewed. As a result, our agreement includes language
in the Statement of the Managers that there will be no further delay
following the 42-day period.
Mr. Speaker, this was a difficult negotiation. However, I believe
that the provisions of this bill represent the true compromise between
all parties, and not a provision placed in the worker incentive bill
without the knowledge or any participation in the negotiations by those
at our table, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services and
the Director of OMB that were there in our negotiation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement encourages the Secretary of
Labor to spend up to $2 million to answer several questions relating to
the costs and benefits of safety and health programs. But am I correct
in stating that the conferees do not intend in any way that the
Secretary delay her rulemaking on safety and health programs while
developing this information?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. It was not our
intent in funding this data collection to block or delay the issuance
of the safety and health program standard.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and I
want to say it has been a pleasure to work with him, as usual.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way from where we started in this
session.
Originally, the Republican budget resolution that was presented in
this House maintained the fiction that we could afford a huge tax cut
with 70 percent of the benefit going to persons earning over $100,000 a
year and still not do damage to the rest of our national priorities.
That tax cut would have used every single dollar that could have been
used to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. And the public
understands that; and in the end they, I think, by their actions in the
polls, convinced our friends on the Republican side to begin to walk
away from that issue.
In September, we were given a different problem because the majority
established a budget allocation for the bill containing Education and
Health and Labor programs which would have resulted in cutting
education funding by almost one-third in real terms. We said no to
that. The President said no to that. And the shape of these
appropriations bills today is far different as a result.
I want to publicly thank the President. I want to publicly thank the
Vice President. I want to thank the President's Chief of Staff, John
Podesta; Jack Lew, his principal budget negotiator; and all the others
who stood with us fighting for smaller class sizes, fighting for
quality teachers, fighting for more cops on the beat, fighting against
legislation that threatened environmental cleanup, fighting against
short-sighted efforts to limit our international leadership
responsibilities abroad.
I am also proud of the fact that we have in the area of education
provided for additional support for comprehensive school reform, for
additional support for teacher training, additional support for smaller
class size, and additional support to assist local school districts to
reduce high school size in order to get a better handle on student
violence and juvenile adolescent behavior.
I am also proud of the fact that, under this bill, 10 States will be
provided planning grants in order to develop plans for a Federal-State
partnership to cover all of their citizens with health coverage. I
think that is a major breakthrough; and I hope it leads to ending the
abomination in this country, the moral abomination of having some 40
million people in this country without health insurance.
But I am still going to oppose this bill despite all of those
features because someone, I believe, has to stand for the institutional
need to present budgets in a forthright way.
Three years ago, when the executive and legislative branches of
Government agreed on a budget deal, I called it a public lie. I said,
if it was not a public lie, it was at least a giant public fib, because
it was promising that Congress would live by spending levels that, in
fact, it would never live by. And history has demonstrated that to be
correct.
Last year, Congress spent $35 billion more than that budget agreement
provided; and this year it is spending much more than that before the
limits. Some of that spending is outrageous, and some of it is
perfectly defensible.
I do not so much object to some of that spending as I object to the
fact that the Congress, in my view, is simply lying about it and
pretending that it is not taking place. That, I think, is an even more
fundamental problem.
It is clear to me that, in the end, after all of their initial
efforts to cut all of the priorities that the President has been
fighting for, it is clear that the Republican majority in this House,
[[Page 30695]]
in order to get out of town, was willing to give the President
virtually everything he asked for in spending so long as we would adopt
accounting fictions that would hide what, in fact, we were doing. And
that is the honest truth.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this. I understand there are
many good things in the bill, and I am proud to have helped negotiate
some of them. But, in the end, I believe that next year we are going to
come back here with the budget problem being fundamentally worse
because of the fictions we have in this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of our
Committee on Commerce.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. There are a few
items in particular that I would like to highlight from the Medicare
provisions of this bill.
First, it directs a significant amount of new monies toward
hospitals. This includes more funds for small, rural hospitals and for
patients who receive cancer treatments, those most in need of
assistance. Congress cannot allow these hospitals, which serve an
important role in our communities, to close their doors.
Additionally, we provide new monies for the Medicare+Choice program.
This vital program gives seniors the option to choose a private health
plan instead of remaining in the traditional Medicare program.
I am also proud to have strengthened this bill by including $150
million to pay for immunosuppressive drugs for transplant patients.
Medicare currently only covers these drugs for 36 months. Through our
work in the Conference Committee, however, we have ensured that organ
transplants will have greater access to these life-saving drugs for a
longer period of time. Access of these drugs to patients could
literally mean the difference between life and death.
Finally, this bill dedicates more funding for community health
centers and rural health clinics, for S-CHIP, and also for State
outreach efforts for former welfare recipients.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the ``Medicare,
Medicaid and S-CHIP Balance Budget Refinement Act of 1999.'' This bill
restores needed funds to hospitals, nursing homes, managed care
providers, and home health agencies most seriously impacted by changes
made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
The Conference Report, included in this omnibus bill, reflects many
hours of hard work in the House and the Senate. I want to particularly
commend the efforts of Members of the Commerce Committee, Ways and
Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. I am pleased that we
were able to come together and craft this bill--there is much to be
proud of in the legislation.
Congress made some very important changes to the Medicare and
Medicaid programs when it passed the Balanced Budget Act. The Medicare
program was facing bankruptcy and seniors' choice of private health
plans and providers was limited. The Balanced Budget Act changed that
and helped ensure the vitality of this program for years into the
future.
In that legislation, the Commerce Committee also helped create the
State Children's Health Insurance Program--otherwise known as S-CHIP--
to provide health coverage for millions of low-income uninsured
children. It was historic legislation and I am very proud of it.
But in some areas we all went a little too far. Now we are doing the
right thing by going back and refining some of the policies put into
effect by the BBA to address some of the unintended consequences of
that legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the work the Committees in both chambers
put into this bill. I know it enjoys wide bipartisan support and
deserves the support of all my colleagues.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 1
minute.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to point to that portion of the deal that
deals with seniors and the disabled in the Medicare section. This would
not have happened without a bipartisan, cooperative effort.
I especially want to thank the staff: Ann Marie Lynch and the
majority committee, Bill Vaughn, for his willingness to maintain
confidentiality as we worked on this; the commerce staff, especially
the members of the Subcommittee on both Ways and Means and Commerce;
chairmen of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who just spoke; my
friends and colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), without which the
congressional portion would not have been put together.
I want to thank Chris Jennings from the White House, Nancy Ann
MinDeParle at the Health Care Financing Administration and Bonnie
Washington.
Details of the Medicare measure can be found at TND.house.gov. This
lays the groundwork for next year.
Republicans brought prevention in Medicare in 1997. We brought
refinement this year. And working in a cooperative way, as evidenced by
my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), and other Democrats, we can move forward in
modernizing Medicare next year as well.
I want to thank them all. There is no reason in the world why my
colleagues should not vote yes on this measure.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Wisconsin for yielding 1 minute to me.
The previous speaker said there should be no reason to vote against
this bill. I will give my colleagues one darn good reason why we should
not vote for this bill, because this bill contains within it anti-dairy
provisions which go right to the bottom line of the dairy farmers in
the upper Midwest.
I really do applaud this Medicare provision. I would like to thank
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health, for including very important Medicare language
which helps southern Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries.
But what this legislation includes is legislation that has not even
passed through the House of Representatives or through the United
States Senate which goes right to the bottom line of the dairy farmers
in the upper Midwest.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues, let us bring this legislation
down the pike on regular order, not tack it on this ugly Christmas tree
as a big ugly ornament.
This legislation is not fair for our dairy farmers. This legislation
takes them and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against all
other farmers in the country. And it revokes the free market principles
that we were elected to protect.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from new York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this omnibus bill. I
commend the House leadership, the majority leader, the majority whip,
in addition to the Committee on Appropriations chairman, the
distinguished gentleman, for their untiring efforts to finalize the
conference report on the H.R. 3194 and for their willingness to include
it in certain important authorization measures. I also extend thanks to
House staffers Bill Inglee, Brian Gunderson, and Susan Hirschman for
their diligent efforts on our behalf.
In particular, this package includes the authorization for the
important U.N. reform and arrears payment package as well as other
significant programs, such as the 5-year authorization for a greatly
enhanced embassy security program to protect American personnel and
facilities abroad and a 10-year authorization for Radio Free Asia.
The legislative vehicle by which this is accomplished is the
inclusion of H.R. 3427, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr.
[[Page 30696]]
Smith) of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights; the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the ranking
Democrat on that subcommittee; and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson), the committee's ranking member; and myself.
H.R. 3427 reflects the House and Senate agreements that were reached
on H.R. 2415 and S. 886, the Senate amendments to H.R. 2415. This
compromise measure also accommodates numerous requests of the
administration. The House Committee on International Relations worked
diligently to produce a bipartisan bill in concert with our colleagues
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I thank the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations, and I urge
my colleagues to fully support this omnibus measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time and for his leadership on the issue that he and I
are joined together on, and that is dairy.
I must reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill today
because of the dairy provisions that it contains.
It is real important to understand what has not happened today with
the inclusion of these provisions. We have not done one thing to help
dairy farmers in this Nation. We have not addressed the fact that most
of the dairy farmers that we are losing in this Nation we are losing in
the upper Midwest. In my home State, we are losing five each and every
single day.
We have not addressed the fact that many of the Nation's largest co-
ops are gouging our dairy farmers, underpaying them. And we have not
taken one step away from the Soviet style dairy system that has ruled
this country since 1937.
Because of what this bill does not do in dairy, I must reluctantly
urge a no vote.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the very distinguished chairman of our
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the chairman. We did it.
We balanced the budget, as we said we would. We cut the national debt
by over $100 billion with this budget, as we said we would. And we did
it without touching the Social Security trust fund for the first time
in this half century.
Remember back in his State of the Union address, the President
promised to spend 38 percent of the Social Security trust fund for the
surplus for Social Security. We said, no, Mr. President, we want 100
percent of that surplus. And that is what we did. We gave our troops in
the field a good solid pay raise, and they deserve it.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, on dairy, it would be terribly wrong for us
to harm 75 percent of the farmers, the dairy farmers in this country by
supporting the Glickman-Clinton dairy proposal. It is wrong for the
country. The Congress is on record opposing that legislation.
What is in this bill was supported by 380 Members of the Congress.
This is good legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
{time} 1645
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise to again indicate that the President did not win on
education in this legislation, the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce did not win in this legislation. The
children in this country won in this legislation. Above all, the
children who are most disadvantaged won, thanks to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
When we were able to show the administration that 50 percent of
teachers in many of the cities including New York are not certified or
qualified, agreed there is no reason to send not one more teacher into
that area, we better improve the teachers that are there. This happens
all over the country. Therefore, they decided that 100 percent of this
money, they agreed with us, could go for teacher preparation and
teacher training for those that are already existing.
We also indicated that overall, 25 percent of the money could be
flexible for teacher preparation. We also indicated that to those
schools, 7,000 of them in title I that are in schools improvement who
have not improved even in 4 years' time, the parents have the
opportunity to say, we go to another public school within that district
where they are not a failing school.
I want to also include that we wipe out Goals 2000 in the year 2000.
We wipe it out in the year 2000 and gave a lot of money for special ed,
which is very important.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, addressing the abortion compromise on Monday in Ankara,
Turkey, our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright said,
and I quote, ``we do believe it will have a minimal effect on family
planning.'' She went on to say ``the compromise will allow the
President to carry out U.S. family planning policy around the world.''
I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State. In fact, the pro-
life side has always argued that the Mexico City Policy has no effect
on those family planning organizations that divest themselves from the
grisly business of abortion. The compromise provides that at least 96
percent of all the money used for population purposes--that is about
$370 million--will be subjected to the Mexico City safeguards that
prohibit foreign nongovernmental organizations from performing
abortions in foreign countries, from violating abortion laws of those
countries, or from engaging in activities in efforts to change or alter
those laws. If the President chooses, he can waive the restrictions for
up to $15 million in that account.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 3427 is also enacted by
this Act. It is the product of our Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights. It is in essence, a bill passed by both
Houses.
Mr. Speaker, addressing the abortion compromise on Monday in Ankara,
Turkey, our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said,
``We do believe'' it will have a ``minimal effect on family planning''
and that it, the compromise, ``will allow the president to carry out--
U.S. family planning policy around the world.''
I agree wholeheartedly with Secretary Albright. In fact, the pro-life
side has always argued that the Mexico City policy has no effect on
those family planning organizations who divest themselves from the
grisly business of abortion. Abortion is violence against children.
Abortion dismembers or chemically poisons innocent children. It is not
family planning. The compromise language before us today narrowly
focuses on those organizations that advertise themselves as family
planning groups, but promote and/or perform abortions in other
countries.
Let me reiterate in the strongest terms possible, this controversy
has been, and is, all about the performance and promotion of abortion
overseas, and not about family planning per se. The compromise provides
that at least 96% of all the money used for population purpose--that's
about $370 million--will be subject to the Mexico City safeguards that
prohibit foreign non-governmental organizations from performing
abortions in foreign countries, from violating the abortion laws of
these countries, or from engaging in activities or efforts to change
these laws. If the President chooses, he can waive the restrictions on
up to $15 million in the account (4%). The abortion compromise language
is far from perfect, it is a compromise but it is significant. The
effect of the waiver is that up to $15 million would then be able to go
to foreign organizations that did
[[Page 30697]]
not make the Mexico City certifications with respect to performing
abortions, violating abortion laws, and engaging in activities or
efforts to change abortion laws. But this option comes with a
consequence--$12.5 million will be transferred from the population
account to the Child Survival fund for activities that have measurable,
direct, and high impact on saving the lives of children in the Third
World.
On the negotiations with the White House, there was give and take--
the compromise is the result of a good faith effort to resolve
difficult and complex issues. Neither side got everything it wanted. On
balance, however, this bill represents a major step forward for the
protection of unborn children around the world--without endangering
genuine family planning activities.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this bill enacts by reference the
provisions of H.R. 3427, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 200-2001, which I
introduced along with Representatives Cynthia McKinney, Ben Gilman, and
Sam Gejdenson. I insert at this point in the Record an agreed statement
of the legislative history of H.R. 3427.
Legislative History of H.R. 3427, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000-2001
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, the conference report
on H.R. 3194, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
Fiscal Year 2000, incorporates and enacts by reference H.R.
3427, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign
Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000-2001, which I introduced
yesterday, November 17, 1999, along with Representatives
Cynthia McKinney, Ben Gilman, and Sam Gejdenson.
Let me state for the record that H.R. 3427 is a compromise
between H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act, as
passed by the House, and the Senate amendment to H.R. 2415,
which incorporates the provisions of S. 886, the James W.
Nance Foreign Relations Authorization Act. H.R. 3427 is a
substitute for a conference report or an amendment between
the Houses to resolve the differences between the House and
the Senate versions of the bill.
The text and the Statement of Managers of H.R. 3427 (which
appears in the explanatory statement to the conference report
on H.R. 3194) were agreed upon by Mr. Gilman and Mr.
Gejdenson, as well as by myself and Ms. McKinney--the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Members, respectively, of the
committee and subcommittee with jurisdiction over the bill in
the House. In the Senate, the Statement of Managers of H.R.
3427 has the concurrence of a majority of the conferees
appointed by the Senate for H.R. 2415.
The original Senate version of H.R. 2415, S. 886, was
reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 28,
1999 (S. Rept. 106-43) and passed the Senate, amended, on
June 22, 1999 by a vote of 97-2.
H.R. 2415 passed the House, amended, on July 21, 1999. It
was not reported by our Committee but was sent directly to
the floor by action of the House pursuant to the special
Rule. H.R. 2415 was a successor to H.R. 1211. H.R. 1211 was
reported by the Committee on International Relations on March
29, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-122).
The legislative history of H.R. 3427 in the House is the
legislative history of H.R. 2415 and H.R. 1211 in the House
as far as is applicable. Similarly, in the Senate the
legislative history of H.R. 3427 is the legislative history
of S. 886.
The Foreign Relations Authorizations Act contains important
provisions relating to the security of United States embassies and
overseas employees, to human rights, to refugees, and to the activities
of the States Department. I am particularly proud that the bill
provides $12 million for the Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and
Labor. It is scandalous that the State Department currently spends more
on its public relations bureau than on the human rights bureau, and
this legislation will put an end to that scandal. The bill also
authorizes $750 million for refugee protection--unfortunately, far more
than the Administration requested or than has been appropriated for FY
2000--but we will work to get the request and appropriations for FY
2001 up to the mark in the Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 3427) also
contains important United Nations reforms--standards to which the
United Nations must live up in order to receive the amounts provided in
the settlement of the dispute over arrearages. It authorizes $4.5
billion over five years for Embassy construction and improvement so as
to reduce dramatically the vulnerability of our overseas facilities to
terrorism, and provides strict conditions to make sure the State
Department really spends the money on security instead of any other
preferences it might have.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3427 ensures that as the United States Information
Agency is folded into the State Department, the international
information programs of USIA will not be converted into domestic press
offices or propaganda organs. It requires that U.S. educational and
cultural exchange programs provide safeguards against the inclusion of
thugs and spies from dictatorial regimes and to increase the
opportunities for human rights and democracy advocates to participate
in these programs. (One of the requirements is that we conduct no
further police training programs for members of the Royal Ulster
Constabulary until we have in place vetting procedures to exclude
participation by RUC officers who participated in or condoned serious
human rights violations, such as the murders of defense attorneys
Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson.)
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes clear that Congress expects important
reforms in our Vietnamese refugee programs for allied combat veterans,
former U.S. government employees, and their families. It continues a
requirement of current law that the programs the United Nations
Development Program conducts in Burma be conducted in consultation with
the legitimately elected pro-democracy authorities in that country, and
that these programs not serve the interests of the brutal military
dictatorship that currently holds power in Burma. The bill also
provides funding for UNICEF, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for
Victims of Torture, the World Food Program, for the Tibet, Burma, East
Timor, and South Pacific Scholarships, and for other programs which
will promote American interests and American values around the world.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding me this time.
The Government Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service,
and the Pentagon have all complied with requests from the Congress or
complied with law to document the amount of money that we have spent on
legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. The total amount of money is
at least $17.1 billion since 1992.
Now, the U.N. has legitimized that accounting because they have
credited us with $1.8 billion of that against past dues. But
regrettably this legislation that is before us gives the United Nations
nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money, in spite of the fact that the
GAO, the CRS and the Pentagon itself have documented that the U.N. owes
us at least $15 billion. This is a travesty that I hope future
legislation can correct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just
wanted to point out that there has been talk about winners and losers
and victories and defeats. I would like to just make this point. I was
very impressed by one visit to President Reagan's Oval Office. He had a
sign there, and I will paraphrase it because I do not remember it
exactly, but it goes like this: It's amazing what can be accomplished
if you don't care who gets the credit.
That is how we have tried to work through this entire appropriations
process, without demanding or claiming credit for any one of our
appropriators. We just get the job done. We believe that we have
produced a good product here that would be acceptable to the American
people and should be acceptable to the Representatives in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), a member of the committee.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I come to the floor today severely grieved and sad because the
old ways of Washington continue to prevail. The men and women we serve
with here today are honorable people, but the process is dishonest. I
think that those of us who came here in 1995 as part of the crowd that
was going to end these megabills, these omnibus spending bills, catch-
all bills that were thrown in with all kinds of pork, all kinds of
spending, this is a dishonest process. I lament that. $385 billion on
this floor right now passed by agreement last night at 4 o'clock in the
morning. We should be ashamed, because we are upholding the old ways of
Washington, the Washington math, dishonest. We are going home, and we
are
[[Page 30698]]
telling people that we did not spend the Social Security surplus. It is
a bald-faced lie. Each one of us knows that. We should be ashamed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill. I just have to comment on the dairy part of this bill. We have
people in this chamber who sing the praises of free trade with
countries all over this world. Yet this chamber refuses to allow free
trade in our own country. There is only one product, milk, only one
product in this entire economy where the price of the product is
dependent upon where it is made. That is wrong; that is a Soviet-style
economy and everyone here knows it. The President did the right thing.
The President tried to reform this system. Yet the Republican
leadership in this House refuses to allow those market reforms to go
into place. It is an embarrassment, and it is causing consumers all
over this country to pay more for their milk. This bill should be
defeated.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all with respect to the dairy provisions, I
would like to publicly thank President Clinton for his personal efforts
to salvage dairy reform and keep nongermane dairy riders off this
appropriation bill. I also want to thank Secretary Glickman for twice
trying to bring some degree of modernization to the 1937 milk marketing
practices which have long since outlived their usefulness. I understand
that given all the other items in the bill, the President cannot veto
the bill over that; but I do appreciate very much the fact that he and
his staff went to the well to try to help us when we really needed
their help.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think I should explain the motion to
recommit. In large part due to the unrealistic budget caps established
in the 1997 budget act, both parties agreed early on this year that the
budget request for veterans medical care was inadequately funded. The
Republican budget resolution this year called for an additional $1.7
billion for veterans medical care, but that increase was for fiscal
2000 only.
The next 4 years of the Republican budget plan assumed that veterans
health care would decline to a level below that of last year. The
Democratic alternative budget provided not only for the additional $1.7
billion in fiscal 2000, it continued that increase in future years. In
total, the Democratic budget provided about $8 billion more for
veterans health expenses than the Republican resolution that passed.
When the VA-HUD subcommittee first marked up the fiscal 2000 bill, it
ignored the guidance of the Republican budget resolution. It provided
only the 1999 level with virtually no increase. After the hue and cry
from veterans groups and the indication from the administration that it
would be submitting a budget amendment for an additional $1 billion for
veterans health care, the majority added $1.7 billion above the
original request.
Both in full committee and on the House floor, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) tried to add $700 million more in veterans medical
care by delaying for 1 year the effect of the Republicans' capital
gains tax cut. We were rebuffed procedurally by the majority at every
turn on that, with the argument that an appropriations bill could not
be merged with tax measures. Let me point out today to my colleagues
that this omnibus bill today contains several tax measures. So despite
the availability of valid provisions that would have provided offsets
negating the need for the across-the-board cut in this omnibus measure,
the majority has once again decided to take an action which would
provide veterans health care less than I believe they need.
Therefore, our recommittal motion will be very simple. It will simply
recommit the bill to the committee on conference with instructions that
House managers not agree to any provision whatsoever which would reduce
or rescind appropriations for veterans medical care. In other words, it
would eliminate the $72 million reduction in the Republican budget for
veterans health care. It would restore that $72 million. I would urge
Members to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the hard-working, straight-talking, straight-shooting Speaker of the
House, a great leader, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
I do not have to tell my colleagues that it has been a long and often
challenging road to get us to this point. Today, we have before us a
good bill, a fair bill, a bill that reflects our priorities as a
Congress and reflects our priorities as a Nation.
When I took over this job a little less than a year ago, I said the
appropriations process needed to be a process that we sent the 13
bills. After we moved through the process of the committee and we sent
them to the White House and the President has the chance of signing
those bills or vetoing those bills, and if he chooses to veto, give us
the message and send the bill back and we will work it.
We have done that. Every one of these pieces of legislation have gone
through the process. Now we are back. We are dealing with the five
bills that the President decided to veto. And over a long period of
time, and working with the White House and working with our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, we have pieced together what we need in
this Nation to make this Nation work on an appropriations process for
the next fiscal year.
For the past 30 years, our government has taken money out of the
pockets of seniors and spent it on more wasteful Washington spending.
Last February, our majority pledged to stop this raid on Social
Security Trust Funds, and in this bill we have. Stopping the raid on
Social Security is not just good news for our seniors, it is good news
for our children who unfairly have been burdened with the national debt
and paying the interest on that debt year after year, not only now but
way into the future.
{time} 1700
With this bill's passage today, we will be on target to pay down $131
billion of national debt in this fiscal year. When I arrived in
Congress in 1987, the idea of passing a budget that would actually pay
down $130 billion worth of debt would have been laughable, and even 5
years ago the thought of debt reduction was just that, a thought, but
now it is a reality.
This bill also represents a huge victory for those in this chamber
who have spent many years fighting for local control of Federal
education dollars. We had a long debate with the White House, and the
White House wanted more teachers, and we put $300 million more in for
education than the White House asked for. But with that we asked, let
us give our local school districts, let us give our parents, let us
give teachers and let us give superintendents and those people we ask
to take care of our local schools the flexibility to do the work that
they have to do.
We did that in this bill. Working with the White House and the good
work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), we got the
flexibility, even in the teacher bill, so teachers would be there, we
would have the people to do the discipline and do the teaching and do
the work, but if we did not need teachers, we could use that money to
lift up the level and capability of the teachers we already have.
The debate over education has now changed. Instead of arguing about
whether there should be local control of education dollars, we are now
debating about how much local control there should be. There is money
in this bill that can be used to hire more teachers and lower classroom
size, but there is also flexibility in this bill. Parents and teachers
will have more freedom to use this money as they see fit. Keeping more
dollars and decisions in our classrooms is a victory for this Congress
and a victory for our children.
[[Page 30699]]
This bill also takes a very important first step in eliminating
government waste. Every year our government spends billions and
billions of dollars, and we are saying in this bill, let us take 38
cents out of every $100 that the Federal Government spends and find
waste and abuse. I think that is doable, and I think next year we ought
to do the same thing, over and over again, because that is what the
American people expect us to do.
The across-the-board spending cut in this bill will force the
agencies of government to take a close look at their budget and see
what frivolous spending can be eliminated. Taxpayers deserve to have
their money spent responsibly, and this bill will save the American
taxpayers from over $1 billion in excess spending.
I would like to take this opportunity certainly to thank the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and to thank the subcommittee
chairmen on the various appropriations committees, and to thank the
gentleman on the other side of the aisle who has led a gallant fight
and an honest and straight fight for what he believes is right.
We do not put legislation like this together just at a whim. It takes
a long time. It takes people standing up for their principles and their
ideals. Sometimes we have different principles and we have different
ideals; but at the end, we have a product that we can stand up for,
that we can vote for, that we can be proud of.
It is amazing to think about what this bill actually does. It stops
the raid on Social Security, it keeps the budget balanced, it pays down
our national debt and it gives parents and teachers more control and
better benefits to our children. It was not too long ago that these
accomplishments were nothing more than broad goals.
So I encourage my colleagues to vote for this agreement, and let the
American people know that this Congress is committed to fiscal
discipline and sound policy, and as we open up the new millennium, the
Year 2000, we can promise our seniors that their pension funds are
secure, that their Social Security funds are secure, and our children
are not going to have to pick up the interest on our debt that we have
piled on their shoulders over the past years.
I ask for support on this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the DC Appropriations bill is the shell in
which the Republican leadership has chosen to place the legislative
kitchen sink, so the speak. This bill includes a myriad of provisions
that have nothing to do with the District of Columbia--Interior
Appropriations; Labor-HHS Appropriations; a Satellite Home Viewers Act;
certain dairy provisions and, the bill about which I am here to speak
today: The Medicare BBA Refinement Act.
The Medicare BBA Refinement Act is a sweet and sour bill--it is has
good features and bad features.
First, the good features. The move toward prospective payment systems
is continued. The arbitrary $1500 caps on rehabilitation services have
been lifted for two years while we develop a better payment system.
Medicare's coverage of immuno-suppressive drugs for transplant patients
has been extended 8 months. Patients in hospital outpatient departments
are protected against ever having to pay more than a single day's
hospital deductible for the cost of the outpatient procedure. Today,
patients face out-of-pockets costs $2000 to $3000 for certain
outpatient procedures. Now, their costs will be limited to about $776.
And, I want to commend Chairman Thomas for a bill which did not give
away the future of Medicare. The lobbying pressures have been enormous.
It would have been easy to bring forth a $30 or $40 billion bill. The
bill is limited and generally--with some exceptions--directs its
spending to the areas where there is the most evidence that some
adjustment is needed.
Nevertheless, I voted against the bill when it first passed the
House, because it was not paid for-and thus shortened the life of the
Medicare Trust Fund about a year, and increased beneficiary Part B
premiums by at least 50 cents a month.
It still is not paid for--and now reduces solvency by more than a
year, and increases beneficiaries' costs by several billion dollars
over the next five years, increasing premiums about a dollar a month.
It spends about $16 billion of the Social Security surplus over the
next five years, and $27 billion over ten years.
It didn't need to be this way. In the $212 billion a year Medicare
program, there is fraud, waste, and abuse, and we could have saved
several billion a year to pay for the relief that some providers
needed.
I am most disappointed about the budget games that were played on the
5.7 percent hospital outpatient department issue--which is a $4 billion
gift to hospitals. When the BBA passed, we meant to reduce payments to
hospitals which had been shifting overhead costs to outpatient
departments. It is the rankest Orwellian revisionist history to claim
otherwise. But revisionist history is what has happened. So that
neither the White House nor the Congress would be charged for the $4
billion gift, there has been an exchange of letters in which no one is
`scored' for the cost of spending $4 billion more. It is like manna
from heaven, a miracle for which no one is responsible and no one has
to pay.
Mr. Speaker, it is all phony, it is all a distortion of the budget
process. The give-away to hospitals does cost money; $1 billion will
come from seniors. Therefore, we should have been honest and paid for
it. It is money that will not be available to save Medicare. It is
money that comes out of the Social Security surplus. And that is the
truth.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of dishonest budget game destroys faith and
trust in government. Its true cost is much more than the $4 billion
gift to hospitals.
There are other bad features. There is absolutely no hard proof that
some of these providers need more money. In many cases, the Congress
has just been rolled by lobbyists and major contributors.
Standards for Medicare managed care plans have been weakened. We
continue to grossly overpay HMOs. The HMO industry that we beat in the
Patient Bill of Rights has crept in the backdoor of this bill to weaken
consumer protections and receive $4 billion dollars in overpayments.
I would vote no if this were a free-standing bill based on is merits
alone. That decision is made even easier by the process used here today
which compiled all of these unrelated, important bills into one gaint
package in order to try to force members of Congress to vote yes. Well,
that theory doesn't work on everyone. I vote no.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the DC
Appropriations/Omnibus budget Conference Report. This conference report
is a vast improvement over previously vetoed appropriations bills, yet
in some instances falls, in my opinion, short of where we should be. I
will support this legislation as it is a true compromise and will bring
many benefits to the citizens of this country, funding valuable
programs while having the small 0.38 percent across the board budget
cut. While I believe this bill to be fiscally responsible, it does
nothing to extend the life of Social Security. I strongly encourage the
Republican leadership to bring up legislation early next year to extend
the life of Social Security by ensuring its solvency.
The Omnibus covers much ground and I would like to touch on several
important issues to my constituents. In the areas of Health and Human
Services and Education, I feel it is important to highlight the support
this Omnibus gives to our nation's teachers and our education system;
to AIDS funding and NIH research in general; to family planning
services; and to Medicare payment relief for our hospitals.
Overall, the Omnibus provides $39 billion for education programs.
This is a 7 percent increase over Fiscal Year 1999. Importantly, the
Class Size Reduction Initiative remained intact. The controversy about
this program led to the President's veto of previous Labor/HHS
appropriations bills. However, the $1.3 billion appropriated for class
size reduction will in large part remain designated for that purpose.
School districts will be permitted to use up to 25 percent of the funds
for professional development, an increase over last year. Nonetheless,
the majority of funding will remain targeted for its intended purpose--
reducing the sizes of our children's classes. This funding was
imperative for schools in my district and in New York City. Last year,
New York City used its funding under the class size reduction
initiative to fund the full salaries of 808 new teachers and to
partially fund the salaries of an additional 788 early grade teachers.
Had there been no funding for class size reduction, the city would have
been unable to retain more than 1500 teachers. This is important in my
district, which contains the most overcrowded school district in the
city, CSD 24, operating at 119 percent over capacity. Overall, the
funding New York City receives will reduce the class sizes for
approximately 90,000 students--27 percent of its K-3 enrollment.
[[Page 30700]]
While this is nowhere near enough--it is an important first step in
improving the education for all K-3 children in New York City and
across the country.
Another important program that this Omnibus funds is the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers. This agreement appropriates $453 million
for after-school centers, $253 million more than last year. After
school centers are vital to keeping our children off the streets.
Our communities and schools are facing the fact that most families
need to have two parents working full time to provide for their
children. This leaves as many as 15 million school-aged children
without supervision from the time school ends until the time their
parents arrive home from work. After-school programs provide school-age
children whose parents both work a supervised environment providing
constructive activities. Such a structured setting makes these students
less likely to use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, commit crimes, receive
poor grades, and drop out of school. No one in my district, or in the
nation, wants to see children go home to empty houses or apartments, or
worse yet, succumb to anti-social activities on the street.
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program allows schools to
address the educational needs of its community through after-school,
weekend, and summer programs. After school programs enable schools to
stay open longer, providing a safe place for homework centers,
mentoring programs, drug and violence prevention programs, and
recreational activities. Additionally, after school programs enhance
learning, increase community responsibility, and decrease youth crime
and drug use. I fully support the increase in Fiscal Year 2000 funding
for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and only wish
the there was more funding to enable more schools to provide this much
needed service to our communities.
The Omnibus also increases funding for Head Start programs by 13
percent, bringing funding for Fiscal Year 200 to $5.3 billion. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, the Head Start Program was instituted in 1965 and
has been reauthorized through 2003. Head Start funds are provided
directly to local grantees and the programs are locally designed and
administered by a network of 1600 public and private nonprofit
agencies. Head Start has been an unequivocal success. A 1995 report by
the Packard Foundation presented evidence that high quality early
childhood education for low-income children produces long-term
educational, economic, and societal gains. I have one such program in
my district, The Little Angels Program run by the Archdiocese of the
Bronx, which exemplifies the mission of the head start program and
success of the Head Start program. Little Angels provides comprehensive
early childhood development, education, health, nutrition, social and
other services to low income preschool children and their families. I
applaud the leadership for continuing to support this essential early
education and development program.
Under Health and Human Services programs, we once again expressed our
support for the research being done by the National Institutes of
Health, as well as AIDS programs and family planning. Overall, the
Omnibus provides a 15 percent increase over Fiscal Year 1999 for NIH,
bringing its funding to $17.9 billion. This majority of this money will
be seen by NIH researchers this year, rather than being until September
29, 2000, as originally reposed by the Republican leadership. Imagine
the impact of not funding research projects for almost an entire year.
A year without cancer research, diabetes, lupus, this list goes on and
on. Every day important break-throughs happen, and I am happy the
Republican leadership did not sacrifice health research to balance the
budget.
I am also heartened by the support for Ryan White AIDS program, which
will receive $1.6 billion in funding, a 13 percent increase from last
year, and $44 million more than the last Labor/HHS bill. We all know
the battle we face against AIDS an HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In
1998, the Center for Disease Control reported that 665,357 persons were
living with the AIDS virus and CDC estimates that 650,000-900,000
American live with the HIV virus. Sadly, so far 401,028 individuals
have not survived their battle with AIDS. However, we all know that due
to lack of reporting or lack of knowledge on the part of individuals
and states, that these numbers are low respsentations of the actual
number of those living with HIV and AIDS.
In New York, the crisis is particularly acute. In 1998, there were
129,545 thousand reported AIDS cases and 80,408 reported AIDS deaths.
New York City AIDS cases represent over 85 percent of the AIDS cases in
New York State and 17 percent of the national total with 109,392 AIDS
cases and 67,969 AIDS related deaths as reported in 1998.
My own Congressional District spans two Boroughs in New York City
with rapidly growing AIDS cases. In the Bronx, the Pelham and Throggs
Neck area covered by the 7th Congressional District has report 3,045
AIDS cases and 1,957 deaths due to the AIDS virus in 1998. In Queens, a
Borough with a rapidly growing population, there are 6,962 AIDS cases
and 4,082 known dead from AIDS related causes as reported in 1998.
Sadly, this horrible disease has disproportionately affected
minorities. The majority of individuals living with AIDS in New York
City are people of color. African Americans are more than eight times
as likely as whites to have HIV and AIDS, and Hispanics more than four
times are likely. The most stunning fact I have read comes from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in October of 1998, when
they reported that AIDS is the leading killer of black men age 25-44
and the second leading cause of death for black women aged 25-44.
Together, Black and Hispanic women represent one fourth of all women in
the United States but account for more than three quarters of the AIDS
cases among women in the country.
I know we are making progress, Mr. Speaker. The number of AIDS cases
reported each year in Queens and the Bronx is on the decline. This is
in large part to the bipartisan commitment by the House of
Representatives to funding research at NIH and programs through the
department of Health and Human Services. Now that we have had
breakthroughs in treatment of HIV and delaying the onset of full blown
AIDS, we must concentrate more of our effort on prevention and
treatment programs. These programs are especially important for
minorities, who are so disproportionately affected by this disease, and
I fully support the inclusion of $138 million for early intervention
programs in this Omnibus bill.
In my District, there is an organization that is actively reaching
out to the community, both in treatment and services for AIDS sufferers
and preventative education for the community. Steinway Child and Family
Services, Inc., serves many areas in Queens that are devastated by high
incidences of AIDS. The majority of these people are low-income
minorities who have historically received little, if any, assistance
due to low levels of funding.
Steinway's CAPE program (Case Management, Advocacy, Prevention &
Education) offers services to people who have contracted HIV, increases
general public awareness of the methods of HIV transmission, and
provides targeted outreach services to people considered ``at risk.''
Steinway's Scattered Site Housing program located dwellings in Queens
for homeless persons with AIDS and their families. It is currently the
largest program of its type in the country. I am proud that this
Omnibus includes $50,000 in funding for Steinway's CAPE program.
Another area addressed by the Omnibus is family planning within Title
X programs. On October 26, I sent a letter to President Clinton, signed
by 53 of my colleagues, expressing our support for Title X of the
Public Health Service Act, the only federal program devoted solely to
the provision of high quality contraceptive care to almost five million
low-income Americans. Title X has had a tremendous impact over the
years on reducing rates on unintended pregnancy and abortion as well as
improving maternal and child health. Primary care services provided by
clinics receiving Title X funds range from contraceptive supplies and
services to breast and cervical cancer screening, to anemia testing and
STD/HIV screening.
I laud the Administration and the Republican leadership for
appropriating $239 million to the Title X Family Planning program. This
is a $24 million increase from last year. However, I must express my
disappointment with the majority on adding a provision to the Commerce-
Justice-State section of the Appropriations conference report, which
allows physicians to refuse to ``prescribe'' contraceptives on the
basis of moral or religious beliefs. This is in complete opposition to
the provision passed by recorded vote in the FY 2000 Treasury Postal
Appropriations that provides contraceptive coverage to federal
employees covered by the Federal Employee Health benefits Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to address the measure
which would give hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies
and other health care providers relief from cuts in Medicare payments
that were enacted in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
This agreement provides an estimated $12.8 billion over five years in
additional Medicare payments for hospitals, home health care agencies,
managed care plans and other health care providers to help them restore
the 5.7 percent cut in payments to hospital outpatient departments
suffered as an unintended result of the Balanced Budget Agreement of
[[Page 30701]]
1997. Additionally, I am happy that the conference committee was able
to remove the egregious provision in the House passed version that
would have severely impacted New York City's teaching hospitals. Rather
than take away much needed funds from teaching hospitals that are
perceived as receiving a higher share of funds, the conference
agreement reduces inflation adjustments for hospitals with high doctor
training costs. This cut is less than the original Subcommittees bill,
which in turn is less devastating to our hospitals. I urge Congress to
revisit this issue in the next year.
Finally, this Omnibus bill will also fund a number of key
environmental priorities while at the same time deleting several of the
anti-environmental amendments that would have been detrimental to the
health and quality of life of my constituents in Queens and the Bronx.
I salute the conferees for providing funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF). Although the Congress was unable to provide
all of the resources requested by the White House, the approximately
$470 million allocated for land acquisition, preservation and
conservation is a solid first step.
It is my hope that next year, we will be celebrating the passage of
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) which will provide even
more badly needed funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, urban
parks and historic and wildlife preservation. These additional
resources will greatly assist the people of my district. As the only
New York member of the House Committee on Resources, I will continue my
responsibility to the people of my state in fighting for key
environmental projects like the LWCF.
Further, I am pleased that the Urban and Community Forestry Program
at the Department of Agriculture continues to receive stable funding
under this measure. Over the last four years, the Urban and Community
Forestry program (U&CF) has provided more than $1 million to contain
and prevent further tree loss associated with Asian Longhorned Beetle
outbreak in New York City. That includes providing specially trained
smoke jumpers to assist city foresters in checking the tops of trees
for beetle infestation where they are more difficult to detect. U&CF
has also provided technical assistance to help city officials plant and
care for trees that are resistant to the beetle to prevent future
outbreaks. We've lost over 1400 trees in Queens alone from the Asian
Longhorned Beetle, with more trees being infested. This is why the
Urban and Community Forestry program is so important. It aims to
provide increased green space and shade for our urban residents.
Additionally, this bill does not include some of the more troublesome
riders that were feared to be included in this Omnibus bill.
Specifically, there are no restrictions on the ability of the State of
New York or the Federal government to sue coal-fired power plants in
the Midwest that fail to comply with major modifications provisions of
the Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, I am pleased that an amendment I offered to the original
Interior bill last summer pertaining to urban minorities and their
ability to receive grants from the National Endowment for the Arts was
included in this final budget bill. My amendment would include urban
minorities among the traditionally ``underserved populations'' who are
given priority for services from the National Endowment for the Arts or
awarding the NEA's financial assistance for projects and workshops that
serve these communities.
My language specifies that ``underserved populations'' including
African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and other
minority communities that are located in urban areas should have equal
access to Federal arts funding.
This amendment will ensure that all Americans will have equal access
to the arts and will fulfill the NEA's mission to guarantee that no
person is left untouched by the arts. Projects targeted at urban youth
will greatly help keep these young people off the streets, and away
from the lure of drugs and crime. The arts also help to break down
barriers, bring communities together, and offer hope.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the positive funding increases outweigh
the short amount of time and offsets of this Omnibus bill. Therefore, I
support the measure and urge its passage by the House of
Representatives.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report to H.R. 3194, the FY2000 District of Columbia Appropriations
Act. This legislation encompassing the five remaining appropriations
bills for fiscal year 2000--the Commerce, Justice and State
appropriations bill, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, the
Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the Interior appropriations
bill, and the Labor, Health and Human Services and education
appropriations bill--is a good compromise that will address our
Nation's domestic and foreign policy priorities while retaining fiscal
discipline.
While I am concerned with the budget gimmicks that are being used to
mask the size of the overall spending in this package, I will support
the legislation because I believe that overall, this legislation will
maintain a balanced budget and keep us on track toward budget surpluses
in the future. This legislation represents an attempt to do something
that other Congresses never attempted to do. By resisting the historic
temptation to spend the Social Security surplus, we have changed the
terms of debate in Washington. Future Congresses will now work to
maintain a balanced budget and protect all of the Social Security trust
fund surplus.
Following the 1994 election, Congress inherited a projected four-year
budget deficit of $906 billion. In response, Congress with a Republican
majority, worked to limit the growth of Federal spending and the
President joined us in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. Limits on
the growth of Federal spending and the continued strong performance of
our economy helped to produce a net surplus of $63 billion in the
Federal budget in fiscal years 1996 through 1999. In fiscal year 1999
the Federal Government enjoyed a $123 billion surplus, and the surplus
is growing as we begin fiscal year 2000. Congress has ended the
discretionary spending frenzy of the late 1980's and early 1990's and
Federal spending is more responsible today.
With the goal of protecting the Social Security trust fund surplus,
Congress is holding the line on expanding Government programs and is
finally starting to pay down the national debt. We are accomplishing
these goals while still meeting basic governmental responsibilities
such as increasing Medicare payments to our hospitals and nursing homes
by approximately $12 billion over five years, increasing funding or
education and health care programs, and paying the United States
overdue commitments to the United Nations. This legislation meets the
basic needs of our country in a responsible manner.
To help meet our goal of limiting the growth of Federal spending, his
legislation includes a 0.38 percent across-the-board spending reduction
which applies to all thirteen annual appropriations bill, saving
taxpayers about $1.3 billion. I support this type of ``belt
tightening.'' The Federal Government should find savings in every
program to demonstrate to our constituents that the Federal Government
can cut waste and operate more efficiently. I know from my days as
Governor of Delaware that every government agency can and should be
required to eliminate unneeded costs.
When Republicans became the majority party in Congress in January
1995, we promised to reform and improve our education programs to
ensure that they help all children reach their full academic
potential--regardless of their economic status or other personal
challenges. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research
Service, in 1995 spending for elementary and secondary education
programs totaled almost $15 billion, with all Department of Education
programs funded at $32.3 billion (fiscal year 1995).
Since 1995, the House Education Committee, on which I serve, has
worked to provide unprecedented accountability and flexibility in the
operations of these programs. That effort paved the way for the bill
the House of Representatives will consider today. I am pleased to
report that this final appropriations bill provides $21 billion for
elementary and secondary education programs and $39 billion for all
Department of Education Programs--increases of 44 percent and 21
percent over fiscal year 1995 respectively.
Most important, this bill provides very generous funding for those
programs that help all children receive a quality education.
Specifically, it provides $8.7 billion for Title 1, the program that
helps educate our most disadvantaged students--an increase of $265
million over fiscal year 1999. In addition, State grants for the
education of children with disabilities are increased $700 million over
fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to $5.8 billion. While this
increase will not fully fund the Federal Government's share for the
education of our disabled children, it will increase the per pupil
contribution to 13 percent--the highest level in the history of the
program.
In addition, this bill increases the maximum Pell Grant for low-
income college students to $3,300--$175 over fiscal year 1999. Finally,
it provides $1.3 billion to help our local schools and school districts
reduce class size but also provides the necessary flexibility to ensure
that all teachers receive the training they need to impart a high
quality education to our children.
This legislation also includes important funding for Health and Human
Services programs,
[[Page 30702]]
such as Medicare, Medicaid, family support services and health
research. As part of our ongoing commitment to double biomedical
research in five years, the appropriations bill provides $17.9 billion
for the National Institutes of Health. This 15 percent increase over
fiscal year 1999 will help ensure progress on all diseases, including
diabetes and Alzheimer's. It also provides $3 billion, nearly $264
million more than fiscal year 1999, for disease prevention programs run
by the Centers for Disease Control. This funding will help prevent
those chronic illnesses that result in death and major disability.
Of particular importance to many of Delaware's hospitals, nursing
facilities and other providers, this bill also incorporates the budget
fixes of the Medicare Refinement Act. This language ensures that
America's seniors will continue to receive high quality health care by
correcting the funding concerns that inadvertently arose as the result
of the Medicare reforms in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
I am particularly pleased to note that the annual Medicare
rehabilitation therapy caps will be lifted entirely for the next two
years. This will ensure that those with multiple ailments can get the
treatment they need to fully recover while experts consider a better
way to implement payment modifications that address the real needs of
rehabilitation patients. I am also pleased to note that this bill
increases access to cervical cancer screening through the use of pap
smears. By increasing the Medicare reimbursement rate, we ensure that
more women will get the screening they need to identify and treat
problems before they become a threat to their health, their fertility
or their lives.
I am disappointed that the compromise language in this bill does not
reflect the Senate position on community health centers and the
prospective payment system, as these organizations play an important
role in the delivery of health care in Delaware. That said, I believe
these changes are an improvement on current law and I hope that we can
continue to move legislation to strengthen the delivery of services to
our most at-risk populations.
This bill also goes a long way toward restoring protections for the
environment that were absent when the Interior appropriations
conference report passed the House without my support. Seven of the
twenty-four anti-environmental riders added by the Senate were stripped
and the remaining riders were significantly changed to reduce their
threat to the environment. The congressional leadership was responsive
to concerns I raised that Congress should not attempt to prevent EPA
enforcement action against midwest electric utility companies whose
emissions are polluting Delaware's air and water. The judicial system
is fully equipped to give these companies their day in court to defend
their actions. I am extremely pleased that this proposed rider was not
included in the bill. Furthermore, the Interior appropriation bill
increases funding for our national parks, our national wildlife
refuges, and restoration efforts in the everglades. Finally, the
Interior bill contains funding for a program of particular interest to
Delaware--the stateside land and water conservation fund, which
provides Delaware with funding for its state parks and environmental
land acquisition programs.
One of the weaknesses of this package is in the Commerce, Justice,
State appropriations bill. I opposed this bill when it passed the House
because it designated $4 billion in funding to conduct the 2000 census
as ``emergency'' spending that is not subject to the annual spending
limits. Although an accurate census is important, it is not a true
unanticipated emergency like a hurricane. Congress should responsibly
budget for this and all future censuses. this budget gimmick led to a
7.8 percent increase in spending on this bill--far too much for a
single year increase. Despite this short coming, I am pleased that the
bill privided increased spending on anti drug programs, legal aid
programs for the poor, and programs to combat violence against women.
Another highlight of this bill was its attention to the needs of
farmers in the northeast. The bill provides additional funds for
farmers affected by natural disasters, such as flood damage from
Hurrican Floyd and crop loss from this summer's drought.
Furthermore, the bill contains measures to ensure that Delaware's
dairy farmers are adequately compensated for the fluid mild they supply
to milk processors.
Finally, this legislative package contains the Satellite Home Viewer
Act which benefit thousands of Delawareans. Legislation has been added
to eliminating outdated restrictions on satellite TV companies that
prohibit them from carrying local network television stations. Many
Delawareans who rely on satellites to receive quality TV reception must
watch out-of-State news shows due to their restrictions. This
legislation will bring them needed relief and allow them to be better
informed about local, state, and regional events.
I strongly urge the congressional leadership and the President to
institute measures to allow Congress to finish its work on these
spending bills earlier in the year to avoid last minute deals that
inevitably lead to more spending. Strong budget enforcement mechanisms,
such as biennial budgeting and my proposal for a ``rainy day''account
for emergency spending, should be considered in the next session.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. It contains
compromises that were necessary to meet the President's demands and to
reach agreement between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Despite
these compromises, this legislation maintains our hard-won commitment
to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. This commitment to
fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. This commitment will help
protect the Social Security trust fund and enable the rest of our
Government to meet the needs of all Americans in a fiscally responsible
manner.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern over one
particular provision in the FY 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act
providing funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's
Title I program for school improvement and public school choice
activities.
Specifically, this provision would provide $134 million in fiscal
year 2000 to States, who in turn would distribute 100 percent of this
funding to school districts, for (1) activities to provide assistance
to schools which are failing academically, and (2) public school choice
for all children in schools which are identified as ``schools in school
improvement'' under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. While on its face, this provisions seem beneficial, I am concerned
about its impact on Title I and our nation's schools.
The statutory language of this provision does not specify how funds
are distributed from the State to school district level. Presently,
98.5 percent of Title I funds are distributed directly to the local
level. In addition, Title I funds designated for the local, or school
district level, have always been distributed via a targeted formula
that provides the bulk of funding to the most disadvantaged areas. This
provision's departure from the current statutory focus opens the door
to the elimination of targeting funds to the local level--a dangerous
step towards taking precious Federal funds away from those who instruct
our children on a day to day basis. I expect the Department of
Education to issue regulations or guidance which will target these
funds to either the school districts with the highest numbers of
schools in school improvement or through the existing Title I formula.
I also have concerns over the mandate in this provision to provide
public school choice. I do want to make clear that I support public
school choice as one of several tools which local school districts may
implement in their efforts to improve student achievement. H.R. 2,
legislation passed by the House earlier this year reauthorizing Title
I, also recognized the need to include public school choice provisions
in Title I, also recognized the need to include public choice
provisions in Title I, but contained important provisions that would
(1) tie the requirement to implement public school choice to local
school board policy, and (2) ensure that school districts had adequate
time to properly design public school choice plans by providing 18
months to implement such plans. In contrast, the provisions contained
in this legislation would become effective immediately and are vague on
whether local school board policy would be superseded. It is my
expectation that the Department of Education will issue guidance or
regulations which ensure that school districts can responsibly
implement this mandate in adequate time.
It is my hope that we can continue to refine the policy that will be
implemented through the enactment of this provision as we finish our
work on ESEA.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
The bill before us addresses a number of critical national and local
priorities of which I will only highlight a few. It provides funding to
continue putting 100,000 more teachers in our classrooms. It will also
allow school districts to use some of that money to meet other critical
educational needs like teacher training if those needs are more
pressing. The bill also continues our commitment to put 50,000 more
police officers on our streets to fight crime. I have been a strong
supporter of the COPS program, seeing the benefits in numerous Central
Coast cities like Santa Maria, Lompoc, Atascadero and Morro Bay.
This bill also provides more money to the hospitals, doctors, home
health agencies and nursing homes that take care of seniors in the
Medicare program. Cuts imposed by the 1997
[[Page 30703]]
Balanced Budget Act threaten the ability of critical Central Coast
health care providers to serve our seniors and this bill restores some
of that funding. The bill also contains some changes to the Medicare
HMO program to encourage more coverage in underserved areas like the
Central Coast. While I support these provisions, they don't go far
enough and I will continue to push for legislation to raise
reimbursement rates in rural counties like San Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara.
Mr. Speaker, there are three provisions of particular importance to
my district that I would like to highlight. First, this legislation
contains $100,000 for Santa Barbara's Computers for Families
organization. Run by the highly respected Santa Barbara Industry
Education Council and the Santa Barbara Office of Education, DFF
refurbishes old computers and gets them into the homes of low-income
families. This valuable program helps open the doors of opportunities
for all in our community and this expansion will enable CFF to bring
this critical technology to more needy families.
The bill also provides $50,000 for the San Luis Obispo County Medical
Society which, in conjunction with the Volunteers in Health Care
program and pharmaceutical companies, will provide prescription drugs
for some underserved seniors. Ensuring seniors' access to prescription
drugs has been a priority of mine and this small program will help many
needy seniors obtain the drugs they need to live a quality life.
Finally, this legislation authorizes a study of the beautiful Gaviota
Coast in Santa Barbara county. This will allow the National Park
Service, working in conjunction with Central Coast ranchers and
preservation groups, to determine how we can best protect one of the
last undeveloped stretches of California's coast. This provision is
based on the Gaviota Coast Act of 1999, which I introduced earlier this
year.
I must note, however, that there are items in this legislation that I
do not support. For example, the bill inappropriately restricts funding
to international family planning organizations. This shortsighted
provision will keep life saving family planning services from poor
women around the world.
While the bill does increase funding at the National Institutes of
Health and continues us on a track to double the agency's overall
funding, it still delays some $4 billion in NIH funding until the end
of the fiscal year. This delay will actually have the effect of cutting
the increase in NIH funding and could slow critically important medical
research.
I am also deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us a
bill that funds nearly half of the government programs at one time.
This process does not allow Members to properly study the details of
the legislation. I fear that over the next several days and weeks we
will be appalled at special provisions that have been tucked into this
bill for special interests. Taxpayers deserve more respect from
Congress in the way it spends their money. This is not the way the
House should do business. I urge the leadership of this House to begin
work today on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we do not end up in
this position again next year.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is far from perfect. I have serious
reservations about the process and I oppose certain provisions in the
bill. But, on balance, it represents a good compromise and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the Omnibus Budget
Agreement because it continues a pattern of budgeting which I feel
undermines the confidence and credibility of the American public in one
of the most important congressional responsibilities we have--managing
the people's money.
I opposed the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement because it was clear
there was no intention of implementing it. It was a ruse. Last year,
there was $35 billion in excess spending at the last minute omnibus
bill. This year, there is no more time for analysis, and the amount of
money that is being gimmicked, manipulated and spent in violation of
the budget rules is up to $45 billion.
While there is much in the bill that I support, and while it has been
made better due to heroic efforts on the part of the Administration and
the House Democratic leadership, it still falls far short of the mark
to which Congress should be accountable. I continue to hope that the
day will come when the budget process is transparent, not larded with
unfortunate spending decisions and is done in a fashion that both
Congress and the people we represent can follow what we're doing. Until
that day, I feel it appropriate to vote no.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report,
and, in particular, of the final agreements on the programs of the
Commerce, Justice, and State Departments, the Judiciary, and the
related agencies under our Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
This has been a difficult process, Mr. Speaker, with more perils than
Pauline, but at each step of the way the Commerce-Justice bill has been
improved, first under the capable leadership of our Chairman, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and finally in negotiations with
the Administration.
I must repeat what others have already said, that the Committee and
Subcommittee chairmen and ranking Democrats, our staff, and the
President's staff have worked long and hard, day and night, weekday and
weekend, to get us to this point. And don't forget that the staffs
often stay hours longer when members go home. We owe the staff an
enormous debt of gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, Chairman Rogers has explained our part of this package,
but I will just note that there is more money for COPS, for SBA, for
NOAA, for various civil and employment rights activities, and that most
of the President's funding priorities have been addressed.
Of special importance, in my view, is that the resources and
authority are provided to let the U.S. pay a substantial portion of the
arrears due the UN. This avoids loss of our vote in the UN General
Assembly and enhances our leverage over both UN policies and activities
in the world and the management of the UN itself.
But the price for this victory may be the lives and health of women
all over the world. This is very troubling.
We were not able to include a Hate Crimes provision, but I hope this
issue can be taken up in the next session.
Mr. Speaker, the procedure used to create this wrap-up bill was most
unusual, and while I know there are very positive provisions in the
bigger package, there are also sins of both omission and commission
that have been discovered. But I wonder what sins may still be hidden
from view since few have had the chance to read it through.
For my part, however, I believe that our work has mostly been well
done and I intend to support the conference report.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the Judiciary
Committee, to express my support for the American Inventors Protection
Act of 1999, which is included as Title IV of the Intellectual Property
and Communications Omnibus Reform Act. This act is included in the
Omnibus spending package, H.R. 3194, that we are considering today.
This patent reform measure includes a series of initiatives intended
to protect the rights of inventors, enhance patent protections and
reduce patent litigation. Perhaps most importantly, subtitle C of title
IV contains the so-called ``First Inventor Defense.'' This defense
provides a first inventor (or ``prior user'') with a defense in patent
infringement lawsuits, whenever an inventor of a business method (i.e.,
a practice process or system) uses the invention but does not patent
it. Currently, patent law does not provide original inventors with any
protections when a subsequent user, who patents the method at a later
date, files a lawsuit for infringement against the real creator of the
invention.
The first inventor defense will provide the financial services
industry with important, needed protections in the face of the
uncertainty presented by the Federal Circuit's decision in the State
Street case. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial
Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir., 1998). In State Street, the Court
did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory
patentable subject matter. Consequently, this decision has raised
questions about what types of business methods may now be eligible for
patent protection. In the financial services sector, this has prompted
serious legal and practical concerns. It has created doubt regarding
whether or not particular business methods used by the industry--
including processes, practices, and systems--might now suddenly become
subject to new claims under the patent law. In terms of every day
business practice, these types of activities were considered to be
protected as trade secrets and were not viewed as patentable material.
Mr. Speaker, the first inventor defense strikes a fair balance
between patent law and trade secret law. Specifically, this provision
creates a defense for inventors who (1) acting in good faith have
reduced the subject matter to practice in the United States at least
one year prior to the patent filing date (``effective filing date'') of
another (typically later) inventor; and (2) commercially used the
subject matter in the United States before the filing date of the
patent. Commercial use does not require that the particular invention
be made known to the public or be used in the public marketplace--it
includes wholly internal commercial uses as well.
As used in this legislation, the term ``method'' is intended to be
construed broadly. The
[[Page 30704]]
term ``method'' is defined as meaning ``a method of doing or conducting
business.'' Thus, ``method'' includes any internal method of doing
business, a method used in the course of doing or conducting business,
or a method for conducting business in the public marketplace. It
includes a practice, process, activity, or system that is used in the
design, formulation, testing, or manufacture of any product or service.
The defense will be applicable against method claims, as well as the
claims involving machines or articles the manufacturer used to practice
such methods (i.e., apparatus claims). New technologies are being
developed every day, which includes technology that employs both
methods of doing business and physical apparatus design to carry out a
method of doing business. The first inventor defense is intended to
protect both method claims and apparatus claims.
When viewed specifically from the standpoint of the financial
services industry, the term ``method'' includes financial instruments,
financial products, financial transactions, the ordering of financial
information, and any system or process that transmits or transforms
information with respect to investments or other types of financial
transactions. in this context, it is important to point out the
beneficial effects that such methods have brought to our society. These
include the encouragement of home ownership, the broadened availability
of capital for small businesses, and the development of a variety of
pension and investment opportunities for millions of Americans.
As the joint explanatory statement of the Conference Committee on
H.R. 1554 notes, the provision ``focuses on methods for doing and
conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal
commercial operations as well as those used in connection with the sale
or transfer of useful end results--whether in the form of physical
products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some other
useful results; for example, results produced through the manipulation
of data or other inputs to produce a useful result.'' H. Rept. 106-464,
p. 122.
The language of the provision states that the defense is not
available if the person has actually abandoned commercial use of the
subject matter. As used in the legislation, abandonment refers to the
cessation of use with no intent to resume. Intervals of non-use between
such periodic or cyclical activities such as seasonable factors or
reasonable intervals between contracts, however, should not be
considered to be abandonment.
As noted earlier, in the wake of State Street, thousands of methods
and processes that have been and are used internally are now subject to
the possibility of being claimed as patented inventions. Previously,
the businesses that developed and used such methods and processes
thought that secrecy was the only protection available. As the
conference report on H.R. 1554 states: ``(U)nder established law, any
of these inventions which have been in commercial use--public or
secret--for more than one year cannot now be the subject of a valid
U.S. patent.'' H. Rept. 106-464, p. 122.
Mr. Speaker, patent law should encourage innovation, not create
barriers to the development of innovative financial products, credit
vehicles, and e-commerce generally. The patent law was never intended
to prevent people from doing what they are already doing. While I am
very pleased that the first inventor's defense is included in this
legislation, it should be viewed as just the first step in defining the
appropriate limits and boundaries of the State Street decision. This
legal defense will provide important protections for companies against
unfair and unjustified patent infringement actions. But, at the same
time, I believe that it is time for Congress to take a closer look at
the State Street decision. I hope that next year the Judiciary
Committee will consider holding hearings on the State Street issue, so
that Members can carefully evaluate its consequences.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this Omnibus bill rejects the
devastating cuts on seniors, children, and young adults proposed only
last month by the Republican majority. The Labor/HHS portion of this
bill, which adds $7.3 billion over last year's bill, more appropriately
reflects the overwhelming public support for increased investment in
education and fairness in the workplace.
I am particularly pleased that the Conferees decided to continue
funding the Clinton/Clay Class Size Reduction Program, which will hire
100,000 new, highly qualified teachers nationwide. I am particularly
pleased that the Conferees rejected the Republican plan to divert class
size funds into block grants, which could have been used for private
school vouchers and purposes unrelated to class size reduction.
The Conference report provides an increase from $1.2 billion to $1.3
billion for class size reduction, it continues class size reduction as
a separate program, and it ensures that such funds are targeted to the
neediest public schools. The agreement also includes the Democratic
plan to ensure that all teachers become fully certified, and it
continues the program's flexibility to use funds for teacher
recruitment and professional development in order to reduce class
sizes.
It also provides new provisions, strongly advocated by President
Clinton, that allows $134 million in Title I funds to be used to
improve low-performing schools.
The conference report also increases investment in critical education
and labor initiatives above the last conference agreement. It provides
$454 million for After School Centers, an increase of $154 million over
the vetoed bill and $254 million over 1999. It provides $8.6 billion
for Title I grants for the disadvantaged, an increase of $144 million
over the vetoed bill and $265 million over 1999. It provides $136
million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase
of $7.25 million over the vetoed bill and $12.7 million over 1999. It
also provides $7.7 billion for Pell Grants to fund a maximum award of
$3.300--the same as the vetoed bill and a $175 increase over 1999.
In the Labor area, the bill provides $11.3 billion--$54 million over
the vetoed bill, and $389 million over 1999.
I urge support for the bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my
agreement with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 3075,
which was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, encouraging the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow home health agencies to
use technology to supervise their branch offices. This language also
calls on the government to allow home health agencies to determine the
adequate level of on-site supervision of their branch offices based on
quality outcomes. I need not remind my colleagues that Congress is
expecting home health agencies to operate efficiently under greatly
reduced Interim Payment System (IPS) and Prospective Payment System
(PPS) reimbursement. It is therefore necessary that home health
agencies be allowed the flexibility to establish and serve large
service areas by utilizing cost efficient branch offices.
My district includes many rural areas which are experiencing access
problems due to the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's)
home health branch office policies affecting time/distance limitations
and on-site supervision requirements. In many cases, these requirements
do not recognize technology advances. In order to ensure that senior
citizens in rural areas have access to quality home care, it is vital
that any regulations on home health care branch offices promulgated by
the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) evaluate the offices by
quality of outcome instead of arbitrary administration requirements and
restrictions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the report
language accompanying H.R. 3075 urging the use of outcome instead of
arbitrary requirements and restrictions, to determine a home health
care agency's ability to establish and supervise branch offices.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3194,
the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of 1999. This bill is a travesty, a
massive symbol of the failure of this Congress to accomplish its most
basic goal--passage of the 13 appropriations bills by September 30, the
end of the fiscal year--on time and in order. Instead, we have lumped
together numerous pieces of legislation, as well as five appropriations
bills, and slapped them together like a giant Thanksgiving turkey to
present to the American people.
The process by which we come to this vote on this House. This bill--
over a foot high, hundreds of pages thick and in its final form with
only a few copies available to all 435 members--was filed at 3:00 a.m.
this morning. Members of this Chamber have not had the opportunity to
read or even review this legislation. No one knows what kind of
special-interest boondoggles lie in the text of this bill, and no one
will know for days to come.
The majority in this House even voted to suspend the rules that
govern the budget process by forbidding the Congressional Budget Office
to `score' this bill, which would let members know just how much all of
these provisions will cost the taxpayers. According to the last CBO
estimate of this bill, the majority would pass a bill that breaks their
promise to leave untouched the Social Security Trust Fund. CBO recently
said this bill would use $15 to $17 billion of the Trust Fund--and who
knows just how much this Congress will raid from the Trust Fund once
this bill in its final form is enacted.
Finally, it exceeds all of the budget caps put into place in 1997 to
balance the federal budget, stretching credibility and the imagination
by
[[Page 30705]]
declaring things like the Head Start program--begun in 1964--as an
`emergency,' along with the census, operations of the Pentagon and
other basic functions of government. If we intend to `bust the budget
caps' and declare them obsolete now that we have a budget surplus, we
should do so in an honest way and be straight with the American people.
There are some good provisions in this legislation, along with the
bad provisions. It provides the President with his priorities of
100,000 new teachers and tools to create smaller teacher/student
classrooms; 50,000 more police on America's streets; and a much-needed
pay raise for military personnel.
However, there is no reason why this Congress could not have passed
these initiatives in a deliberative manner with full debate in this
House, instead of in this format. Instead, the majority has cobbled
together a massive Thanksgiving turkey of a bill, to present to the
American people in one whole form to avoid the scrutiny that would mean
the death of some of the more controversial provisions in this
legislation. These are the same leaders that told the American people
that if they were in charge they would pass a budget on time, with 13
appropriations bills passed separately, without spending any of the
Social Security Trust Fund. Their failure to keep their word has
resulted in this bill, which I urge my colleagues to oppose.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill
and the process that brought it to the floor. My primary concerns are
that we have not received sufficient guarantees that the Social
Security surplus is protected, and we have not extended the Social
Security Trust Fund for even one day. Prior to consideration of this
package, the Congressional Budget Office certified that Congress was on
pace to spend $17 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund in Fiscal
Year 2000. Given that the offsets in this bill do not reach this level,
and that this bill relies on numerous questionable budget gimmicks
geared to mask the overall effect on Social Security, I cannot support
it. At the same time, there are numerous examples of wasteful,
unnecessary spending projects--money that would be better spent on
Social Security and Medicare.
What makes the above problems all the more tragic is that there are
many positive aspects to this measure. As a sponsor of the COPS 2000
legislation, which will authorize the placement of 50,000 additional
police officers on our streets, I am especially pleased that a down
payment on this funding is included in this bill. In addition, money to
add 100,000 new teachers to our schools to reduce class size is also
included, as well as an increased commitment to the Lands Legacy
Initiative, which will protect our natural areas. I voted for funds to
help implement the Wye River peace agreement when they were considered
previously, and I would like to be able to vote for them today. This
bill restores resources, at least modestly, to our hospitals, nursing
homes, and home health facilities that have been negatively impacted by
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but it does not do enough to solve the
long term problems with Medicare reimbursement levels. I have been a
leader of this effort, and I voted for similar provisions when they
passed the House a few weeks ago. But I said at that time that more
needed to be done to adequately address unfair cuts in Medicare. This
budget puts pork barrel projects before funding for home health care,
hospitals and nursing homes, and this is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress opened with a bipartisan commitment to
preserving the integrity of the Social Security system. This budget
does not live up to that commitment. Protecting and strengthening
Social Security and Medicare are top priorities for the families I
represent and this budget does not pass the test. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this legislation.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the omnibus Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the
District of Columbia, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, Commerce, Justice, State, Interior, and Foreign
Operations.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the process which brought about this
omnibus bill makes a mockery of regular order in this House. Over seven
weeks into the new fiscal year, and requiring an array of accounting
gimmicks purporting to stay within the budget caps, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves for
bringing such a monstrosity forward at this eleventh hour. Filing
conference reports at three in the morning and then insisting that we
pass legislation which no one has had the opportunity to
comprehensively review serves no useful purpose other than to convey to
the American people how incapable the majority is of effectively
governing. Their display of ineptitude is, however, a perfect ending to
a session of Congress that will long be remembered as one of missed
opportunities to address the needs of Americans. Included in this
graveyard of dead legislation are such important initiatives as a
patients' bill of rights, prescription drugs for the elderly, and
substantive reform of Medicare and Social Security.
This bill caps this Congress' departure from the 1997 Balanced Budget
Act which I helped write and supported. Because of that bill and
previous actions, the Nation today enjoys both a budget surplus and
good economic times. Early in the year, however, the Republican
Leadership determined to increase funding for defense, agriculture,
education; much of it justified, but in excess of the 1997 caps. Rather
than honestly explaining this to the American people, the Republican
Leadership chose instead to engage in budget gimmicks and subterfuge as
is evident today. Unfortunately, at this late hour, they have held
hostage must-pass initiatives related to health care, general
government, foreign policy and education. Because of that fact, and the
fact that we continue to maintain a balanced budget and dedicate the
vast majority of the projected surplus to debt reduction, I will
support this conference report. Many of the items contained in the bill
are too important to be allowed to lapse.
For instance, this bill includes clarifications and corrections to
the Medicare changes contained in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act which
exceeded spending reduction targets at the expense of our seniors and
teaching hospitals. This bill provides $12.8 billion over five years in
new funding for Medicare reforms which are necessary and vital to the
health of our nation's senior citizens.
Specifically, these provisions include a section based upon
legislation, H.R. 1224, which I have sponsored, along with
Representative Cardin, to ensure fair and equitable Medicare funding
for residents being trained to be physicians. Section 541 of Title V of
this bill would, for the first time, ensure that teaching hospitals,
such as those at the Texas Medical Center, will receive higher Medicare
reimbursements for their physician residents. Under current law, these
graduate medical education resident payments are based upon hospital-
specific costs. As a result, teaching hospitals in Texas currently
receive as much as six times less than those paid to hospitals in New
York. This provision would
fix this equity by establishing three new tiers of payments for
residencies. For those teaching hospitals whose payments are more than
40 percent above the national average, their GME payments would be
frozen for Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002. From Fiscal Year 2003 to 2005,
their payments would be reduced by a factor of market basket minus 2
percent. For those hospitals whose payments are less than 40 percent of
the national average, their payments would be increased to at least 70
percent of the national average.
This bill also includes a modified version of legislation, H.R. 1483,
which I have sponsored, along with Representative Crane, to provide
graduate medical education funding for nursing and paramedical
education programs. Under existing law, Medicare payments for nursing
and paramedical graduate medical educational programs are based upon
the number of traditional Medicare patients seen at these teaching
hospitals. As more Medicare patients enroll in Medicare managed care
plans, many of these patients are no longer seen at these facilities.
As a result, teaching hospitals receive less funding for these nursing
and paramedical programs. H.R. 1483 would carve out a portion of the
payment paid to Medicare managed care plans and transfer these funds to
those hospitals with these teaching programs similar to the manner in
which physicians training programs are paid. Under this conference
report, teaching hospitals with nursing and paramedical teaching
programs will receive $60 million in new funding. Regrettably, this
funding will not come from Medicare managed care plans. Rather, this
funding would be transferred from physicians training programs. As a
result, teaching hospitals with both physician and nursing training
programs will receive no new net funding. I will continue working to
restore to original funding stream so that Medicare managed care plans
contribute toward the cost of these training programs.
Other important Medicare provisions include adjustments to ensure the
higher costs of training our nation's physicians. This provision would
increase Medicare reimbursements for Indirect Medical Education (IME)
costs. The conference report provides an IME reimbursement of 6.5
percent in Fiscal Year 2000, 6.25 percent in Fiscal Year 2001, and 5.5
percent thereafter. Under existing law, these IME payments would be
reduced to 5.5 percent. These provisions are estimated to save
hospitals $700 million over five years.
[[Page 30706]]
I am also pleased that this conference report includes language to
provide higher reimbursements for pap smears. Under existing law,
Medicare reimbursements for pap smears are $7.15 each. This bill would
increase this reimbursement level to $14.60 per pap smear. This
reimbursement level has not been increased for many years and will help
to ensure that senior citizens receive this important preventive health
test. This provision also covers the new pap smear technology so women
would be eligible to receive these state-of-the-art tests which have a
better record of finding and diagnosing ovarian cancers. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will cost
$100 million over five years and $300 million over ten years. I am
pleased that Congress has decided to provide the investment for many
women whose lives will be saved by this test.
This conference report also includes a provision to ensure that the
State of Texas can keep $27 million to help states conduct outreach
identifying Medicaid eligible children. The State of Texas has the
highest uninsured rate of 24.5 percent of its population. The Texas
Department of Health has determined that 800,000 of the 1.4 million
uninsured children are eligible for, but not enrolled in, Medicaid.
Under existing law, the State of Texas and other states would lose up
to $500 million on December 31, 1999 because of a sunset provision in
the Welfare Reform Act of 1995. This measure eliminates this deadline
while ensuring that the State of Texas get the resources it needs to
identify and enroll Medicaid-eligible children.
The conference report further includes $150 million in Medicare
reimbursements for immunosuppressive drugs. Under existing law,
Medicare beneficiaries can only receive three years of
immunosuppressive drugs following a lifesaving transplant operation.
However, all of these patients must take these drugs indefinitely. I
have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 1115, to eliminate this 3-year
restriction. The conference report would provide eight months of
additional coverage for these life-sustaining drugs in Fiscal Year 2001
and 2002. In addition, this funding permits the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to extend this coverage up to $150 million over five
years. Although the 3-year restriction was not eliminated, I believe
that this extension is important because it means that Medicare
beneficiaries can receive the prescription drugs they need. For many
Medicare beneficiaries, these immunosuppressive drugs are extremely
expensive and a financial burden. Many of these transplant operations
are conducted at the teaching hospitals in my district at the Texas
Medical Center. I will continue to work to extend this coverage
indefinitely for those who need it.
As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, I am pleased
that this bill will provide a total of $17.9 billion, or $2.3 billion
more for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). This fifteen percent increase is the second down payment on our
efforts to double the NIH's budget over five years. This increase is
necessary to ensure adequate funding for cutting-edge research such as
the Human Genome Project being conducted at Baylor College for Medicine
in my district. Currently, NIH funds only one in three of peer-reviewed
medical research grants and many potential cures and treatments go
undiscovered.
While I am grateful for the increase, I am concerned that the
Republican majority continues to insist on a budget gimmick to delay up
to $3 billion in NIH's budget until the final day of the next fiscal
year. As a result, some medical research grants will be delayed. This
is better than an earlier proposal to delay $7.5 billion, but it is
still counterproductive to speed up research for cures to diseases like
juvenile diabetes and AIDS.
I am also pleased that this conference report includes funding for a
project which I have been working on to provide $500,000 for the Center
of Excellence for Research on Mental Health (CMRH) to the University of
Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in my district. This Center would build
upon the Institute of Medicine report issued earlier this year
indicating that there is a disproportionate share of minority and
medically under-served patients who suffer from cancer and other health
related diseases. The CRMH would establish a multi-disciplinary center
for excellence in basic, applied, and clinical research to help meet
the unique health-related challenges of minority and under-served
populations. The goal of this Center would be to improve the low
mortality rate among minority and medically under-served populations,
and to translate these methods to other minority and under-served areas
nationwide.
This omnibus measure also contains language which I requested to help
ensure that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is conducting
sufficient research on breast and ovarian cancer among women of
Askenazi descent who carry the BRCA1 gene. There is an abnormally high
incidence of breast and cervical cancer among Azkenazi Jewish women.
This research will help to identify and isolate some of the reasons for
this high incidence of cancer. This conference report urges the NIH to
provide funding for a binational program between the United States and
Israel establishing a computerized data and specimen sharing system,
subject recruitment and retention programs, and a collaborative pilot
research program.
I am also pleased that this budget agreement makes education a top
priority by providing $1.3 billion to hire and train 100,000 new
teachers to help lower class size in the early grades. This is truly
good news for our children and for their future. We know that school
enrollments are exploding and that record numbers of teachers are
retiring. Every parent and teacher in America knows that a child in a
second-grade class with 25 students will not get as much attention as
he or she needs and deserves. Overall, this plan means more teachers
with higher educational credentials--and for students, more individual
attention and a better foundation in the basics. I am also pleased that
this budget doubles funds for after school and summer school programs
while supporting greater accountability for results by helping
communities turn around or close failing schools.
This omnibus measure also strengthens America's role of leadership in
the world by paying our dues and arrears to the United Nations, by
meeting our commitments to the Middle East peace process, and by making
critical investments in debt relief for the poorest countries of the
world. Of critical importance is the $1.8 billion to fund the United
States' commitment to the Wye River Agreement. For decades, the U.S.
has worked with Israel--our most consistent Middle East ally--to
provide the aid and military equipment necessary to defend itself
against hostile neighbors. The funds appropriated in this year's budget
send the message that the United States is a full partner in securing a
lasting peace in the Middle East.
This budget continues the Administration's COPS program by including
funding to help local communities hire up to 50,000 police nationwide.
This program has been tremendously successful in Harris County helping
the County, and some of its cities including virtually all those in my
district, more than 1,000 police positions to fight crime.
This bill also includes important funding for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to combat illegal immigration and
administer legal immigration both functions of government terribly
important to the people of the 25th District. The bill also funds the
upcoming census, which is important to government and commerce.
Mr. Speaker, this is by no means a perfect bill and the process has
been deplorable. However, this bill does meet important priorities in
health care, education, crime control, immigration, general government
and foreign affairs. Furthermore, this bill ensures that we maintain a
balanced budget, dedicating the surplus to debt retirement and
preserving its use for strengthening Social Security and Medicare in
the future. On that basis, I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to
explain to my colleagues an important change made to the Satellite Home
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 since the Conference Report was
considered on the floor last week. As my colleagues know, I had been
concerned that sections 1005(e) and 1011(c) of the Conference Report
could unfairly discriminate against Internet and broadband service
providers and, in doing so, would stifle the development of electronic
commerce. I was particularly concerned that these provisions could be
interpreted to expressly and permanently exclude any ``online digital
communication service'' from retransmitting a transmission of a
television program or other audiovisual work pursuant to a compulsory
or statutory license.
Under the agreement embodied in the bill before us, these provisions
were deleted, and rightly so. They were essentially added after
agreement had been reached on the fundamental parameters of the
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, without any consultation with
the Committee on Commerce and, equally important, without any record
evidence submitted about their necessity. The committees of
jurisdiction will now have an opportunity to give deliberate and
careful consideration to the application of the Copyright Act to the
Internet and broadband service providers. The importance of the
Internet and other online communications technologies for enhancing
consumer access to information and programming cannot be overstated.
Online technology
[[Page 30707]]
has transformed the way consumers receive information, including
audiovisual works. Because rapid technological changes are having an
ever more positive impact on our economy, it is thus essential that we
give full attention to this issue early next year.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as with any compromise legislation, the
final budget agreement has both very positive aspects and very
troubling features. The agreement provides funding for several high
priority spending items, particularly rural health care and education.
In addition, the agreement preserves increases in programs affecting
agriculture, veterans, defense and other priority areas. However, it
falls far short of the standards of fiscal responsibility that were set
forth in the Blue Dog budget and will create serious problems for the
budget process that will begin next year.
This package provides much-needed relief for rural hospitals, nursing
homes, community health centers, rural health clinics, home health
agencies, and other health care providers who have struggled to cope
with the impact of the Medicare payment reductions included in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Along with my colleagues in the House
Rural Health Care Coalition, I introduced the Triple A Rural Health
Improvement Act, legislation intended to help rural health care
providers continue to provide vital services to rural seniors. I am
pleased that this package includes a number of the important rural
health provisions that we included in our legislation.
Specifically, this bill includes protection for low-volume, rural
hospitals from the disproportionate impact of the hospital outpatient
prospective payment system, an alternative payment system for community
health centers and rural health clinics, reforms of the Medicare Rural
Hospital Flexibility/Critical Access Hospital program, expansion of
Graduate Medical Education opportunities in rural settings, Rebasing
for Sole Community Hospitals, Extension of the Medicare Dependent
Hospital program, and permitting certain rural hospitals in urban-
defined counties to be recognized as rural for purposes of Medicare
reimbursement.
The most significant accomplishment of the budget process this year
is the success of fiscally responsible Members to block efforts to
spend the projected surpluses over the next ten years on tax cuts or
new entitlement spending. The bulk of the projected surpluses over the
next ten years are preserved for debt reduction. I intend to join with
my fellow Blue Dogs next year to renew our efforts to lock up half of
these projected surpluses for debt reduction. In spite of all of the
budget gimmicks and other fiscal shortcomings of this budget agreement,
our successful vigilance in other efforts will result in a reduction of
at least $130 billion in debt held by the public, following on the $123
billion in debt reduction achieved in fiscal year 1999.
Sadly, this particular budget agreement is a product of a terribly
flawed process. Instead of spending the first eight months of the year
debating a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that was destined to be
vetoed, Congress should have been working with the administration to
develop a responsible budget plan for the next five years. We should
have set realistic spending caps and establish a framework for
protecting the Social Security surplus and paying down the debt over
the next five years.
The negotiating process did establish a very valuable precedent as a
result of the administration's commitment to offset all increased
spending they requested. Since the administration proposed offsets for
all of their increased spending requests, any spending above the
discretionary spending caps and any spending out of the Social Security
surplus was a result of the legislation passed by the Majority in
Congress prior to the budget negotiations.
The failure to put together a long-term budget framework has produced
a bill that will cause real problems for the budget process next year
and beyond. The cumulative effect of the budget legislation passed by
Congress this year in the absence of a long-term plan will make it
virtually impossible to comply with the discretionary caps in the next
two fiscal years or balance the budget without counting Social
Security. The discretionary spending caps in statute have lost much of
their credibility as a tool to restrain spending.
As a result of all of the budget gimmicks placed in the spending
bills passed by the Majority before the budget negotiations began, the
final agreement will result in spending at least $17 billion of the
Social Security surplus in 2000 and will put us on a course to spend a
similar or greater amount of the Social Security surplus in 2001 and
consume more than 75% of the projected on budget surplus in 2002.
When the timing shifts, emergency designations, and delays in the
starting point for spending are taken into consideration, these bills
put us on a path for an on-budget deficit of at least $20 billion in
fiscal year 2001 and will reduce the fiscal year 2002 projected surplus
from approximately $82 billion to approximately $13 billion in fiscal
year 2002.
My fellow Blue Dogs and I have advocated locking up a portion of the
projected on-budget surpluses to reduce debt held by the public to
effectively pay back the money borrowed from the Social Security trust
fund. The impact the final budget agreement will have on the on-budget
surplus in the next two years would have been mitigated if it was
accompanied by a solid commitment to repay any monies borrowed from the
trust fund to meet operating expenses through additional debt
reduction. Unfortunately, the Majority leadership never seriously
considered this approach.
The outcome of the budget process this year underscores the critical
importance of developing a responsible budget plan that addresses the
long-term problems of Social Security and Medicare and provides for a
reduction in the national debt in addition to providing room for tax
cuts and priority programs. I am committed beginning work early next
year with the administration and Congressional leadership on a
bipartisan budget framework.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I voted the
way I did on this bill.
First, I had very serious concerns about the way in which this bill
came before the House. It was a far-reaching measure, rolling into one
oversize pile not just five appropriations bills but also several
important authorization bills. It was filed in the early hours of this
morning. I am confident that very few if any Members were able to read
it all. Yet that is how it was, and we had to vote it up or down, with
only limited time for debate and no chance to change it.
This is not the way we should do our work. While we are already more
than two weeks late, today we passed yet another continuing resolution
to keep the agencies covered by this bill operating. So we had some
time--and we should have taken the time to do things the right way.
However, the majority's leadership decided to reject that more
orderly way of proceeding. We had to choose a simple yes or no. And,
after careful consideration, I decided to vote against this bill.
This was not an easy decision. In reaching it, I was conscious of
many good things that were in the five appropriations bills and the
other measures that were rolled into this one large, indigestible lump.
The bill has many provisions that are good for the country--and, in
fact, some of particular benefit for Colorado as a whole and my own
district in particular. Many of them were things that I have sought to
have included.
For example, under the bill the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will receive an appropriation of $2.3
billion, up 8% from last year and nearly 20% more than in the House-
passed bill. This is something that I worked to achieve, and something
I strongly support.
Further, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is funded
at $639 million, which is about 1.3% less than in fiscal 1999 but an
increase of 46% above the amount in the House-passed bill. This
includes funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which has
been zeroed out in the House-passed bill. These appropriations are very
important. Their inclusion is something I worked to achieve and I would
have liked to have been able to support them.
I also would have liked to have been able to support the amounts the
bill provides for the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service. Again, I have been working to provide these agencies the
resources they need to properly manage our federal lands and to help in
the crucial job of protecting our open spaces against growth and
sprawl.
And I very much would have liked to have been able to vote for the
bill's funding for education and its provisions to improve health care
for seniors and other Americans. Nothing is more important for our
society, and nothing is more important for me. And the bill includes
other good things as well.
However, on balance, I decided that the bill's virtues were
outweighed by its faults.
They were outweighed by the fact that the bill includes an arbitrary
reduction across many departments and agencies which is not only
totally unnecessary but also very unbalanced--even unfair--in the way
it's structured. It isn't really across-the-board: for example, in the
defense department it will not apply to protected pork-barrel items and
thus will fall on operations and maintenance that are really the key to
our national security. And, apparently just to make it even worse, it
does not apply to Congressional pay, so that come the first of
[[Page 30708]]
the year we will get a cost-of-living increase--something that I voted
against--without any reduction. That was something I could not support.
The bill's virtues were also outweighed by the way it offends against
fiscal candor and public accountability. It is loaded with accounting
gimmicks and transparent fictions--things like calling the
constitutionally-required census an ``emergency,'' delaying some
payments so they will technically fall into the next fiscal year, and
directions to use the most convenient estimates of costs. The effect of
these gimmicks and ruses is to pretend that more than $30 billion
that's in the bill isn't really there.
``Peekaboo'' is something that's fun to play with toddlers, but I
don't think we should be trying to pull it on the taxpayers.
So, as I said, Mr. Speaker, my decision was not an easy one. But I
think it was the right one. I hope that next year the choice will be
different. I hope that the House will do its work the way it should be
done, on time and in keeping with the best principles of fiscal
responsibility and public accountability. Let us learn, and let us
change.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, for the record, this is to clarify that
the ``no'' vote I cast today against H.R. 3194, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2000, is by no means
an indication that I am opposed to the Medicare Balanced Budget Act
(BBA) refinement provisions included in this legislation. Indeed, I
voted for the Medicare relief package when it came before the U.S.
House of Representatives on November 5, 1999, and passed overwhelmingly
by a vote of 388 to 25. As Co-Chairman of the Rural Health Care
Coalition, I supported this legislation because it clearly represents a
step in the right direction toward allaying the current health care
crisis facing our nation and mitigating the impact of Medicare cuts
mandated by the BBA on health care providers. Unfortunately, my
colleagues and I in the House were not given the opportunity to vote on
the revised language as free-standing legislation. Rather, it was
attached to the D.C. Appropriations Conference Report with various
other unrelated measures, including hurricane relief funding. The
reason I voted against H.R. 3194 is because we, as a nation, have an
obligation to provide the citizens of eastern North Carolina with the
necessary emergency aid to recover from three major hurricanes.
However, this measure does not go far enough in providing adequate
relief to those individuals who need it the most.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this bill.
Approaching almost two months into the Fiscal Year 2000, we are forced
to vote on this massive catchall spending bill which covers programs
that would normally be funded by five separate appropriations bills. I
am not sure if my Colleagues are privy to the substance of this Omnibus
Appropriation and it may take months to honestly sort through the
ramifications of these provisions included in this careless budget
process.
While H.R. 3194 contains important programs to hire additional
teachers and police officers, finally fulfill our responsibilities in
paying the United Nations (UN) back dues, underwrite and implement the
Wye River peace accords, provide critical debt relief for the world's
poorest nations, increase payments to Medicare health care providers
and secure land acquisition for the purposes of environmental
protection and conservation, this measure extends the Northeast Dairy
Compact which adversely affects Minnesota's dairy farmers, and relies
upon budget gimmicks in order to mask the perception of spending any of
the Social Security Insurance Trust Fund.
Through across-the-board cuts, gimmicks and scorekeeping adjustments,
the Republicans claim to keep their promise to balance the budget
excluding Social Security. However, the CBO recently scored the
Republican budget plan and verified that they have broken their promise
by spending the Social Security surplus long before this measure was
even considered.
According to CBO, the appropriations bill turns a $14.4 billion on-
budget surplus into a $17.1 billion on-budget deficit. No cooking the
books or scorekeeping gimmicks can deny the facts of the bottom line.
This clearly shows that the Republicans are spending the Social
Security surplus rather than saving it. It is indeed ironic that the
Republicans are publicly attacking Democrats for ``raiding Social
Security'' when their own Republican appointed budget scorekeeper, CBO,
tells us that it is their appropriations that have already created an
off-budget incursion into Social Security funds. Unfortunately the
overall process of combining five appropriations bills, with numerous
policy matters and attaching dozens of authorization bills which should
be considered separately is an admission by the GOP leaders that they
cannot deal with policy fairly and give Members of the House a vote on
each. Rather the Leadership has stuffed this Omnibus Bill to the point
of making it resemble a Thanksgiving turkey! What a sad way to do our
work and serve the people.
The American public time and again has rated education as a top
priority . . . above tax cuts, above foreign affairs, above Pentagon
spending, even above gun safety and protecting social security. While I
am not discrediting the need for Congress to address all of these
issues, it is important that we listen to what constituents are saying.
Republican rhetoric boasts a strong commitment to education, claiming
funding levels exceeding last year's appropriations and above the
president's requests. However, I have concerns about the methods used;
this legislation resembles a pea and shell game, shifting funding
responsibility and using advance FY2001 appropriations. The bottom line
is that in terms of actual FY2000 funding the agreement actually
provides less than last year's appropriations and bodes problems for
FY2001 education budgeting.
However, I will concede that this final compromise is certainly a bit
more palatable than the original legislation. I am pleased that
additional funds have been designated for President Clinton's class
size reduction program which just last year was agreed to, but denied
funding by the GOP up and to the Administration's insistence, the
increased flexibility for the use of these funds, for teacher
qualification and certification is a plus. Important programs such as
Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education Technology, and 21st Century
Community Learning Centers have been sufficiently funded. Additionally,
I am supportive of increased funding for student financial aid. These
investments in education are the smartest spending that our national
government can make.
Although I would have preferred to see more funds dedicated to the
President's initiative to hire new community police officers in FY
2000, I was pleased to see increased funding for a program to address
violence against women.
This bill provides necessary relief to alleviate some of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) cuts on health care providers in my district
and throughout the nation. I am particularly pleased that a clerical
error which would have severely underfunded Minnesota hospitals that
care for a disproportionate share of low-income individuals has been
corrected. Also, this measure recognizes the importance of National
Institutes of Health (NIH) research in addressing public health issues
such as cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimers and diabetes. Regrettably,
overall Medicare reform, prescription drug coverage and the imbalance
in Medicare payment levels which adversely impacts seniors in Minnesota
have not been addressed this session. I am also disappointed that the
bill will continue a pattern of cuts to the Social Services Block Grant
program which provides important social services to the elderly, poor
and developmentally disabled.
I am pleased that I can, in good conscience, look favorably upon the
provisions contained in the Interior funding portion of this
legislation. Although it does not satisfy all of my concerns regarding
many of the anti-environmental riders, the Democratic conferees and the
Administration were successful in thwarting the most egregious of the
riders to preserve the quality of our lands. Specifically, I commend
the conferees for choosing to keep the authority of the Clean Water Act
intact regarding mountaintop mining, allowing the Bureau of Land
Management to cancel, modify or suspend grazing permits after their
environmental review is complete and delaying the new formula for oil
royalty valuation only until March 15, thus permitting implementation
after nearly three years of GOP stalling to the benefit of the oil
companies. In addition, I am also pleased to see that additional funds
have been added to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for high
priority land acquisitions. Both the federal and stateside portion of
this program have been woefully underfunded for years. Hopefully this
signals the end of that era and a renewed commitment to this vital LWCF
law.
I would like to express my displeasure with Congress' inability to
fund important clean air programs for fear that somehow the
Administration will secretly implement the clean air agreement reached
under the Kyoto Protocol. It is vitally important that this nation put
the health and welfare of its citizens before the profit of utilities
and big business. The costs associated with protecting the public will
save this nation money and lives.
After three years of holding up UN arrears by linking restrictive
language to family planning organizations, the President was forced to
capitulate and prohibit funding for preventive family planning. The
choice: lose the U.S.
[[Page 30709]]
vote in the UN or pay the dues with restrictive, unworkable conditions.
Unfortunately, this policy will lead to an increase in unintended
pregnancies, maternal deaths, and in abortions abroad. I will point
out, however, that the President can waive these ``Mexico City''
provisions on the condition that overall family planning assistance
would then be cut by $12.5 million. No doubt the President will find it
necessary to do so to the predictable howls of protest by the
proponents of these limits. Some it would seem want a political issue,
not a workable policy.
I am pleased that the President's request of $1.8 billion to help
implement the Wye River peace accords between Israel, the Palestinian
Authority and Jordan was included. With this important funding, Israel
and Palestine can move head with the Wye agreement and final status
negotiations. This financial assistance is vital for the future of the
peace process and all more critical for the United States to do its
part in meeting its commitments and obligations. The United States has
a deep commitment to Israel and its Arab partners in the peace process
to facilitate the ongoing negotiations. Our continuing support now is
both the right thing to do and serves to promote stability in the
Middle East.
Moreover, I especially applaud the inclusion of debt relief for the
world's poorest countries. Debt relief is one of the most humanitarian
and moral challenges of our time. The agreement is very similar to the
final product of H.R. 1095, which passed out of the Banking Committee
earlier this month. Albeit the agreement deleted regrettably several
amendments to the bill, including my amendment which requires the
President to take into account a nation's record on child labor and
worker's rights before granting debt relief.
Specifically, the agreement would authorize U.S. support for an IMF
proposal to sell some of its gold reserves to finance debt forgiveness
and participate in the HIPC initiative. The re-evaluation of the IMF's
gold reserves and the profits from these sales, roughly $3.1 billion,
could only be used for debt relief. In addition, H.R. 3194 includes
$123 million for bilateral debt relief, which is about equal to the
President's original request. Unfortunately, the first of four $250
million in payments for multilateral debt relief was not included, thus
delaying action on the President's pledge with other industrial nations
to forgive $27 billion in foreign debt owed by HIPC countries.
In regards to the Satellite Home Viewer Act provisions included in
this agreement, I am pleased that this measure has finally dropped
language which would have authorized $1.25 billion in loan guarantees
for satellite companies to provide local-into-local service in rural
areas. I had jurisdictional, policy and cost concerns due to the fact
that this loan provision was not cleared through the Banking Committee,
which led me to vote against the original conference agreement of the
Satellite bill last week.
In conclusion, this bill provides essential increases in education,
law enforcement, and public health initiatives; reaffirms our
commitment to the UN, Israel and Palestine, authorizes debt relief for
the world's poorest, and seeks to protect the environment. At the same
time, this measure is a budgetary bag of tricks which offsets requires
across the board cuts that will do mischief into necessary and
fundamental federal commitments and consists of clever gimmicks to
paper over the promise of breaking the Republicans majority to protect
surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund. But, considering the
Republican control of Congress and the state of denial for the past 10
months more work and time would not likely cure the objections I harbor
to this funding policy. The Clinton Administration and Democrats in
Congress have balanced most of the adverse impacts of this Omnibus
budget bill and I shall reluctantly cast a ``yes'' vote and urge its
passage.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well here we go again. Another year and
another last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that funds
most of the government. The Republican Leadership didn't do its
homework all year and now they expect a gold star because they got a C
on the final exam.
Most Americans will probably find little fault with many of the major
provisions of the legislation we are considering today. Although the
Republican Majority fought it every step of the way, most Americans
support our initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class
size in our schools. They support the President's program to put more
police on the streets in our communities. They support our efforts to
strip the harmful anti-environmental riders that threatened the
ecological health of our land, water and air. The American people
support our efforts to preserve access to health care for older
Americans by correcting the excesses of the 1997 Balanced Budget
Agreement. On all of these issues and countless others, President
Clinton prevailed over the extreme opposition of the Republican
Leadership.
The major shortcoming of this agreement is not what's in it; the
problem with this bill is what's not in it. As just one example, the
vast majority of Americans support managed care reform; indeed, the
House passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights earlier this year. There
is one reason, and one reason alone why HMO reform is not included in
the package we are debating today: the Republican Leadership does not
support meaningful managed care reform.
The Congress also should have acted this year to extend prescription
drug benefits to the elderly, too many of whom are being forced to
choose between food and medicine. Most Americans support this, I
support this, the President supports this. A major reason prescription
drug coverage is not included in this budget is because the Republican
Leadership does not support it. It's ironic that the Majority spent
most of this year trying to push through a massive and irresponsible
tax cut that chiefly benefited the very richest people in America, but
was unwilling to even discuss a Medicare prescription drug benefit for
seniors.
I remain dismayed that the Majority has also blocked campaign finance
reform, a much needed raise in the minimum wage and sensible gun safety
measures. In addition, this Congress should have done more to help low-
income working families. Despite the good economy, the number of people
with health insurance has declined and the number of children going
hungry has actually increased. We should have taken action on all these
fronts this year.
Finally, despite the repeated claims of the Majority that they are
not spending even one dime of the Social Security surplus, the fact is
that this agreement falls short of their rhetoric. As with the
previously adopted appropriations bills, the budget package before us
contains numerous accounting gimmicks whose only purpose is to disguise
the real cost of this legislation. I don't think anybody is fooled by
all the smoke and mirrors. What is the point of having a budget process
when the Leadership of this body consistently refuses to follow it?
I will vote for this agreement, but I do so reluctantly. At the end
of the day, the lasting legacy of this session of Congress will be
shaped more by what we failed to accomplish this year than what we're
doing in this legislation today.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, once again a more curious process has
produced an omnivorous end-of-session spending bill. It is fair--and
accurate--to say that most Members of this body would fail a pop quiz
on the contents of this legislation, given that it only became
available for review late this morning, replete with handwritten
additions, deletions and elisions.
Almost in spite of itself, this Congress has written legislation that
does some good.
For instance, one of the many extraneous provisions included in this
package is the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Consumers will greatly
benefit from this bill. They will finally be legally entitled to
receive their local broadcast stations when they subscribe to satellite
television service. No longer will consumers be required to fool with
rabbit ears, or erect a huge antenna on their rooftop, to receive their
local network television stations. The satellite dish many consumers
buy this holiday season finally will be able to provide them with a
one-stop source for all their television programming.
The bill also will allow satellite companies to compete more
effectively with cable systems, and provide a real-market check on the
rates they charge their consumers. If cable rates continue to climb, as
they have done for the past several years, consumers will be able to
fight back: they will have a real choice for their video programming
service.
I am also pleased that this legislation rectifies some of the
consequences of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act for Medicare beneficiaries
and providers.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that we are voting on a matter of great
importance to the 38 million Americans covered by Medicare, yet most
members have had only hours to examine all of the provisions in this
bill. Doubtless, there are secret little provisions in this bill that
help special interests and are known only to Republicans.
Our Republican friends have also made a great fuss about the need to
protect the Social Security surplus, but the bill they are offering is
not paid for. Preliminary estimates show that the Medicare provisions
of this bill cost almost $16 billion. Unpaid for, the bill will shorten
the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and increase premiums to seniors.
Apparently, fiscal responsibility only suits the Republican Party when
it is convenient.
[[Page 30710]]
I am also concerned that in some areas, we may not have done enough.
In the area of quality, this bill moves backward rather than forward.
The bill further removes Medicare managed care plans from oversight and
some quality requirements. They have even exempted some plans from the
requirements entirely. Who knows what other nefarious provisions lurk
within the dark corners of this bill?
The compromise on Community Health Centers is a good beginning, but a
permanent solution is needed. I applaud the willingness of the
Republican leadership to work with us to find a middle ground on
assistance for these providers who serve a large number of America's
uninsured and lower-income families.
For women with breast or cervical cancer, however, this bill is
inadequate. We had the opportunity to include a bill by my colleague
Ms. Eshoo that would have provided great assistance in treating breast
and cervical cancer, but this evidently was not a priority for the
Republican leadership.
The Republican leadership is at least consistent in its coddling of
managed care companies. While the conferees on the Patients' Bill of
Rights have yet to hold their first meeting, this legislation gives
nearly $5 billion to managed care plans, despite considerable evidence
from the General Accounting Office that these plans are already
overpaid. At the same time, this bill omits what is perhaps the most
important relief that Congress could offer to Medicare beneficiaries:
relief from the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors should not be
forced to choose between food and needed medicines.
Mr. Speaker, my modest experience as a legislator teaches me that
even the best legislation inevitably contains flaws and compromises.
But the entire process by which the Republican leadership produced this
massive package and brought it to the floor today is a travesty, and I
hope to never again see it repeated.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the BBA contains a study by GAO of the
Community Health Centers payments under which the conferees intend that
the GAO should look at all State programs including those with 1115
waivers.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Is this a perfect bill? The answer is no.
There are several provisions contained in this measure that I do not
and did not support in the past. However, there are also many
provisions contained in this funding bill that I do support. They are
as follows.
The give-backs to Medicare that are included in H.R. 3624 are
tremendously important to the people in my district. I want to
compliment the conferees of the Committees on Commerce, Ways and Means
and the Senate Finance Committee who worked so diligently to reach an
agreement to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to health
care services. This measure will be of assistance to those who rely on
Medicare for their health care needs.
I have worked closely with Chairmen Bilirakis and Bliley to ensure
that Medicare+Choice receives an increase in funding because we need to
make sure that seniors have the same choices available to them as other
Americans.
H.R. 3624 restores funding to the Medicare+Choice program. It also
makes some positive changes that will offer Medicare beneficiaries more
flexibility in a number of ways. First and foremost, it authorizes
incentives for health care providers to enter counties that do not
currently offer managed care plans. This is a key provision because I
represent a rural area with very few HMOs.
It also allows Medicare+Choice beneficiaries an open enrollment
period when they learn their plan is ending its contract. In addition,
it would slow down the implementation of Medicare+Choice payment rates
to reflect the differences in enrollees' costs. Lastly, it would
provide beneficiaries more time to enroll in Medicare+Choice or Medigap
plans when health plans withdraw from the market.
The bill is also endorsed by many organizations including the
National Rural Health Association and the American Hospital
Association. The bill contains specific provisions to correct many of
the unintended consequences of the BBA that have adversely affected the
rural communities.
It also strengthens the Medicare rural hospital critical access
hospital program and expands Graduate Medical Education opportunities
in rural settings.
Another important provision provides payments for orphan and cancer
therapy drugs and new medical devices. I have focused on the issues my
constituents said they wanted fixed, but there are certainly other
improvements that I have not listed here today.
The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act will provide much needed
relief to Medicare beneficiaries and providers alike. It may not
provide everything that has been requested, but it does address the
issues with which my constituents have greatest concern.
This appropriation package also provides for a study to be conducted
on the role of Ft. King in the Second Seminole war. This is something I
have tried to accomplish for several years and I am pleased that it is
moving forward. Ft. King is an important historical site located in
Ocala, Marion County, Florida. I also want to thank Chairman Regula for
his help in getting this language included in the Interior bill.
I also was successful in securing funding for an aircraft training at
an Aviation/Aerospace Center of Excellence project operated by the
Florida Community College at Jacksonville utilizing resources at Cecil
Field. This is an important instructional program that will prepare
students to take the appropriate certification exams which are required
by the Federal Aviation Administration for employment in aircraft
maintenance. This is tremendously valuable since there is no such
training program currently available in Northeast Florida.
Another important provision that I was able to help get included is
the prohibition on the Public Broadcast Stations from sharing their
donor lists with political parties or outside parties without the
donors consent. We must ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused
for political purposes.
This measure also contains language allowing consumers choices when
it comes to getting their television signals. As a member of the
Telecommunications Subcommittee I worked to ensure that consumers can
receive local television stations and further worked to ensure that
they will not lose their distance signals.
Notwithstanding all these things that are good within the bill, I am
concerned about the process. This bill forward funds much too much
money. Also, I am concerned with the whole process of not being able to
read the five (5) bills. Putting all five bills together in one omnibus
spending bill is not good and does not serve this House well.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we have apparently not learned from
history. The Omnibus Appropriations bill the House is considering today
is very similar to the budget-busting, catch-all bill that Congress
passed last year. This time the bill, which was filed at 3:00 a.m. this
morning in the cloak of darkness, measures one foot tall. It is
impossible for Members to know all the details included in this massive
measure, including the type and amounts of pet projects inserted
without debate. Sadly, this omnibus bill comes to us after we heard the
Republican Leadership maintain their commitment to make the trains run
on time and send the President 13 separate appropriations bills.
Although this bill contains many favorable provisions, such as
increased nursing home funding for the most vulnerable seniors in the
Medicare program and an agreement to permit satellite TV carriers to
transmit the signals of local broadcast stations back to subscribers in
the same local market, the negative aspects out-weigh the good and
therefore I must oppose this legislation.
The Republican Leadership made a hand-shake agreement that they would
not include dairy legislation on any appropriations bill. They have
gone back on their word by attaching language that will maintain the
depression-era milk pricing system and stop the Department of
Agriculture's modest milk market dairy reforms. This provision will
hurt Wisconsin dairy farmers and consumers nationwide.
I am also concerned that this bill does not go far enough to prevent
the implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services organ
allocation rule. The HHS proposal will take much-needed organs away
from Wisconsin and threatens the very existence of our nation's smaller
transplant centers. While I welcome any delay of this ill-conceived
policy, I am extremely disappointed that Congress was unwilling to
postpone the restructuring of the organ allocation system until we can
address this issue in a more comprehensive manner.
Perhaps the most egregious parts of this bill are the accounting
gimmicks used to ``pay for'' the programs within the bill. The .38%
across-the-board spending cut allows the individual agencies and
departments to determine which programs and accounts shall be subject
to the spending reduction. However, no project can be cut by more that
15%. This means that wasteful and inappropriate pork-barrel spending
projects, such as Naval ships not even requested by the Navy, cannot be
targeted for elimination.
Another troubling gimmick is the bill's use of forward funding.
Delaying payments for defense contractors, delaying veterans medical
care obligations, and rescinding Section 8 housing program funds are
just a few of these accounting gimmicks which add up to over $4
billion. Further so-called ``savings'' are achieved by delaying the
paychecks of our
[[Page 30711]]
military personnel and payments made to recipients of social services
block grants.
Furthermore, roughly one-third of all education funding being spent
this fiscal year is counted against next year's spending caps. This
will spend nearly $12.4 billion that will not be counted until next
year, subverting the budget caps. Even though this spending is within
the Budget Caps, it still results in a Fiscal Year 2000 outlay that
taps into Social Security funds. To top it off, $4.5 billion of the
Census funding is classified as emergency spending and thus does not
count against the spending caps. This too, spends funds from the Social
Security Trust Fund--for an activity the government has performed like
clockwork for every ten years for over 200 years! Not only is the
Census called an ``emergency,'' but also included in the long list of
surprise spending by the government are funds for the Head Start
program and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program.
Finally, even though this bill contains everything but the kitchen
sink, it does nothing to extend the life of Social Security or to
modernize the Medicare Program. This budget bill also does not offer a
plan to allow seniors to buy prescription drugs at an affordable cost,
nor does it contain legislation to allow patients and doctors to make
medical decisions instead of HOMO bureaucrats.
For these reasons Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3194, a $385
billion omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. Although the
bill includes many beneficial provisions that I have worked hard to
advance, I regret that they have been tied to a package that is deeply
flawed in both procedure and substance.
This bill violates a rather simple rule of good legislating--members
ought have the opportunity to review legislation before they are asked
to cast their vote. They clearly have not had that opportunity here.
This mammoth bill, more than a foot thick and thousands of pages long,
was filed after 3 a.m. this morning. It became available to view only a
few short hours ago. In reality there is not one member of the House
who knows all of what is in this bill. All we know for certain is that
there are a multitude of provisions here that would never have survived
the normal legislative process.
Second despite all the rhetoric of the majority party, this bill
spends at least $17 billion of the Social Security surplus. The
Congressional budget Office, like all of us, has not had the
opportunity to review this legislation, and, as a result, we are voting
without the benefit of an official cost estimate. The previous CBO
report, however, that did not include the additional spending added in
negotiations with the White House, estimated that the surplus generated
by Social Security will be tapped for $17 billion.
This bill is stuffed full of accounting gimmicks to create that
illusion that it does not spend Social Security surplus. The gimmick of
choice was to artificially postpone spending just beyond fiscal year
2000 into 2001. Unfortunately, this gimmick results in even more money
from the Social Security surplus being spent. If you add all the
spending that has been pushed into the next fiscal year and subtract
the total from the expected budget surplus in 2001, you'll find that
not only does this bill spend Social Security surplus in 2000, but it
spends more than $20 billion from Social Security in 2001.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill is so flawed
in certain important respects, because in many other areas it deserves
strong support. For instance, I strongly support the increases in
funding for federal education programs in this legislation, including
the class size reduction initiative. Last year, the class size
reduction initiative provided North Dakota schools with over $5 million
in additional resources, and I am pleased that this legislation
increases funding for that program by 10 percent. This legislation
fulfills the promise to our children made last year by ensuring that
schools in North Dakota and across the country can continue to pay the
dedicated teachers recruited last year.
Second, I am pleased that Congress has addressed the unintended
financial consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) on
health care providers. As a member of the Congressional Rural Health
Care Coalition, I have worked long and hard to address these problems
on behalf of the hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes in
North Dakota. These health care providers have done their best to
maintain a high standard of care, even under the constraints of the
BBA. I believe it is time that Congress provide them with the relief
they desperately need.
I was pleased to have voted for H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced
Budget Refinement Act, in the House of Representatives. This measure,
which passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority, was an important
first step toward addressing the problems of the BBA. I look forward to
working with health care providers in my state to come to an agreement
on further relief in the coming year.
Finally, this measure also fulfills the promise we made to America's
communities, by continuing funding for the COPS program. The dedicated
community police officers funded through this program, many of whom
serve my constituents in North Dakota, have helped keep our families
safe, an they deserve our support.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many laudable provisions
that have, unfortunately, been attached to legislation I simply cannot
support. For this reason, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' so that we
can advance the positive features of this bill in legislation that is
fiscally sound and protects Social Security.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment
with this omnibus appropriations bill.
While this appropriations bill is good for education and does make
good on our commitment to the United Nations, this bill also contains a
provision that compromises women's rights around the world.
Republican extremists, in their zeal to limit women's rights, left
the President no choice but to accept a budget compromise that links
the payment of the United Nations dues with restrictions on
international family planning. That is wrong.
This compromise is a bad deal for women around the world.
Family planning shouldn't be linked to United Nations dues. It has
nothing to do with family planning. This is about our fundamental
responsibility as the remaining superpower to support the United
Nations. This is not a trade-off.
Mr. Speaker, women are not negotiable.
The Republicans need to stop attacking women's rights and they need
to start living up to our international obligations--no strings
attached.
By adopting this appropriations language linking the payment of our
United Nations dues to restrictions on family planning, we set a
dangerous precedent.
Once legislative language is adopted, it will be hard to remove.
Further, the waiver provision will be meaningless in the future if
there's an anti-choice President in the Oval Office. The waiver is only
as strong as the President who would sign it.
For every step backward that we are forced to take on family
planning, we will have to take two steps forward to maintain progress.
We are disappointed by the political posturing that created this
budget deal that hurts women. But make no mistake about it, the women
of this House are as committed as ever to protecting the rights of
women around the world.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the 6th time the D.C.
Budget has been on the floor in the last 6 months. Let's hope our
collective ``sixth sense'' will carry the day.
Way back in July the D.C. Appropriations Act was heralded with
virtual unanimity. It was one of the first appropriation bills to hit
the floor, and I joined many others on both sides of the aisle in
showering Chairman Istook with well-deserved praise.
That was two vetoes and three conference reports ago. Ironically, the
D.C. Budget became a necessary vehicle for other matters.
The D.C. Budget incorporates all appropriations for the District of
Columbia. This includes not only federal funds, but all locally
generated revenue as well, which accounts for most all of the Budget.
This local part of the D.C. Budget was passed in consensus form by the
city's elected leaders and the Control Board.
When Congress did its constitutional duty and passed the D.C. Budget,
not once but twice, I joined others in urging the president to approve
it. I compliment the appropriators and conferees for their patience and
persistence in continuing to refine the bill following the vetoes. I am
particularly pleased by the addition of needed resources to address the
environmental necessity of cleaning up the old Lorton Correctional
Complex.
The resources in this budget will help the Nation's Capital continue
its reform efforts.
While much progress has been made in the District, there are still
enormous problems which must be addressed. The D.C. Subcommittee I
chair will hold a hearing on December 14 to gather information on many
of these questions.
A substantial number of city functions remain in receivership,
including foster care and offender supervision. A recent audit and the
Annual Report submitted by the Control Board to Congress highlights the
crisis we are facing in this area. Our Congressional review can be
particularly helpful in working through these concerns.
[[Page 30712]]
The D.C. Budget funds the local court system. These courts are going
through an important process right now that demands our continuing
interest. The GAO, at our request, has been supplying very helpful
background material.
The House passed this month legislation I sponsored with Eleanor
Holmes Norton and others to enhance college access opportunities for
D.C. students. I commend the president for signing that bill. Just this
week it was officially designated as Public Law 106-98. I'm very proud
of that. I thank the appropriators for working with me to make the
money for that landmark new law subject to the authorizing enactment.
There is additional much-needed money in this budget for public
education, including charter schools.
This budget contains the largest tax cut in the city's history, which
is central to our goal of retaining and attracting economic
development.
There is money in this budget to clean up the Anacostia River, open
more drug treatment programs, and study widening of the 14th Street
Bridge.
We've worked long and hard together to turn this city around. The
D.C. Budget before us is another step in helping to keep us moving in
the right direction.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today represents the culmination of a multi-
year-long process to update the copyright licensing regimes covering
the retransmission of broadcast signals. When the Satellite Home Viewer
Act was first passed in 1988, satellite dishes were a rare sight in
communities across America, and the dishes that did exist were almost
all large, ``C-band'' dishes. Today, the satellite dish has become
ubiquitous, and the dishes that most people use are now much smaller--
only 18 inches across. The small dish industry alone has more than 10
million subscribers, with nearly two million other households still
relying on large dishes. With this massive change in the marketplace,
we are overdue for a fresh look at the laws governing retransmissions
of television station programming.
The existing provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act allow
satellite carriers to retransmit copyrighted programming for a set fee
to a narrowly defined category of customers. The Act thus represents an
exception to the general principles of copyright--that those who create
works of authorship enjoy exclusive rights in them, and are entitled to
bargain in the marketplace to sell those rights. In almost all other
areas of the television industry, those bedrock principles work well.
Indeed, virtually all of the programming that we enjoy on both
broadcast and nonbroadcast stations is produced under that free market
regime. Because exclusive rights and marketplace bargaining are so
fundamental to copyright law, we should depart from those principles
only when necessary and only to the most limited possible degree.
Statutory licenses represent a departure from these bedrock principles,
and should be construed as narrowly as possible.
Reflecting the need to keep such departures narrow, the existing
Satellite Home Viewer Act permits network station signals to be
retransmitted only to a narrowly defined group of ``unserved
households,'' i.e., those located in places, almost always remote rural
areas, in which over-the-air signals are simply too weak to be picked
up with a correctly oriented, properly functioning conventional rooftop
antenna. The definition of an ``unserved household'' continues to be
the same as it is in the current statute, i.e., a household that cannot
receive, through the use of a properly working, stationary outdoor
rooftop antenna that is pointed toward the transmitter, a signal of at
least Grade B intensity as defined in Section 73.683(a) of the FCC's
rules. The courts have already interpreted this provision and nothing
in the Act changes that definition. The ``Grade B intensity'' standard
is and has always been an ``objective'' signal strength standard--not,
as some satellite carriers claimed, a subjective picture quality
standard. (In fact, as the courts have discussed, Congress expressly
rejected a subjective standard in first enacting the statute in 1988.)
The objective Grade B intensity standard has long been used by the FCC
and the television engineering community to determine the level of
signal strength needed to provide an acceptable television picture to
median, unbiased observers. Few, if any, subscribers in urban and
suburban areas qualify as ``unserved'' under this objective, easy-to-
administer definition.
The existing compulsory license for ``unserved households,'' was not,
however, designed to enable local TV stations to be retransmitted to
their own local viewers. Congress has never before been asked to create
such a license, because technological limitations made the local-to-
local business unthinkable in 1988 and even in 1994, when Congress
passed the first extension of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Today,
however, local-to-local service is no longer unthinkable. In fact, two
satellite companies, DirecTV and EchoStar, stand ready to offer that
service, at least in a limited number of markets, immediately.
To help local viewers in North Carolina and across the country, and
to assist satellite companies in competing with cable, I have worked
with my colleagues to help craft a new copyright statutory license that
will enable local-to-local retransmissions. Today, we can finally
celebrate the fruits of our efforts over many months of hard work and
negotiation. The bill before the House reflects a carefully calibrated
set of provisions that will, for the first time, authorize TV stations
to be retransmitted by satellite to the viewers in their own local
markets.
The bill will also extend, essentially unchanged, the current distant
signal compulsory license in Section 119 of the Copyright Act. The only
significant changes to that provision are that (1) the mandatory 90 day
waiting period for cable subscribers will no longer be part of the law;
(2) royalty rates for distant signals will be reduced from the
marketplace rates currently in effect; (3) a limited, specifically
defined category of subscribers subject to recent court orders will
have delayed termination dates under the bill; (4) the bill will limit
the number of distant signals that a satellite carrier may deliver even
to ``unserved households''; and (5) the bill will require satellite
carriers to purchase rooftop antennas for certain subscribers whose
service has been turned off by court order. Except for these specific
changes in Section 119, nothing in the law we are passing today will
take away any of the rights and remedies available to the plaintiffs in
copyright infringement litigation against satellite carriers. Nor will
anything in the bill (other than the specific provisions I have just
mentioned) require any change whatsoever in the manner in which the
courts have enforced Section 119.
I trust that the courts will continue to vigorously enforce the
Copyright Act against those who seek to pretend it does not apply to
them, including any satellite companies that have not yet been subject
to injunctive relief for infringements they have committed. Indeed, the
very premise on which Congress creates statutory licenses is that the
limitations on those licenses will be strictly respected; when
satellite carriers go beyond those limitations, they not only infringe
copyrights, but destroy the premise on which Congress agreed to create
the statutory license in the first place.
I want to say a word about the ``white area'' problem and about the
delayed terminations of certain categories of subscribers. In
particular, I want to express my extreme displeasure with the conduct
by the satellite industry over the past few years. It is apparent, and
at least two courts have found in final judgments (one affirmed on
appeal), that satellite companies have purposely and deliberately
violated the Copyright Act in selling these distant network signal
packages to customers who are obviously unqualified. Those decisions
have correctly and properly applied the Copyright Act. Whether or not
satellite companies like the law, they have no right to merely
disregard it. The ``turnoff'' crisis was caused by the satellite
industry, not the Congress, and I do not appreciate having an industry
take innocent consumers as hostages, which is what has happened here.
Now we as members of Congress, have been asked to fix this problem
created by satellite industry lawbreaking. The bill reflects the
conferees' best effort to find a solution to a problem that the
satellite industry has created by signing up millions of ineligible
customers. Unfortunately, the solution the conferees have devised--
temporary grandfathering of certain categories of ineligible
subscribers--may seem to amount to rewarding the satellite industry for
its own wrongdoing. I find this very troubling, even though I
understand the impetus to protect consumers who have been misled by
satellite companies into believing that essentially everyone is
eligible for distant network signals. In any event, let me be very
clear: with the exception of delayed termination dates for certain
subscribers, nothing in this bill in any way relieves any satellite
company from any remedy whatsoever for any lawbreaking, past or future,
in which they may engage. To list just a few, nothing in the bill will
relieve any satellite carrier from any court order (a) requiring
immediate termination of ineligible small-dish subscribers predicted to
receive Grade A intensity signals from any station of the relevant
network, (b) requiring strict compliance with the Grade B intensity
standard for all signups after the date of the court order, (c)
requiring the payment of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 5.5 of the
Copyright Act or payment for testing costs pursuant to
[[Page 30713]]
Section 119(a)(9), or (d) imposing any statutorily mandated remedy for
any willful or repeated pattern or practice of violations committed by
a particular satellite carrier. Congress has determined the outer
limits of permissible grandfathering in this bill, and courts need not
entertain an arguments for additional grandfathering. And I should
emphasize that the only subscribers that may have service restored
pursuant to the grandfathering provisions of this Act are those that
have had their service terminated as a result of court orders, and not
for any other reason.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property
of the House Judiciary Committee, I also want to make clear that
Congress is not in any way finding fault with the manner in which the
federal courts have enforced the Satellite Home Viewer Act. To the
contrary, the courts (including the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit, and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) have
done an admirable job in correctly carrying out the intent of Congress
which established a strictly objective eligibility standard that
applied to only a tiny fraction of American television households.
Although the conferees have reluctantly decided to deal with the
unlawful signups by postponing cutoffs of certain specified categories
of consumers, that prospective legislative decision--to which Congress
is resorting because of the no-win situation created by past satellite
industry lawbreaking--does not reflect any criticism whatsoever of the
federal courts. And I should emphasize that we have re-enacted, intact,
the procedural and remedial provisions of Section 119, including, for
example, the ``burden of proof'' and ``pattern or practice'' provisions
that have been important in litigation under the Act.
The bill will require satellite carriers that have turned off
ineligible subscribers pursuant to court decisions under section 119 to
provide those subscribers with a free rooftop antenna enabling them to
receive local stations over the air. This provision may redress, to
some degree, the unfairness of appearing to reward satellite carriers
for their own lawbreaking. The free-antenna provision is a pure matter
of fairness to consumers, who were told, falsely, that they could
receive distant network signals based on saying ``I don't like my TV
picture'' over the telephone. I trust that many North Carolinians will
benefit from the satellite carriers' compliance with this important
remedial provision.
I should briefly discuss the addition of the word ``stationary'' to
the phrase ``conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna'' in
Section 119(d)(10) of the Copyright Act. As the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary
Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright matters, and as the
original sponsor of this legislation, I want to stress that this one-
word change to the Copyright Act does not require (or even permit) any
change in the methods used by the courts to enforce the ``unserved
household'' limitation of Section 119. The new language says only that
the test is whether a ``stationary'' antenna can pick up a Grade B
intensity signal; although some may have wished otherwise, it does not
say that the antenna is to be improperly oriented (i.e., pointed away
from the TV transmitter in question). To read the Act in that way would
be extraordinarily hypocritical, since ``stationary'' satellite
antennas themselves must be perfectly oriented to get any reception at
all. In any event, the Act provides controlling guidance about antenna
orientation in Section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the bill, which
specifies that the FCC's existing procedures (requiring correct
orientation) be followed. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.686(d), Appendix B, at
para. (2)(iv); see also FCC Report & Order, Dkt. No. 98-201, at para.
59 (describing many precedents calling for correct orientation). A
contrary reading would leave the Copyright Act with no fixed meaning at
all, since while there is a single correct way to orient an antenna to
receive a particular station (which is what the Act assumes), there are
at least 359 wrong ways to do so as one moves in a circle away from the
correct orientation.
A contrary reading would also fly in the face of the text of the Act,
which makes eligibility depend on whether a household ``cannot''
receive the signal of particular stations. The Act is clear: if a
household could receive a signal of Grade B intensity with a properly
oriented stationary rooftop antenna of a particular network affiliate
station, the household is not ``unserved'' with respect to that
network.
The Copyright Act amendments also direct courts to continue to use
the accurate consumer-friendly prediction and measurement tools
developed by the FCC for determining whether particular households are
served or unserved. I understand that the parties to court proceedings
under Section 119 have already developed detailed protocols for
applying those procedures, and nothing in today's legislation requires
any change in those protocols. If the Commission is able to refine its
already very accurate ``ILLR'' predictive model to make it even more
accurate, the courts should apply those further refinements as well.
But in the meantime, the courts should use the accurate, FCC-approved
tools that are already available, in the same way in which they are
doing now. As I mentioned, nothing in the Act requires any change
whatsoever in the manner in which the courts are using those FCC-
endorsed scientific tools.
The Act does authorize the Commission to make nonbinding suggestions
about changes to the definition of Grade B intensity. (The definition
of Grade B intensity is, of course, separate from FCC decisions
concerning particular methods of measuring or predicting eligibility to
receive network programming by satellite, as the FCC's February 1999
SHVA Report and order discusses in detail.) Any suggestions from the
FCC about the definition of Grade B intensity will have no legal effect
whatsoever until and unless Congress acts on them and incorporates them
into the Copyright Act.
The conferees and many other members of this body have worked hard to
achieve the carefully balanced bill now before the House. We have spent
the better part of four years working with representatives of the
broadcast, copyright, satellite, and cable industries fashioning
legislation that is ultimately best for our constituents. The
legislation before us today is not perfect, but it is a carefully
balanced compromise. The real winners are our constituents, who can
expect to enjoy local-to-local satellite delivery of their own hometown
TV stations in more and more markets over the next few years.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the subcommittee ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their support
and leadership throughout this process. I also want to recognize the
contributions of the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Bliley); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley); and the ranking member,
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who worked with us
tirelessly to bring this to the Floor. Finally, I want to thank my
fellow Subcommittee members, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte
and Mr. Boucher) for their service on the committee of conference. I
urge all Members to support this constituent-friendly legislation.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the omnibus
appropriations bill that is before us today. No respectable business
would operate this way--and neither should our government.
I did not come to Congress to engage in business as usual. The people
of Kansas' Third District expect more of us. As Congress has done for
too many years, today it will be voting on a bill estimated at 2,000
pages, which no one in this chamber has read, or even had the
opportunity to give a cursory review. We are asked to vote based upon
sketchy summaries of a huge piece of legislation that was filed as a
conference report at 3:00 a.m. this morning. Is it too much to ask that
we have 24 hours to review and consider a $395 billion appropriations
bill before voting? This bill has not even been printed or placed on-
line for our review or for the public's examination. This is wrong and
none of us should be a party to it.
But, more bothersome is that while the bill contains many programs
which I have fought for and for which I would vote under normal
circumstances, the bill is a lie and a cruel hoax on the American
people. The majority claims they have not spent Social Security funds.
Just the opposite is true.
There are many things in this bill which I support: increased funding
to reduce public school class sizes by hiring qualified teachers and
funding teacher training; funding for the National Institutes of
Health; payment of the United States' outstanding debt to the United
Nations; increased funding for the hiring of new community police
officers; additional funds to preserve and acquire open spaces and
ecologically important lands; funds to help implement the Wye River
Accord between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan; and funds
for development in the world's poorest nations and supports an IMF
proposal to revalue some of its gold reserves to finance debt
forgiveness.
There also, however, are a number of provisions in this bill which I
oppose: a cut of $100 million in veterans' benefits; payment of the
[[Page 30714]]
United Nations arrears is linked to unwarranted restrictions on
international family planning funding; funding for the Army's School of
the Americas, which has a dismal record of training personnel
supporting past military dictatorships in Latin America, who have been
engaged in gross human rights violations; and most importantly, this
package has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; despite
the majority's unsupported claims to the contrary, we really do not
know what the ultimate impact will be upon Social Security funds.
Indeed, of the three major offsets provided in this conference report,
only one actually reduces expenditures. The other two--expediting
transfers from the Treasury to the Federal Reserve and delaying
payments to our military personnel--are accounting gimmicks which start
us in a hole in next year's budget process. This is not fiscally
responsible and it does not protect Social Security.
Additionally, other non-appropriations measures have been added to
this omnibus package at the last possible minute. I would gladly
support several of these bills if I had the opportunity to vote on them
individually, under regular order. These bills include measures to:
increase Medicare payments to hospitals, nursing homes, home health
care agencies and other health care providers, providing some financial
relief from the Medicare cuts imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997; allow satellite carriers to transmit the signals of local
broadcast stations back to subscribers in the same local market and
allows satellite subscribers scheduled to lose their distant signals at
the end of the year to continue receiving them for five years; and
preserve local, low power television stations when the broadcast
industry upgrades to digital service.
Under the rules of the House, Congress is supposed to consider
thirteen appropriations bills for each fiscal year. Under normal
procedures, those bills should come before the House individually, with
opportunities for amendment and debate. After a conference report is
negotiated, the House should then have the opportunity to vote on each
bill, standing alone. Unfortunately, Congress has refused to follow its
own rules.
I have only been a member of this body for eleven months, but I
understand that the rules and procedures of the House were put in place
to protect the rights of all Members to represent fully the interests
and concerns of our constituents. We cannot do so when we are
confronted with an omnibus conference report which I am told is
estimated at 2,000 pages, carries an overall price tag of $395 billion
in fiscal year 2000 appropriations, and countless other provisions,
whose consequences we cannot possibly know at this time.
I will vote against this package today and I urge my colleagues to do
likewise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly against H.R. 3194,
the District of Columbia Appropriations Conference report. While I
support many of the provisions of this legislation, I cannot support
any legislation which perpetuates the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact and does not allow for the modest federal milk marketing order
reforms to go into effect. While this legislation maintains a balanced
budget and protects Social Security, which I strongly support, I simply
cannot condone its treatment of Wisconsin farmers. I understand the
plight of farmers in other regions of the country; however, passing
this legislation in an effort to help them directly punishes the
farmers in my district, in my state, and throughout the Midwest. This
is completely unacceptable and therefore, I must vote against it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment
in the so-called compromise worked out between the White House and the
Republican leadership on the payment of U.S. arrears to the United
Nations.
Do not be fooled by this slight of hand, there is no compromise. All
this does is codify the Smith Mexico City policy in legislation for the
first time and include a Presidential waiver that will result in a
funding reduction. A funding reduction which will affect the healthcare
of women and children around the world.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I support payment of our financial
obligation to the United Nations one hundred and ten percent. In fact,
I am ashamed that the United States has lost so much prestige in an
institution we helped create, in an organization instilled with many of
the values we in this country hold so dear.
I am ashamed, Mr. Speaker, because the United States, which should be
a respected leader in that world body has squandered its authority by
not living up to its commitments. My Republican colleagues, as they've
said so often, believe in moral leadership. Well, I ask them, where is
the United States' moral leadership when we do not pay our fair share?
Mr. Speaker, paying our U.N. dues is an important national security
concern; almost no one disputes this. Former Secretaries of States,
former Presidents and former Senate Majority Leaders have all expressed
the critical need to pay our arrears. Sensing this urgency, some in
this House have placed partisan political considerations above the very
real security needs of our country by linking the issue of our payment
to the U.N. to the global gag rule on international family planning.
For several years now, this linkage has held up the payment of our
dues. I would submit an editorial from the November 17, 1999 New York
Times which eloquently addresses this issue.
Now, some of my colleagues may question the harm in limiting the
activities of international family planning organizations. Still others
have deeply felt convictions on the issue of abortion and do not want
to see U.S. taxpayer's funds pay for abortions. Not only do I
sympathize with these sentiments, I agree with them. And that is
exactly why I oppose the codification of the Smith Mexico City policy.
First, U.S. law rightly prohibits, in no uncertain terms, the use of
U.S. funds to pay for an abortion, lobby for abortions, and coerce
someone into having an abortion or purchase supplies or equipment to
perform an abortion. And, no one has ever been able to show any U.S.
funds used for this cause. Placing restrictions on the ability of
foreign groups to use their own funds to participate in the democratic
process and make their voices heard by their own governments is a
violation of the sacred American right of free speech. This is just one
way which this gag rule will prevent these organizations from doing
their work to protect the health of families.
Second, the best means of preventing the instances of abortions
overseas is to promote access to family planning services. Families
that are in control and informed about their options are less likely to
need or seek abortions. International family planning agencies around
the world are committed to providing accurate information to families
about their healthcare needs, from stopping the abhorrent practice of
female genital mutilation to proper spacing of children to protect the
health and well-being of mothers and children. Any reduction in these
already under funded organizations, as this deal will ultimately result
in, means that real women around the world will not have access to the
basic medical information needed to raise their families in a healthy
manner.
Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed in this agreement, I am outraged
that the will of a majority of the House was pushed aside to placate a
few obstructionists who oppose providing access to family planning
programs. In a historic compromise, the House included an amendment to
the FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, offered by
Congressman Jim Greenwood and Congresswoman Nita Lowey, which provides
an acceptable bipartisan and majority supported alternative set of
restrictions on U.S. funds for international family planning. The
Greenwood/Lowey compromise includes: a requirement that international
family planning organizations use U.S. funds to reduce the incidences
of abortions; it allows only foreign organizations which are in
compliance with its own countries abortion laws to receive U.S. funds;
and, it bars family planning aid from organizations which are in
violation of their country's laws on lobbying or advocacy activities.
As I stated, a majority in the House supported this compromise, but
the Republican leadership chose to ignore it. By ignoring the will of
the House and codifying the Smith Mexico City policy, we set a
dangerous precedent that will only serve to hurt women and families
around the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that this provision was included in the
Omnibus package which has so many other worthwhile programs. Funding
for 100,000 teachers to help reduce class size, money for the COPS
program, which keeps police on the beat and crime down, as well as
other critical priorities supported by myself, my colleagues and a
majority of Americans. Because of the inclusion of these key
priorities, which will benefit the lives of every American, I will
support this Omnibus package. However, I plan to work with my
colleagues next year to restore the funding cuts that will result from
this so-called compromise.
[From The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1999]
A Costly Deal on U.N. Dues
President Clinton paid a regrettably high price to win the
House Republican leadership's assent to give almost $1
billion in back American dues to the United Nations. Last
weekend, White House bargainers agreed to new statutory
language restricting international family planning assistance
that the administration had firmly and rightly resisted in
the past. Understandably, advocates for women's health and
reproductive choice,
[[Page 30715]]
even including Vice President Gore, bemoaned that damaging
concession and questioned its necessity.
Nevertheless, House approval of the U.N. arrears payments,
assuming that final details of the agreement can be worked
out and sold to the Republican rank and file, will be a
significant achievement. Failure to pay these assessments had
undermined the finances of the U.N., weakened American
influence there and put Washington's voting rights in the
General Assembly at risk. The United States cannot exercise
global leadership unless it honors its financial obligations.
Nor can Washington reasonably expect other countries to
consider Congressional demands for lower American dues
assessments in the future until it pays off most of the dues
it already owes.
To get the U.N. money approved, the White House compromised
on an important issue of principle, and may have encouraged
radical anti-abortion crusaders to expand their assault on
abortion rights. Under the newly agreed language, foreign
family planning organizations that spend their own money to
provide abortions or lobby for less harsh abortion laws will
now be legally ineligible for American assistance.
As part of the compromise, the administration won the right
to waive this restriction if it chooses. But even with the
waiver, no more than $15 million in American assistance can
be given to organizations engaged in abortion services or
lobbying. That is about the amount such groups got last year.
Another part of the deal stipulates that if the
administration exercises the waiver the $385 million budgeted
for aid to women's health groups will be reduced by $12.5
million.
The practical effect of these restrictions is likely to be
small, at least for as long as the Clinton administration is
in office and invokes the waiver provision. But there is no
disguising the political victory it hands the anti-abortion
crusaders in the House who were willing to hold American
foreign policy to their ideological agenda. Although part of
only a one-year spending bill, the language is likely to
reappear in future years unless a majority of House members
vote to exclude it.
Senate Republicans, including committed abortion foes like
Senator Jesse Helms, behaved more responsibly than their
House colleagues on this issue. But the House obstructionists
held firm, faced down the White House and walked away with a
disturbingly large share of what they wanted.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Foreign
Operations Conference Report and I applaud the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee for joining together and bringing to the floor a bill to
make the world a better place.
This is a good resolution, however I believe it fails to provide an
adequate amount of funds for Sub-Saharan African nations, the most
needy nations of the world. U.S. leadership and support are critical to
the growth of Africa. In the past, our diplomatic efforts and bilateral
aid programs have given significant stimulus to democracy-building and
economic development. Our contributions leveraged with those of other
donations to the programs of the World Bank and in Sub-Saharan Africa
have reinforced economic policy reforms and infrastructure development
across the continent.
The increase aid and debt relief for Sub-Saharan Africa has
significant implications for U.S. interests. First, the progress
realized to date, has stimulated growing interest and opportunities for
U.S. business. Second, the emergence of more stable, more democratic
governments has given us responsible partners with whom we can address
the full range of regional and international issues: settling or
preventing conflicts; combating crime, narcotics, terrorism, and
weapons proliferation; protecting and managing the global environment;
and expanding the global economy.
We must maximize our current efforts to protect and develop the vital
human and physical resources that are necessary to drive economic
prosperity in Sub-Saharan Africa. By increasing Sub-Saharan Africa aid
and debt relief, we will ensure that the United States continues to be
constructively engaged with the people of Africa. It's my hope as we
approach the time to deliberate over a new Foreign Operations
Conference Report we sincerely increase aid and debt relief to these
needy nations. Again, I strongly support the Foreign Operations
Conference Report and urge all members to vote yes.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the victory we have achieved on debt relief
is arguably the most important legislative action the Congress has
taken this year, and brings real hope to the world's poorest people and
countries. It marks an important victory for all of those committed to
reducing poverty and improving the standards of living in the world's
highly indebted poor countries.
It is a victory for Pope John Paul II, who has said:
``Christians will have to raise their voice on behalf of all the poor
of the world, proposing the jubilee as an appropriate time to give
thought, among other things, to reducing substantially, if not
cancelling outright, the international debt which seriously threatens
the future of many nations.''
It is a victory for Bread for the World and Oxfam who have pressed
consistently and effectively for ``using U.S. leadership
internationally to provide deeper and faster debt relief to more
countries, and directing the proceeds of debt relief to poverty
reduction.''
It is a victory for the United Church of Christ, which has termed
debt relief ``one of the foremost economic, humanitarian and moral
challenges of our time'' (John H. Thomas, President).
It is a victory for the Episcopal Church, which has emphasized that
``closely linked with this notion of Jubilee is our heritage of caring
for the poor and needy. . . . We must seize this historic opportunity
to take moral action, grounded in Scripture and our compassion for
those in need (Bishop Francis Campbell Gray).''
It is a victory for the U.S. Catholic Conference which has stated
``we cannot let the new millennium begin without offering hope to
millions of poor people in some of the world's most impoverished
countries that the crushing burden of external debt will soon be
relieved.''
Had it not been for the concerted effort of the Jubilee 2000
Movement, including the nongovernmental private and voluntary
organizations (NGOs) and the ecumenical array of church and faith-based
organizations that have been pushing so hard for debt relief, we would
never have gotten to this point. The following organizations and many
others fully share in this victory and I am truly grateful for their
efforts: the U.S. Catholic Conference, Bread for the World, Church
World Service, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, Lutheran World Relief, National Council of Churches, Oxfam
America, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United
Methodist Church, American Jewish World Service, and the Catholic
Relief Service.
In enacting this legislation, we have responded to a moral and a
practical imperative. The increasingly wide gap between the world's
richest and poorest is both unjust and unsustainable. The economic
prosperity the developed world now enjoys certainly imposes a
concomitant obligation to help the less fortunate. But this debt relief
agreement is also sound and prudent economic policy. The severe
economic and social dislocation, and resulting political instability in
the world's poorest countries will inevitably impact the developed
world if it is not addressed.
Ever since the LDC debt crisis of the early 1980s, I have authored
and pressed for passage of debt relief legislation. As part of those
efforts, I have repeatedly urged and authored bills to mobilize the
resources inherent in IMF gold holdings. Today I am particularly
pleased because the debt relief provisions of the omnibus bill
substantially reflect the Banking Committee reported version of H.R,
1095, the debt relief bill I introduced in March of this year. The
agreement represents major victories for us in the following areas:
All bilateral debt of highly indebted poor countries will be totally
cancelled;
Fundamental reforms have been made to the IMF and World Bank
programs, and the relationship between those programs, to ensure a
primary emphasis on poverty reduction rather than structural
adjustment;
Mobilization of IMF gold using a revaluation rather than a sale, and
using the resulting monies only for debt relief rather than structural
adjustment, has been specifically authorized;
Greater transparency has been assured in regard to Paris Club
deliberations on multilateral debt reduction (an informal forum where
mainly industrial creditor countries discuss the settlement of official
loans to countries unable to meet their debt service obligations);
Senate efforts to impose unreasonable trade policies on recipient
countries, which would have severely restricted debt relief efforts,
have been defeated.
All of these achievements reflect priorities and emphases of the bill
reported by the Banking Committee.
While we should enjoy this victory, we must not lose sight of the
fact that much more remains to be done. The agreement does not contain
money for the HIPC Trust Fund, nor are such funds authorized. While the
agreement provides for $123 million for bilateral debt relief for FY
2000, the Administration had requested $370 million, and is seeking
$970 million over the next four years. We need to fully meet that
standard. Finally, the agreement provides for use of a large portion of
the resources coming from revaluation of the IMF gold for debt
reduction, but still only a portion.
I am fully committed to pressing the Congress to begin early next
year to meet these
[[Page 30716]]
needs and finish the good work we have started.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1095, the
``Debt Relief for Poverty Reduction Act of 1999.'' This legislation has
strong bipartisan support with over 130 cosponsors. Providing debt
relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) (ie. countries with
debt 220% higher than their annual exports or debt greater than 80% of
their GNP), is a crucial form of foreign aid desperately needed by the
citizens of these countries.
The United States won the Cold War not only through military
expenditures, but also through foreign aid to countries that were
targeted by pro-communist forces. Many of these countries were, at
best, only beginning to evolve toward democracy and some were governed
by autocrats who wasted these U.S. funds. Now future generations in
these countries are saddled by these overwhelming debts making it
difficult to provide for their basic human needs--food, clothing,
medicine, and shelter. There is a consensus in the global community and
among creditors from all sectors that some relief must be provided if
these countries are to be able to meet the basic human needs to their
citizens and grow their economies in their future.
Whenever debt relief is debated, there is always cause for concern
that creditors create a ``moral hazard'' when they forgive the debts of
others. The forgiveness of debt can encourage debtors not to pay back
interest on loans in the future. However, in this circumstance, it is
important to distinguish that the debt burden these countries face is
so great that it would be impossible for them to repay. This is a form
of international bankruptcy for these countries. The international
community has recognized that conditions are so bad in these countries
that future loans are not likely. Rather, grants are and will continue
to be the form of assistance these countries receive.
As a strong fiscal conservative, I am cautious of programs that
simply throw money at a problem. I believe government programs must be
carefully structured to maximize efficiency and minimize waste in
solving a problem. As originally drafted, H.R. 1095 contained measures
conditioning debt relief on economic reforms in these countries.
History has proven time and gain that free market capitalism maximizes
efficiency and economic growth better than any other market system.
Helping these countries move to a free market capitalism system is its
own form of foreign aid in addition to foreign aid grants or debt
relief. In fact, teaching foreign countries that the market is the most
efficient way to allocate scarce resources is the only form of foreign
aid that is truly lasting. Transitioning to a new market system is
never easy. Change is always resisted by those empowered by the status
quo. If the ``carrot'' of debt relief can be used to overcome the
status quo in these countries in order to guide them to lasting relief,
then Congress should structure this debt relief program to accomplish
this goal. Unfortunately, these economic reform conditions were amended
out of the original text during the House Banking Committee Markup.
Mr. Speaker, although I continue to support H.R. 1095, it is my
intention to support efforts to restore the economic reform conditions
before its final passage in the House.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 1948,
which will be enacted by reference upon the enactment of H.R. 3194. S.
1948, the ``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act
of 1999,'' concludes years of hard work and compromise. We spent
considerable time balancing the interests of our constituents,
intellectual property owners, satellite carriers, local broadcasters,
and independent inventors in formulating this legislation. We have
spent the past five years working on this legislation, and I can say
without hesitation that this is a very good bill. This legislation will
have a tremendously beneficial affect on the citizens of this country,
whether they are subscribers to satellite television, inventors, brand
owners, or Internet users. Title I of S. 1948, the ``Satellite Home
Viewer Improvements Act,'' creates a new copyright license for local
signals over satellite and makes necessary changes to the other
television copyright licenses.
We have all been concerned about a lack of competition in the multi-
channel television industry and what that means in terms of prices and
services to our constituents. This bill gives the satellite industry a
new copyright license with the ability to compete on a more even
playing field, thereby giving consumers a choice.
With this competition in mind, the legislation before us makes the
following changes to the Satellite Home Viewers Act.
1. It reauthorizes the satellite copyright compulsory license for
five years.
2. It allows new satellite customers who have received a network
signal from a cable system within the past three months to sign up
immediately for satellite service for those signals. This is not
allowed today.
3. It provides a discount for the copyright fees paid by the
satellite carriers.
4. It allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television
station to households within that station's local market, just like
cable does.
5. Protects existing subscribers from having their distant network
service shut off at the end of the year and protects all C-band
customers from having their network service shut off entirely.
6. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal of
the Public Broadcasting Service.
7. It empowers the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to determine
appropriate standards for satellite carriers concerning which customers
should be allowed to receive distant network signals.
The satellite legislation before us today is a balanced approach. It
is not perfect, like most pieces of legislation, but is a carefully
balanced compromise. For instance, I am extremely disappointed the
rural loan guarantee program was deleted from this legislation. We
included those provisions in our original Conference Report to
accompany H.R. 1554 to ensure all citizens, particularly those who live
in small or rural communities, will receive the benefit of the new
local-to-local service. I pledge I will do everything I can to ensure
those provisions are acted upon early in the next session of Congress.
Additionally, language clarifying the application and eligibility of
these compulsory licenses has also been deleted from this version of
the legislation. This is not to be interpreted to indicate any change
in the application of the cable or satellite compulsory licenses as
they applied before the enactment of this legislation. The copyright
compulsory licenses were created by Congress to address specific needs
of a specific industry. Any further application of a compulsory license
will be decided by Congress, not by an industry or a court. I am
incorporating in this statement letters from the Register of
Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, and from the Chairman and Ranking Members
of the Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property and from Professor Arthur R. Miller of the
Harvard Law School which accurately restate the eligibility and
interpretation of the copyright compulsory licenses. I am also
enclosing extended remarks which express my views concerning the
legislative history for the ``Intellectual Property and Communications
Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.''
On balance, this is a very good piece of legislation and I urge all
Members to support this constituent-friendly legislation.
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 15, 1999.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bliley. Thank you for your letter concerning
sections 1005(e) and 1011(c) of the conference report on the
Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act
(``IPCORA'').
We do not believe there is any question about the current
state of the law: Internet and similar digital online
communications services are not, and have never been,
eligible to claim the cable copyright compulsory license or
satellite copyright compulsory license created by sections
111 and 119 of the Copyright Act, respectively. The cable
copyright license was created in 1976 specifically to apply
to the nature of the cable industry. The satellite license
was created in 1988 specifically to apply to the nature of
the satellite industry. It should be noted that the satellite
industry could not avail itself of the cable license, because
that license was created specifically for cable. It had to
seek its own government license. The Internet services
industry is not cable, nor is it satellite. It provides a new
type of service which has not been considered by the Congress
for purposes of a copyright compulsory license. Consequently,
the Internet services industry may not avail itself of the
cable copyright license or the satellite copyright license.
If such a government imposed license is to apply to such
services, it must be created by Congress specifically for
those services.
To my knowledge, no court, administrative agency, or
authoritative commentator has ever held or even intimated to
the contrary. The Copyright Office, which administers these
compulsory licenses, studied this issue exhaustively in 1997
and came to the same conclusion, which it reaffirmed in a
letter this week. The conference provisions to which you
object simply codify this well-established principle, nothing
more.
Compulsory licenses constitute government regulation of
private ownership, and therefore, like any other restriction
on property, must be extended only with specific
congressional action after considered deliberation. They are
not flexible, nor are they to be interpreted to evolve to
accommodate
[[Page 30717]]
new situations. Government regulation of property is not to
be decided by a court, but rather by Congress itself. Placing
restrictions on property or preserving an ``opportunity'' for
someone to make a case to an agency or court to take property
without authorization is not proper under the law, or is it
proper in the context of this conference.
A compulsory license is not an entitlement, but a specific
public policy determination by Congress in response to a
specific demonstrated need. Whether online services should
have the benefit of a compulsory license to retransmit
certain copyrighted materials without the permission of the
copyright owner must be considered on its own merits after a
need is demonstrated to the Congress. If Congress is to
examine such a request, it must do so on the basis of a
complete record, not in the haste of the closing hours of a
session. Of course, nothing that is included in or omitted
from the IPCORA conference report (or any other pending
legislation) could possibly foreclose Congress from
undertaking that examination in the future. Thus, any
implication that approval of the conference report would
``permanently'' rule out any compulsory license for online
services is unfounded. We are sure you did not intend to
suggest otherwise.
Any resolution that we may adopt in the future does not
change the current law which requires that issues concerning
the dissemination of copyright materials over digital online
communications services must be addressed and resolved in the
marketplace, as no compulsory license currently exists for
such services. Nothing prevents Internet services from
negotiating directly with owners of copyrights regarding any
of the exclusive rights guaranteed under section 106 of the
Copyright Act pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 8 of
the Constitution.
We are currently prepared to consider other means of
expressing the same conclusion in statutory language, but one
way or the other it is essential that we spell out
unambiguously what the law now is. To do otherwise would sow
confusion and risk encouraging defiance of the law, and would
undermine the well-settled property rights of a key sector of
the U.S. economy, the copyright industries. Most
significantly, it would also be a disservice to our common
goal of encouraging the widespread dissemination of
copyrighted material through all available technologies. We
stand ready to work with you to avoid that outcome.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman.
John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Democratic Member.
Howard Coble,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Howard Berman,
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property.
____
Library of Congress,
Department 17,
Washington, DC, November 10, 1999.
Hon. Howard Coble,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Coble. I am writing to you today
concerning pending proposals regarding the Satellite Home
Viewer Act, and particularly the compulsory copyright
licenses addressed by that Act. As the director of the
Copyright Office, the agency responsible for implementing the
compulsory licenses, I have followed the actions of the
Congress with great interest.
Let me begin by thanking you for all your hard work and
dedication on these issues, and by congratulating you on your
success in achieving a balanced compromise. Taken as a whole,
the Conference Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual Property
and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, represents a
clear step forward for the protection of intellectual
property. I particularly appreciate your support for
provisions that improve the ability of the Copyright Office
to administer its duties and protect copyrights and related
rights.
I was greatly concerned when I heard the statements of
Members on the floor of the House suggesting that in the
final few legislative days of this session, subsection
1011(c) of the Conference Report should be amended or
removed. Section 1011(c) makes unmistakable what is already
true, that the compulsory license for secondary transmissions
of television broadcast signals by cable systems does not
apply to digital on-line communication services.
It is my understanding that some services that wish to
retransmit television programming over the Internet have
asserted that they are entitled to do so pursuant to to the
compulsory license of section 111 of Title 17. I find this
assertion to be without merit. The section 111 license,
created 23 years ago in the Copyright Act of 1976, was
tailored to a heavily-regulated industry subject to
requirements such as must-carry, programming exclusivity, and
signal quota rules--issues that have also arisen in the
context of the satellite compulsory license. Congress has
properly concluded that the Internet should be largely free
of regulation, but the lack of such regulation makes the
Internet a poor candidate for a compulsory license that
depends so heavily on such restrictions. I believe that the
section 111 license does not and should not apply to Internet
transmissions.
I also question the desirability of permitting any existing
or future compulsory license for Internet retransmissions of
primary television broadcast signals. In my comprehensive
August 1, 1997 report to Congress, A Review of the Copyright
Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of Broadcast
Signals, Internet transmissions were addressed in chapter
VIII, entitled ``Should the Cable Compulsory License Be
Extended to the Internet?'' The report concluded that it was
inappropriate to ``besto[w] the benefits of compulsory
licensing on an industry so vastly different from the other
retransmission industries now eligible for compulsory
licensing under the Copyright Act.''
The report observed that ``Copyright owners, broadcasters,
and cable interests alike strongly oppose . . . arguments for
the Interest retransmitters' eligibility for any compulsory
license. These commenters uniformly decry that the
instantaneous worldwide dissemination of broadcast signals
via the Internet poses major issues regarding the United
States and international licensing of the signals, and that
it would be premature for Congress to legislate a copyright
compulsory license to benefit Internet retransmitters at this
time.'' The Copyright Office believes that there would be
serious international implications if the United States were
to permit statutory licensing of Internet transmission of
television broadcasts.
Therefore I urge that no action be taken to remove or alter
section 1011(c) of the Conference Report. At this point, to
do so could be construed as a statement that digital on-line
communication services are eligible for the section 111
license. Such a conclusion would be reinforced in light of
section 1011(a)(1), which replaces the term ``cable system''
in section 111 of Title 17 with the term ``terrestrial
system.'' In the absence of section 1011(c), section
1011(a)(1) might incorrectly be construed as implying a
broadening of the section 111 license to include Internet
transmissions.
The Internet is unlike any other medium of communication
the world has ever known. The application of copyright law to
that medium is of utmost importance, and I know that you have
personally invested a great deal of time and energy in recent
years to assure that a balance of interests is reached.
Permitting Internet retransmission of television broadcasts
pursuant to the section 111 compulsory license would pose a
serious threat to that balance.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any
assistance on this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
____
Harvard Law School,
Cambridge, MA, November 15, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Hatch and Hyde: I am writing to you to
express my views on a proposal to amend the cable and
satellite compulsory licenses in Sections 111 and 119 of the
Copyright Act. I have taught Copyright Law at Harvard Law
School, as well as Michigan and Minnesota, for over thirty-
five years and have written extensively and lectured
throughout the world on this area of the law. In addition, I
was very active in the legislative process that led to the
Copyright Act of 1976 and appointed by President Ford and
served as a Commissioner on the Commission for New
Technological Uses of Copyright Works (CONTU).
The Conference Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual
Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999,
included amendments to Sections 111 and 119 to state
explicitly that digital online communication services do not
fall within the definitions of ``satellite carrier'' and
``terrestrial system'' (currently ``cable system'') and,
therefore, are not eligible for either compulsory license. I
understand that Congress is currently considering deleting
these amendments or enacting legislation that would not
include them. I believe that the amendments were wholly
unnecessary and that the deletion or exclusion of them will
have no effect on the law, which is absolutely clear digital
online communication services are not entitled to the
statutory license under either Section 111 or Section 119 of
the Copyright Act.
[[Page 30718]]
A compulsory license is an extraordinary departure from the
basic principles underlying copyright law and a substantial
and significant encroachment on a copyright owners' rights.
Therefore, any embiguity in the applicability of a compulsory
license should be resolved against those seeking to take
advantage of what was intended to be a very narrow extension
to the copyright proprietor's exclusive rights. As the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals has noted in a case involving
another compulsory license: the compulsory license provision
is a limited exception to the copyright holder's exclusive
right to decide who shall make use of his [work]. As such, it
must be construed narrowly, lest the exception destroy,
rather than prove, the rule.
Fame Publishing Co. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc., 507 F.2d
667, 670 (5th Cir. 1975).
In this situation, however, there is absolutely no
ambiguity as to the correct construction of the cable and
satellite compulsory licenses. Neither the language of the
Copyright Act, nor any statement of Congressional intent at
the time of their enactment, nor any judicial interpretation
of Section III or Section 119 in any way suggests that these
compulsory licenses could apply to digital online
communication services. And, as far as I know. the
representative of these services have not offered any
substantive argument to the contrary--with good reason. No
reasonable person--or court--could interpret these statutory
licenses to embrace these services.
And if there was any doubt left in anyone's mind, the
federal agency charged with interpreting and implementing
these statutory licenses, the United States Copyright Office,
has addressed this issue directly: retransmitting broadcast
signals by way of the Internet is clearly outside the scope
of the current compulsory licenses. In fact, the Copyright
Office recommended in 1997 that Congress not even create a
new compulsory license, concluding that it would be
``inappropriate for Congress to grant Internet retransmitters
the benefits of compulsory licensing.'' See U.S. Copyright
Office. A Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering
Retransmission of Broadcast Signals (August 1, 1997), at 99
and Executive Summary at xiii.
My work in the field of copyright over the past decades,
especially my extensive activities in connection with the
development of the legislation that became the Copyright Act
of 1976, leads me to agree with the Office's conclusions that
it would be far too premature to extend a compulsory license
to the Internet. That conclusion seems sound given the
enormous differences between the Internet and the industries
embraced by the existing licensing provisions and the need to
engage in extensive research and analysis regarding the
potentially enormous implications of digital communications.
We simply do not know enough to legislate effectively at this
point. Doing so at this time--especially without hearing from
numerous affected interests--would create a risk of upsetting
the delicate balance between the rights of copyright
proprietors and the interests of others.
Thus, in any judicial action, that might materialize by
against the providers of digital online communications
services, the court would be bound by the Copyright Office's
interpretation of the statutory licenses. See Cablevision
Systems Development Co. v. Motion Picture Association of
America, Inc., 836 F.2d 599, 609-610 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
(deferring to the Copyright Office's interpretation of
Section 111, noting Congress grant of statutory authority to
the Copyright Office to interpret the Copyright Act, and the
Supreme Court's indication that it also would defer to the
Copyright Office's interpretation of the Copyright Act),
Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Assoc. v. Owens, 17
F.3d 344, 345 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that valid exercises
of the Copyright Office's statutory authority to interpret
the provisions of the compulsory licensing scheme are binding
on the court).
In summary, based on the unmistakable fact that digital
online communication services are ineligible for the cable
and satellite compulsory licenses and the identical,
unequivocal interpretation by the Copyright Office,
amendments to the existing statute reiterating this legal
truth are unnecessary. Consequently, the status quo with
respect to who is eligible for the statutory licenses will
remain undisturbed whether Congress deletes these amendments
from the pending legislation or excludes them from subsequent
legislation.
Respectfully yours,
Arthur R. Miller,
Bruce Bromley Professor of Law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 386, the previous question is ordered.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. OBEY. I think it is safe to say that I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R.
3194 to the Committee of Conference with instructions that
the House Managers not agree to any provisions which would
reduce or rescind appropriations for Veterans Medical Care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 219, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No 609]
YEAS--212
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--219
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
[[Page 30719]]
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Brady (TX)
Capps
Conyers
Wexler
{time} 1725
Messrs. GARY MILLER of California, MANZULLO, DREIER, CUNNINGHAM, and
Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LUTHER, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. McINTYRE, Mr. HILL of Indiana, Mr.
HILLIARD, Ms. CARSON, Messrs. DOGGETT, LaFALCE, and GREEN of Wisconsin,
and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296,
nays 135, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 610]
YEAS--296
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--135
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Burton
Campbell
Capuano
Carson
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coburn
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Doggett
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Etheridge
Filner
Ford
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McInnis
McIntyre
Meehan
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pombo
Pomeroy
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Simpson
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Waters
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wise
NOT VOTING--4
Brady (TX)
Capps
Conyers
Wexler
{time} 1736
Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to Section 2 of House
Resolution 386, House Concurrent Resolution 234 is considered as
adopted.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H. CON. RES. 173
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 173.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
[[Page 30720]]
____________________
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 83 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 83
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-62 is further amended by striking ``November 23,
1999'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof
``December 2, 1999'', and by striking ``$346,483,754'' in
section 119 and inserting in lieu thereof ``$755,719,054''.
Public Law 106-46 is amended by striking ``November 23,
1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 2, 1999''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.J. Res. 83 and that I may include tabular and
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment at the desk be agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
Strike ``November 23'' where it appears twice in the
resolution and insert in lieu thereof ``November 18''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object, I rise to allow the House to recognize a public servant who
for 21 years served this House, went into retirement 11 years ago and
when the House asked would Bob Berry please come back and help us
attend to the business of the House, Bob Berry came out of retirement
in a very difficult time and allowed this House to function as we would
like to function.
Bob Berry, the House owes to you our gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to explain both the amendment that
he is proposing and the resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The purpose of the amendment will address the
issue of the previous continuing resolution. The CR that we passed
earlier today would have authorized continuing appropriations from
today until November 23. Because of the concern in the Senate that they
may need a little extra time in dealing with this proposal and to give
the President sufficient time to adequately review the appropriations
agreement, this amendment would change the date from November 23 to
December 2 to today until December 2.
Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, would the gentleman
explain the amendment that strikes November 23 and inserts November 18?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. November 18 is today, and we are amending this
resolution so that it begins today and runs until December 2.
Mr. OBEY. So it is purely technical?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Purely technical. However, it does give
additional time to the Senate and provides additional time for the
President to use his full 10 days, if he so desires, to review this
legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, let me
simply take 10 seconds to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle
for all of the work that they have done. Even when that work sometimes
produces turkeys as a result, it is not the fault of the staff; it is
at the direction of the politicians themselves.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the gentleman
in that commendation of the appropriators and their staff, with our
clerk Jim Dyer and your clerk Scott Lilly, with the front office staff,
John Mikel and Chuck Parkinson and all of the members of the Committee
on Appropriations staff. When we finished at 2:00 or 3:00 in the
morning, they worked until 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning and they have
worked almost every weekend for the last 2 months. They have done a
really dynamic job, and I appreciate the gentleman raising that issue.
There are many more staff on the Committee on Appropriations that I
would like to now recognize for the excellent work that they do.
Committee on Appropriations
full committee staff
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director.
John R. Mikel, Staff Asst.
Charles R. Parkinson, Staff Asst.
Dale Oak, Staff Asst.
Elizabeth Morra, Communications Dir.
John Scofield, Deputy Communications Dir.
Diann Kane, Adm. Asst.
Tracey LaTurner, Adm. Aide.
Sandra Farrow, Adm. Aide.
Brian Mabry, Adm. Aide.
Theodore Powell, Office Asst.
Lawrence Boarman, Editor.
Catherine Edwards, Adm. Aide.
computer support
Kenneth M. Marx, Staff Asst.
Timothy J. Buck, Staff Asst.
Carrie Campbell, Staff Asst.
John J. Sivulich, Staff Asst.
agriculture subcommittee
Henry R. Moore, Staff Asst.
John Ziolkowski, Staff Asst.
Martin P. Delgado, Staff Asst.
Joanne L. Orndorff, Adm. Aide.
commerce, justice, state, judiciary subcommittee
James W. Kulikowski, Staff Asst.
Jennifer Miller, Staff Asst.
John M. Ringler, Staff Asst.
Cordia A. Strom, Staff Asst.
district of columbia subcommittee
Americo S. Miconi, Staff Asst.
legislative branch subcommittee
Edward E. Lombard, Staff Asst.
energy and water development subcommittee
James D. Ogsbury, Staff Asst.
Jeanne L. Wilson, Staff Asst.
Donald M. McKinnon, Staff Asst.
Melanie Marshall, Adm. Aide.
foreign operations subcommittee
Charles O. Flickner, Staff Asst.
John Shank, Staff Asst.
Christopher Walker, Staff Asst.
Lori Maes, Adm. Aide.
interior subcommittee
Deborah A. Weatherly, Staff Asst.
Loretta C. Beaumont, Staff Asst.
Joel Kaplan, Staff Asst.
Christopher Topik, Staff Asst.
Angelina Perry, Adm. Aide.
labor, hhs, education subcommittee
S. Anthony McCann, Staff Asst.
Robert L. Knisely, Staff Asst.
Carol A. Murphy, Staff Asst.
Susan Firth, Staff Asst.
Francine Salvador, Adm. Aide.
military construction subcommittee
Elizabeth C. Dawson, Staff Asst.
Brian L. Potts, Staff Asst.
Mary Arnold, Adm. Aide.
defense subcommittee
Kevin M. Roper, Staff Asst.
Elizabeth Phillips, Staff Asst.
David F. Kilian, Staff Asst.
Douglas M. Gregory, Staff Asst.
Tina W. Jonas, Staff Asst.
Patricia E. Ryan, Staff Asst.
Gregory J. Walters, Staff Asst.
Paul Juola, Staff Asst.
Alicia Jones, Staff Asst.
Steven Nixon, Staff Asst.
David L. Norquist, Staff Asst.
Jennifer Mummert, Adm. Aide.
Sherry Young, Adm. Aide.
transportation subcommittee
John T. Blazey, Staff Asst.
Richard E. Efford, Staff Asst.
Stephanie Gupta, Staff Asst.
[[Page 30721]]
Linda J. Muir, Adm. Aide.
treasury, postal service subcommittee
Michelle B. Mrdeza, Staff Asst.
Jeffrey Ashford, Staff Asst.
Robert A. Schmidt, Staff Asst.
Tammy S. Hughes, Adm. Aide.
va-hud subcommitte
Frank M. Cushing, Staff Asst.
Timothy L. Peterson, Staff Asst.
Valerie Baldwin, Staff Asst.
Dena Baron, Staff Asst.
minority staff
R. Scott Lilly, Minority Staff Director.
Gregory R. Dahlberg, Minority Staff Asst.
Delacroix Davis, Minority Staff Asst.
Patricia Schlueter, Minority Staff Asst.
David Reich, Minority Staff Asst.
William Stone, Minority Staff Asst.
Mark Murray, Minority Staff Asst.
Cheryl L. Smith, Minority Staff Asst.
Mark J. Mioduski, Minority Staff Asst.
Sally Chadbourne, Minority Staff Asst.
Thomas Forhan, Minority Staff Asst.
Edith Hardin, Minority Staff Asst.
Robert Bonner, Minority Adm. Aide.
Rebecca Greenberg, Minority Adm. Aide.
surveys and investigations staff
R.W. Vandergrift, Chief and Director.
Robert J. Reitwiesner, Deputy Director.
Robert Pearre, Assistant Director.
Sharon A. Cekala, Investigator.
Michael O. Glynn, Investigator.
Dennis K. Lutz, Investigator.
Noble Holmes, Investigator.
Doug Nosik, Investigator.
L. Michael Welsh, Investigator/Asst. Director.
Herman C. Young, Investigator/Asst. Director.
Ann M. Stull, Admin. Officer.
Victoria Decatur-Brodeur, Secretary.
Janes E. Graham, Secretary.
Regina L. Martinez, Secretary.
Johannah O'Keeffe, Secretary.
Tracey E. Russell, Secretary.
Joyce C. Stover, Secretary.
Mr. OBEY. Merry Christmas.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Happy Thanksgiving.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment is agreed to.
{time} 1745
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for debate has expired.
The joint resolution, as amended, is considered as having been read
for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and as read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution, as amended.
The joint resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON NATION'S ACHIEVEMENTS IN AERONAUTICS AND SPACE DURING FISCAL
YEAR 1998--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the
Committee on Science:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit this report on the Nation's achievements in
aeronautics and space during Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, as required under
section 206 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2476). Aeronautics and space activities involved 14
contributing departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and
the results of their ongoing research and development affect the Nation
in many ways.
A wide variety of aeronautics and space developments took place
during FY 1998. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) successfully completed five Space Shuttle flights. There were 29
successful Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launches in FY 1998. Of
those, 3 were NASA-managed missions, 2 were NASA-funded/Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed missions, 8 were Department of
Defense (DOD)-managed missions, and 16 were FAA-licensed commercial
launches. Scientists also made some dramatic new discoveries in various
space-related fields such as space science, Earth science, and remote
sensing, and life and microgravity science. In aeronautics, activities
included work on high-speed research, advanced subsonic technology, and
technologies designed to improve the safety and efficiency of our
commercial airlines and air traffic control system.
Close international cooperation with Russia occurred on the Shuttle-
Mir docking missions and on the ISS program. The United States also
entered into new forms of cooperation with its partners in Europe,
South America, and Asia.
Thus, FY 1998 was a very successful one for U.S. aeronautics and
space programs. Efforts in these areas have contributed significantly
to the Nation's scientific and technical knowledge, international
cooperation, a healthier environment, and a more competitive economy.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, November 18, 1999.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2699
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2699.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
____________________
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1180, TICKET
TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 387
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Social Security Act to expand
the availability of health care coverage for working
individuals with disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work
and Self-Sufficiency Program in the Social Security
Administration to provide such individuals with meaningful
opportunities to work, and for other purposes. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, H. Res. 387 would grant a rule waiving all points of
order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1180, the Ticket
to Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, and against its
consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report
shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1180 establishes
a ticket to work program for recipients of Social Security disability
benefits to seek vocational rehabilitation and employment services as
well as enabling those individuals to work while keeping their health
insurance. This legislation also creates new options for States to
allow disabled individuals to purchase Medicaid insurance.
The conference agreement also provides approximately $15.8 billion in
tax relief over 5 years, $18.4 billion over 10 years, by extending
certain tax credits. This tax extenders package includes renewal of
several expiring tax credit provisions, including the R&D tax credit,
the Work Opportunity Tax Credit,
[[Page 30722]]
and the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit as well as providing tax relief for
individuals and families by protecting at least 1 million families from
higher taxes over the next 3 years due to the AMT tax. Finally, the
measure includes approximately $2.6 billion in revenue offsets over the
next 5 years and $2.9 billion over the next 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member, for their
leadership in resolving the many complex issues contained in this
legislation and urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the
conference report itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said that human beings exhibit their
most creative potential when they are kindergarten age. Well, whoever
said that probably needs to spend a little time around here at the end
of a session. There is some very creative work being done.
Vexing problems which have been around for months and may be even
years are suddenly solved when the sand starts running out of the
Congressional hour glass, or they are suddenly turned into bargaining
chips. Witness what is happening with reproductive rights and the
payment of our UN debts.
Major issues which have languished unattended are addressed and then
tossed abroad whenever the legislative vehicle is leaving the station.
Meanwhile, many others, such as the bill of rights protecting people
from their HMOs or efforts to fight gun violence never get their
tickets punched.
But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, the American people want a Patients'
Bill of Rights, they want us to do better on gun violence, and they
will be watching when we return in the year 2000.
As for the rule which is currently before us, H. Res. 387, it
provides for the consideration of several disparate issues which have
been corralled under a single bill title.
Part A of the bill is the Work Incentives Improvement Act, a bill to
modernize our woefully outdated national disability policies.
When policies on Medicaid and other programs for the disabled were
first developed decades ago, having a disability often meant that an
individual is confined to home or an institution. Today, however, with
advances in technology, training, and rehabilitation, many individuals
with disabilities are allowed to hold good jobs and live very full
lives in the mainstream of society.
The Work Incentives Improvement Act will allow persons with
disabilities to continue receiving certain benefits, particularly
health coverage, while returning to work. The proposal also provides
for more State flexibility and serving individuals with disabilities
through health programs, associated services like transportation
assistance, and training.
This legislation does not benefit only persons with disabilities, it
also has major benefits for the Federal Government and the taxpayer. If
an additional one-half of 1 percent of the current Social Security
Disability and Supplemental Security Income recipients were to cease
receiving benefits as a result of employment, the savings and cash
assistance would total $3.5 billion over the worklife of the
individuals.
This worthy legislation was passed by the House overwhelmingly
earlier this year, and I expect it will enjoy similar support today.
Part B of the underlying bill is a collection of tax extenders. I am
pleased that this agreement includes a 5-year extension for research
and development tax credit. Science and technology are critical for our
future development, our knowledge about the world around us, and our
understanding of ourselves.
I have long been a strong supporter of incentives to encourage
businesses to invest in the development of new technologies and
products. Through its existence, the R&D tax credit has served as a
fundamental component of our Nation's competitiveness strategy by
increasing the amount of research undertaken by the private sector.
One key provision which I would have strongly supported had it been
allowed to remain in the bill would have entitled workers to better
pension benefits through what is known as section 415 of the tax code.
But, regrettably, this provision was left at the station.
In addition, the bill includes a delay in the implementation of rules
proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services to restructure
organ allocation in our Nation. While this delay is not likely to
please people on either side of this emotional issue, it should at
least allow the Congress to debate this matter more fully when we
return in January.
Mr. Speaker, my main regret on the legislation is that we are dealing
with what should have been several bills and are, instead, forced to
consider them as a single package. This approach limits debate and
prohibits many Members from exercising their right to discuss the
legislation. It is unfair and it is unnecessary. There is no reason why
these bills should not have been brought up earlier under open rules
with full debate. This is to say nothing of the many, many worthwhile
bills that are being pushed aside altogether in the majority's rush to
adjourn.
But we are coming back with renewed energy and commitment to passing
the Patients' Bill of Rights, increasing the minimum wage for working
families, and halting the violence and gunfire which threatens our
homes and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, this will be the final rule to be
considered this century. This is also the final rule of this
millennium. Those of us who serve on this important committee are
keenly aware of its historical and institutional role in this Congress
on behalf of the American people. Grounded by that tradition and
honored by the opportunity, we are thankful to the Members who have
gone before us, and we look forward to the new millennium and meeting
the challenges facing the American people in the 21st Century. I am
grateful for my colleagues on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)
for noting that this is the last rule of this millennium. From my
perspective, I had forgotten about that, and I thank the gentlewoman
for bringing it up.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
____________________
ELECTION OF MEMBER TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 391), and I ask
unanimous consent for its consideration in the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 391
Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is
hereby, elected to the following standing Committees of the
House of Representatives:
Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Science: Mr. Baca
of California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 30723]]
____________________
{time} 1800
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1180, TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Social
Security Act to expand the availability of health care coverage for
working individuals with disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work
and Self-Sufficiency Program in the Social Security Administration to
provide such individuals with meaningful opportunities to work, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution
387, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 17, 1999, at page H12174.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
General Leave
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative within which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the conference report H.R. 1180.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1180, the Ticket
to Work and Work Incentives Act, which also contains an important
package of tax relief for American workers and families.
First, let me discuss the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Act.
Most of those receiving disability benefits today, due to the severity
of their impairments, cannot attempt to work. Today, however, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, along with advances in technology,
medicine and rehabilitation, are opening doors of opportunity never
thought possible to individuals with disabilities. Now people can
telecommute to work. There are voice-activated computers. And, as
technology provides new ways to clear hurdles presented by a
disability, government must also keep pace by providing opportunity and
not just dependency. Government should be helping people to work, not
building barriers to independence and freedom.
This is one more victory in a string of health care achievements that
the Republican Congress has guided into law. We strengthened Medicare,
we made health insurance more portable, we passed tax breaks for long-
term health care and to cut health insurance costs for people who buy
their own health insurance, unfortunately, only to see all those vetoed
by the President. And now we have modernized a key program for people
with disabilities so that the Government is a help and not a hindrance.
Mr. Speaker, that is truly a record of achievement and progress.
Another significant victory is the tax relief package in this bill.
Because of our action, millions of families can now breathe easier
knowing they will not get hit with a surprise tax hike for the next 3
years because we fixed the alternative minimum tax. The AMT is a
perfect example of an out-of-control Tax Code. Under the AMT, taxpayers
are not allowed to claim the full child tax credit, the dependent care
tax credit, the Hope Scholarship tax credit, and other tax credits
which Congress passed to help Americans make ends meet. So the Tax Code
was giving on one hand while quickly taking away with the other. This
bill, today, fixes that for middle-income families, hundreds of
thousands of them, for the next 3 years.
This bill also helps American companies maintain their cutting edge
of research and development which will lead to new products, better
medicines and a higher standard of living for consumers because it
extends the most important R&D tax credit. For the first time in a long
while, we have extended the tax credit for 5 years instead of hand-to-
mouth year after year, on which no one can fully depend. Now businesses
can plan for the future.
Another significant achievement of this bill is that Congress
convinced the President that American taxpayers are paying too much and
deserve some of their money back. Yes, it is only a small portion, but
any amount of taxpayer funds that can be gotten out of Washington is
money that cannot be spent on making government bigger. And that is
exactly what this bill does.
This is one more achievement for a Congress that keeps delivering for
the American people. We have made historic progress in paying down the
debt, $140 billion alone in the last 2 years. We are locking away the
Social Security surplus so it cannot be spent on other things, and we
are working on a long-term plan to save Social Security for all time.
And now we have agreed to start returning a portion of the non-Social
Security surplus to the taxpayers who send it here, and that is real
progress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that on this last bill, that the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have worked on together, that we might
have found a more bipartisan tone than the one which the gentleman has
just expressed today.
The gentleman talks about the accomplishments and what has been done
for those people that are disabled as though his Democratic colleagues
did not join with him to make this bill all that it is. The President
presented this to the Congress and we worked together, and I agree that
we do have a good bill.
There are some things that the gentleman does not talk about, and I
expect that there is good reason for it. The gentleman has a delay here
for the President's program dealing with transportation network for
organ procurements, and the gentleman delays this from going into
effect. It is controversial; it has nothing to do with taxes, but
somehow the gentleman got that in there.
The gentleman has some other bill that came from the other side, a
contractor that deals with NOAA. It has nothing to do with taxes or the
disabled.
And then, when we get involved with taxes, the gentleman talked about
a Congress that produces. Well, I had hoped that we would not end on
this note; but the last I heard from the majority, they were pulling up
the Tax Code by the roots. True, that was 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 4,
3, 2, 1, and continuously counting down. The closest the other side
came to even dealing with the Tax Code, as I recall, was a $792 billion
tax cut that never even got off the ground. And if we were to just
weigh that bill, I hardly believe that even the staunchest conservative
Republican would say that it simplified the Tax Code.
Now, I would have to agree with the gentleman that on the expiring
provisions, the extensions of legislation that is existing law, that
the gentleman and I worked together not as a Democrat or a Republican,
but we worked together as tax writers, and with the help of the
administration we were able to get these provisions paid for. We were
able to put it in in a responsible way.
We could not stop all of the irresponsible things the other side
wanted to do, so some people might want to focus on how the Republicans
intend to make electricity out of chicken waste. But the gentleman
insisted on the provision, we have it here, and God bless. The
gentleman can join the wind and the closed-loop biomass, and if that is
the way the other side wants to spend the credits, they are the
majority and they can do it. But that is one of the things that we did
not want to be associated with.
But I agree with the gentleman on the other good provisions. What are
they? The extensions of existing law; to say that this Congress will
not be irresponsible and allow these provisions
[[Page 30724]]
to expire without doing the right thing.
So what I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
is that he has no idea the pleasure it has been working with him on
these positive things. And the only reason I stand up to point out some
differences with the gentleman is that I would appreciate the gentleman
not calling them Republican initiatives. The good ones are the
bipartisan initiatives; the bad ones belong to the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to say that I think that it is unfortunate that the gentleman
from New York has sought to try to, through his rhetoric, create some
degree of partisanship. I would have liked to have given him far more
credit on this bill. Much of what is in here are things that he wanted,
but he would not sign the conference report. And, frankly, that does
take away from bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad), a member of the committee.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I also thank him for his strong leadership on this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important bill. Helping
people with disabilities live up to their full potential has been a top
priority of mine ever since being elected to Congress, in fact, 10
years before as a State senator as well. I also strongly support the
tax extender provisions in this bill.
I must say that I was disappointed, however, that the administration
insisted that an important revenue-raising provision be dropped from
the final agreement. This provision was based on legislation I
sponsored, H.R. 3082, which was cosponsored by a strong bipartisan
majority on the Committee on Ways and Means. This legislation would
have protected employees' stock ownership plans, ESOPs for S-
corporation workers by preventing the abuse of tax rules that help them
build retirement savings and equity in their company. But
unfortunately, the administration wanted to impose a draconian scheme
that would have effectively killed ESOPs; would have killed this
savings opportunity for thousands of American workers.
Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the bipartisan support for S-corporation ESOPs in Congress on the
Committee on Ways and Means and in the full body, the administration's
misguided proposal was soundly rejected in negotiations over this
extenders package, and for that I am grateful. This was a victory for
American workers and a victory for boosting America's dangerously low
savings rate.
Although these ESOPs S-Corporation legislation was not enacted in
this bill this session, I am pleased that Congress resisted the
administration's plan to dismantle ESOPs, because they are highly
effective retirement savings programs.
We are going to be back with this next year, and again I thank the
chairman for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill before us. Helping
people with disabilities live up to their full potential has been one
of my top priorities even since I was first elected to public office.
I also strongly support the important tax extender provisions which
will save families from being unfairly penalized by the Alternative
Minimum Tax and will keep U.S. businesses competitive, innovative and
job-creating.
I was disappointed the Administration insisted that an important
revenue-raising provision be dropped from the final agreement. This
provision was based on legislation I introduced (H.R. 3082) which is
cosponsored by a strong bipartisan majority of the Ways and Means
Committee.
H.R. 3082 would protect employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) for S
corporation workers by preventing the abuse of tax rules that help them
build retirement savings and equity in their company. But
unfortunately, the Administration wanted to impose a draconian scheme
that would have effectively killed this savings opportunity for
thousands of American workers.
Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Archer and the bipartisan
support for S corporation ESOPs in Congress, the Administration's
misguided proposal was soundly rejected in negotiations over this
extenders package. That was a victory for American workers, and a
victory for boosting America's dangerously low savings rate.
Although H.R. 3082 was not enacted in this session, I am pleased
Congress resisted the Administration's plan to dismantle these ESOPs,
which are a highly effective retirement savings program. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how long I have waited, along with many
of my friends with disabilities in Minnesota, for this day. As many of
my colleagues know, I have been working hard to help people with
disabilities live up to their full potential since my election to this
body in 1990, and as a Minnesota State Senator ten years prior. In
fact, in 1993, Rep. Pete Stark and I introduced legislation to achieve
the same goal we seek today.
As I have reminded my colleagues before, it was nine years ago that
many of us enacted the ADA. It was nine long years ago that president
Bush signed it into law and said, ``Many of our fellow citizens with
disabilities are unemployed. They want to work and they can work . . .
this is a tremendous pool of people who will bring to jobs diversity,
loyalty, low turnover rate, and only one request: the chance to prove
themselves.''
Mr. Speaker, despite the remarkably low unemployment rate in this
country today, many of those with disabilities are still asking for
this change to prove themselves in the workplace.
Despite all the good that the ADA has done to date, there is still
room for improvement. The ADA did not remove all the barriers within
current federal programs that prohibit people with disabilities from
working. It's time to eliminate work disincentives for people with
disabilities!
Eliminating work disincentives for people with disabilities is not
just humane public policy, it is sound fiscal policy. It's not only the
right thing to do; it's the cost-effective thing to do!
Discouraging people with disabilities from working, earning a regular
paycheck, paying taxes and moving off public assistance actually
results in reduced federal revenues.
People with disabilities have to make decisions based on financial
reality. Should they consider returning to work or even making it
through vocational rehabilitation, the risk of losing vital federal
health benefits often becomes too threatening to future financial
stability. As a result, they are compelled not to work. Given the sorry
state of present law, that's generally a reasonable and rational
decision.
We must transform these federal programs into spring-boards to the
workforce for people with disabilities. This important bill does just
that.
As I have said many times, preventing people from working runs
counter to the American spirit, one that thrives on individual
achievements and the larger contributions to society that result.
I implore my colleagues to vote for this important legislation before
us today!
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and would just like to say to the chairman that I understand that my
signature was expected at midnight last night, and I am sorry I could
not be with him, because then the gentleman might have treated me more
gently this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It contains some very
important provisions. I want to applaud the Clinton administration for
the initiative and bringing forward the Ticket to Work legislation. It
removes impediments from disabled individuals being able to return to
work. It will save us money. If we get people off of disability to
work, as they want to work, this legislation is very important.
Secondly, the tax extenders are very important. We all want to extend
the tax provisions that would otherwise expire, whether it be for
research and development or some of the other provisions that are in
the bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, I must express my concern about a provision that
was added that deals with the fair allocation of organs that would
block HHS's regulation in this area. I believe that that provision will
jeopardize the health of critically ill patients, and it is also
inconsistent with our last vote on the budget omnibus bill.
[[Page 30725]]
The HHS regulation went through a process. It listened to the public;
it listened to the Institute of Medicine and came forward with
recommendations that tries to take geographical politics out of organ
distribution and do it to people who are the most critically in need.
{time} 1815
I hope we can follow the compromise that was in the last bill because
that was a fair compromise that was reached that requires HHS to go out
and listen and explain the regulations to the public. It is
inconsistent with the provisions that are in this bill.
I hope that HHS will not have to follow the language because it is
inconsistent with the last bill because, otherwise, I think we are
going to jeopardize the health of the critically-ill individuals.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Lazio).
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, for his fine work and for his leadership in getting
this to the floor. Let me thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley), the chairman of my committee, for holding hearings immediately
and being the first to actually move the Work Incentives Improvement
Act.
This has been a remarkable achievement. I think there are many who
believe that we would never get to this day. But, in fact, we are here.
I want to thank people on both sides of the aisle, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) for working in a bipartisan fashion on the
Work Incentives Improvement Act.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have the privilege of taking the most
significant stride forward for rights of disabled people since the
Americans with Disabilities Act. We are addressing the next great
frontier when it comes to fully integrating disabled Americans into
society, giving them the same economic opportunities that the rest of
us enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, many Americans with disabilities rely on Federal health
care and social services, assistance that makes it possible for them to
lead independent and productive lives. But, unbelievably, we condition
this assistance on their destitution. People with disabilities must get
poor and stay poor if they are going to retain their health care
benefits. They have got to choose between working and surviving.
That is why I introduced the Work Incentives Improvement Act, and
that is why we have over 250 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle to
end this perverse system of allowing Americans with disabilities to
enter the workforce without endangering their health care coverage.
Mr. Speaker, a 1998 Harris survey found that 72 percent of Americans
with disabilities want to work, but the fact remains that only one-half
of one percent of dependent disabled Americans successfully move to
work. Each percentage point of Americans moving to work represents
80,000 Americans who want to pay all or part of their own way but
cannot; 80,000 Americans who are forced by a poorly designed system to
sit on the sidelines while American businesses clamor for qualified
workers.
This bill, in the end, Mr. Speaker, is about empowering people,
people like a 39-year-old Navy veteran from my district who used to
work on Wall Street and hoped to become a stockbroker but an accident
in 1983 left him a quadriplegic. And even though he requires assistance
for even the most basic daily activities, he never gave up on his
dream. And 10 years after his accident, he passed the grueling
stockbroker licensing exam. But, like most disabled Americans, he
cannot afford to lose his health care benefits. If it were not for the
current Federal rules, he would be a practicing, taxpaying stock broker
today.
The Work Incentives Improvement Act ends this injustice. It rips down
bureaucratic walls that stand between people with disabilities and a
paycheck. It is important to remember that a paycheck means a lot more
than just money. For a disabled American or any American, it means
self-sufficiency. It means pride in a job well done. It means dignity.
Mr. Speaker, we have come a long, long way since the time when
Americans with disabilities were shunted off to the farthest corners of
our communities. Many Americans have been waiting for us to give them a
chance to pursue the American dream. Today let us tell them that the
wait is over. Let us get the Work Incentives Improvement Act passed
today.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the disability provisions of this act are
really important and are going to make a difference in the lives of
many. But I want to talk about two other provisions that will make our
country more prosperous, and that is the R&D tax credit and Section 127
of the Tax Code.
Our party's position, the Democratic position, as stated by our
leader is that the R&D tax credit should be permanent. This 5-year
extension is really in the right direction. I am happy to support it.
But next year we are going to go for permanent.
On 127, I was so pleased that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the ranking member, has taken so much time to work on this. It
is important that we support employer-supported tuition reimbursement
plans. In this day and age, when the best educated workforce means they
will be competitive, encouraging employers to help employees to
continue their education is essential.
Again, I am happy to support this extension, and I look forward to
extending this to graduate education. I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) whose understanding and support of high-tech issues
in this bill comes through loud and clear. He really followed through
on the commitments he made when he came and visited Silicon Valley and
really understood the issue of competitiveness and technology and
education.
So kudos to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his
wonderful work. I look forward to taking both of these provisions just
a little bit farther in the next Congress.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do want to just correct a statement made by
the prior speaker when she described their efforts to extend
permanently the R&D tax credit.
We can tell our colleagues from negotiations that Mr. Summers, the
Treasury Secretary, vehemently opposed that permanent extension. So
that, if that is the position of the party, we would like the Secretary
of the Treasury to be informed of that position so that it would be
much easier for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to
accomplish something he tried to do at the very outset of
deliberations.
I want to also suggest to my colleagues how proud I am to stand up
and support this bill. Credits to Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions,
minimum tax relief for individuals, permitting full use of personal
nonrefundable credits, welfare-to-work tax credits, work opportunity
tax credits, a number of initiatives that I think will stimulate the
economy, continue us on our road to prosperity, continue to see
additional revenues to the Treasury so we can continue to reduce the
debt of the American taxpayers to increase and enhance investment in
America.
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, for seeing this bill to the successful
conclusion. Especially, I would like to note the ticket-to-work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.
So oftentimes some of our vulnerable citizens in society who have
been stricken by illnesses and ailments have been unable to make the
required choice of whether to stay employed and then forgo, if you
will, the Social Security, the Medicare-Medicaid provisions.
[[Page 30726]]
This bill now makes an attempt, to allow those capable and able
individuals to be in the workforce, continue those vital health
insurance needs provided by Medicaid and Medicare, and allow them to be
productive, taxpaying citizens.
So I applaud the bill and I urge Members to vote for passage of this
bill as it comes to the floor.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the former
chairman and now ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, my friend
and distinguished colleague.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) for his kindness to me.
We take one step forward and one back. The bipartisan agreement on
organ allocations was reached during negotiations between Labor, HHS
and on that appropriations bill.
The revised regulation would not become final until 42 days after
enactment, sufficient time to enable the comments on the revisions and,
if necessary, to make further modifications. Now we are witnessing an
end run by opponents to this proposal with regard to organ allocation
policy.
The legislation before us contains a moratorium of 90 days on any
allocation regulation. This delay has a huge cost. The regulation calls
for broader organ sharing. This is consistent with the conclusion of
the National Academy of Sciences, which studied the allocation system.
HHS has stated that approximately 300 lives per year could be saved
through broader sharing. The math is simple. There is a difference
between a 42-day delay and a delay of almost 90 days.
Two more points to be made. First, blocking HHS oversight amounts to
privatization of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures attributable to
organ transplants. If my colleagues want to privatize Medicare, let
them do it in the open and proper fashion.
Second, blocking HHS oversight continues the proliferation of State
organ allocation statutes, at least 12 by last count. That is directly
in conflict with the current allocation criteria and with good sense.
The same Members who decry political or bureaucratic involvement in
organ allocation policy when they have HHS in mind are stunningly
silent when politicians and bureaucrats involved in this are State
officials.
A lack of leadership on the issue is creating immense fragmentation
of organ allocation policies, just the opposite direction of where IOM
said the allocation policies should go.
In like fashion, the Work Incentives Act of 1999 is a large step in
the correct fashion. It will ensure that the disabled no longer have to
choose between health care and their jobs. The bill also includes a
demonstration project to provide health coverage to people who have
serious conditions but are not fully disabled, these people who have
multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy. This would enable them to remain
as working members of society.
Thanks to hard work and dedication on the part of the administration
and the disability community, additional funding has been secured for a
very important project here.
During the past few weeks, controversy has swirled around proposed
offsets in the bill. Parties from both sides have agreed to remove some
of the most contentious payfors. However, I have heard objections from
many of my constituents about two offsets that remain, a provision to
change the way that students loans are financed and a tax on payments
to attorneys who represent Social Security claimants.
Although I am going to vote for this bill, I have substantial
concerns for these offsets. And, very truthfully, the things that are
done here are wrong.
The Work Incentives Act has overcome many obstacles in its
legislative history. The bill is on the floor today because it is based
on good policy and because it will make a difference of lives of people
with disabilities. For that reason, I support it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about work. Its goal is to help
individuals with disabilities work and support themselves and support
their families.
Today only three in ten adults with disabilities work, compared with
eight in ten adults without disabilities. A big reason is Government
programs take away cash and medical benefits if disabled individuals
find and keep jobs. That must change. And it will change under this
bill that is before us today.
No one should be afraid of losing benefits if they do the right thing
and try to work. We should reward and help especially those who
struggle to overcome their disabilities. That is why we are offering
the new tickets disability individuals can use to obtain whatever
services they need in order to work.
But we do not stop there. We extend health care coverage for a total
of 8\1/2\ years so that no one has to fear losing their medical
coverage if they go to work.
Some may still not risk going to work for fear of having to wait
months or even years to get back on the benefits if their health begins
to once again decline. So we ensure disabled individuals can quickly
get back onto the rolls if they try to work but their health
deteriorates.
That is the right kind of safety net, one that encourages work and
protects those who need help along the way. From providing more help,
finding and keeping a job, ensuring health care coverage, to
strengthening the safety net to those who cannot stay on the job, this
legislation does the right thing. This is another historic step to
ensure that everyone can know the dignity that comes with work.
I urge all Members to support this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress owes a debt of gratitude to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Lazio) and to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman). Thanks largely to their efforts, we have an opportunity to do
something right. I wish I could say that more often.
We owe a debt of gratitude especially to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) under whose
leadership proponents of this legislation managed to defend repeated
attempts to emasculate it.
Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to President Clinton. The
President and his exceptional health team have demonstrated their
commitment to the goals of this bill in a number of ways, lending their
assistance again and again as this arduous process moved forward.
The idea behind the bill is simple. If individuals want to work, let
us help them work. For many disabled individuals, the ability to work
hinges on reliable health care. Yet, under current law, work means
losing access to that care. By providing continued access to Medicare
and Medicaid, the Work Incentives Improvement Act enables individuals
to leave the disability roles and go back to work.
H.R. 1180 taps into the tremendous human potential that all of us
have and takes us closer to a time where equal opportunity for disabled
people is no longer an objective, it is a fact.
Nothing is perfect. This bill could have been much closer to that
ideal if the Republican leadership had not co-opted it with a self-
serving moratorium on the organ allocation bill. And there is a user
fee provision that may reduce the number of attorneys willing to
represent disabled clients. It is not a particularly well thought out
provision. But overall, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a victory for the
disabled and a much needed reminder that American values are, in fact,
intact.
[[Page 30727]]
I ask for support of the bill.
{time} 1830
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee
on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I want to comment briefly on two parts of this
bill. First of all, it is really a joy to know that people in my
district who suffer from physical or mental disabilities and who want
to work and are capable of work but cannot work because of fear of
losing their health coverage are going to be able to work. And as the
Christmas holidays approach and they are offered longer hours, I know
that they are going to be able to realize their dream of being a real
part of the work team at their place of business. It is really a
wonderful thing that we have done in this bill, to enable Americans
simply to realize the opportunity of self-fulfillment that work offers.
But I also want to mention one other thing. How do we foster
invention? Lots of times, we ask ourselves, how do we assure that there
will be a strong economy for our children? In this bill is one of the
keys. For the first time ever, we make the research and development tax
credit in place and law for 5 years. Our goal is permanence, but we
have never had 5 years. This will enable companies to plan and enable
them to invest at a pace and at dimensions of dollars that we have
never seen before. That drives new products. That drives state-of-the-
art inventions. That drives economic leadership. And that drives good
jobs, high-paying jobs, and a successful America.
I want to personally congratulate the gentleman from Texas for his
dedication to the R&D tax credit that would be longstanding enough to
foster the kind of growth and invention, support for an entrepreneurial
economy that this R&D tax credit will achieve. I know that he would
have preferred permanence as many of us would have. But this is a
tremendous breakthrough. It is a real tribute to the gentleman from
Texas and his dedication and to this Congress that we have extended the
R&D tax credit for 5 years.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I guess I would like to focus on the dignity
that this bill gives to many Americans who simply want a chance. I
thank the ranking member. I thank the chairman of this committee. I
could quarrel with the process in some of the extenders that we will
also be including, but I want to respond with a focus on one of my
constituents who saw me in the Heights, an area of my district in
Houston, and spoke about her son. We were at a memorial giving tribute
to those who had served in the military who lived in the Heights area.
After the program, she came up and said, ``What is the progress, when
will you pass the Work Incentives Improvement Act? My son wants to be
independent. My son wants to get on his feet. My son who is disabled
simply wants to have his day in the sun.''
And so this particular bill is of great relief to her and her family.
It is a ticket to work and self-sufficiency program. And in fact over
the years that I have been in Congress, I have enjoyed meeting with
some of the physically and mentally disabled or challenged who have
come to my office and have asked simply to be allowed to work and then
not to lose their health benefits. That is their greatest crisis. In
order for them not to be dependent, they need to have this kind of
support system. I support this effort that would expand beneficiaries'
access to public and private vocational rehabilitation providers and to
employment service providers acting as employment networks under the
program, and I support particularly the aspect of this bill that allows
the disabled to go off and work and then, for example, if there is a
problem, they still have the ability to come back within a 60-month
period and get the benefits that they need without filing a new
application. This is long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this important measure that both
allows disabled persons to retain their federal health benefits after
they return to work along and authorizes extensions for several tax
provisions.
The conference report on H.R. 1180, Work Incentives Improvement Act
is a true measure of bipartisan efforts and includes a compromise
version of the original House and Senate bills. This bill would
establish the ``Ticket to Work and Self-sufficiency Program'' that
would expand beneficiaries' access to public and private vocational
rehabilitation providers and to employment service providers acting as
employment networks under the Program.
This bill will allow disabled individuals to receive an expedited
reinstatement of benefits if they lose their benefits due to work
activity. Disabled individuals would have 60 months after their
benefits were terminated during which to request a reinstatement of
benefits without having to file a new application. It is imperative
that we protect these disabled individuals, and this bill would provide
provisional benefits for up to six months while the Social Security
Administration determines these requests for reinstatement.
In addition to allowing disabled persons to retain their federal
health benefits after they return to work, this bill also includes
extensions of various tax provisions, many of which are scheduled to
expire at the end of this year. The conference agreement provides
approximately $15.8 billion in tax relief over five years ($18.4
billion over 10 years) by extending certain tax credits.
More specifically, this measure extends the Research and Development
tax credit for five years (this credit would be expanded to include
Puerto Rico and possessions of the United States), the Welfare-to-Work
and Work Opportunity tax credits for 30 months, and the Generalized
System of Preferences through September 30, 2001. Finally, the measure
includes approximately $2.6 billion in revenue offsets over five years
($2.9 billion over 10 years).
This bill also delays the effective date of the organ procurement and
transplantation network final rule. This rider provides people with
more time to comment on the rule and for the Secretary to consider
these comments. Our organ distribution system requires changes to
create a more national system, to diminish the enormous waiting times,
and to ensure that those people who are suffering the most receive help
in time. The late, great Walter Payton's sorrowful death is just
another sad reminder that far too many people in need of organs are
trapped on waiting lists.
Finally, the bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to continue existing contracts for its multi-year
program for climate database modernization and utilization.
This measure clearly is important to the American people on many
fronts. It is imperative that we pass this important piece of
legislation. It is a sign that we are unified on both sides of the
aisle, and it proves to the American public that we have put their
needs above political posturing.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1180,
the Work Incentives Improvement Act. I want to express my sincere
appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We have heard much talk this
evening about tax credits for R&D and the like and those are very
important. But when I read this bill and I listen to the conversations,
I hear freedom. I hear freedom for 5 million people who right now are
confined or constrained because the law does not allow them to maintain
their health benefits.
Mr. Speaker, if I could say one thing that just sends me home here
soon with a light heart, it is that at the end of the 20th century as
we did at the end of the 18th century, for over 5 million Americans
this bill lets freedom ring. It lets them compete and participate. I
applaud my colleagues.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999. First and foremost I say to my committee
chairman and ranking minority member that the
[[Page 30728]]
provisions here on the extenders is one that is going to be of great
assistance and help to be able to continue moving the economy forward.
The R&D for 5 years is a great need for business and industries that do
a lot of research.
I would like to bring out a couple of things that are not
highlighted, but I have had a chance of working personally with a
number of individuals concerning this. One, the conference agreement
would provide a 2-year open season beginning January 1 for clergy to
revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. This is something
that a lot of ministers, and I have been associated with a lot of them
through the fact that my former father-in-law was a minister, he is
deceased now, but it is something I know he was concerned about back
years ago.
The other provision is even a little closer. My wife and I have had
our home available, licensed for foster children over the years; and I
have worked with a lot of foster children. In this bill we have had a
simplification of the definition of foster child under the earned
income credit program. It provides for the simplification. Under this
particular provision, a foster child would be defined as a child who is
cared for by the taxpayer as if he or she were the taxpayer's own
child; two, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for
the taxpayer's entire taxable year; and, three, either is the
taxpayer's brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister or descendant,
including an adopted child, of any such relative.
This is something that has been focused. I do not know if any of you
have ever tried to work with a lot of the situation dealing with foster
children, but it is a very cumbersome problem. This will help eliminate
that.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments by just again
praising the leadership of our committee's chairman for his efforts in
putting together this good package that we are voting on today, a
package that deserves bipartisan support, as well as the good ranking
member for his efforts in making this a bipartisan effort today.
Mr. Speaker, this is a big victory for a lot of folks back home. The
disabled are big winners with the ticket to work provisions in this
bill, legislation that helps the disabled enter the workforce and keep
their health care benefits. I really want to commend the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for his hard work and efforts on this.
It is also a victory for the taxpayers. This Congress said no to the
President's $238 billion in tax increases. This Congress said no to the
President's plan to raid the Social Security Trust Fund by $340
billion. I do want to express my biggest disappointment for this year
and that is when the President vetoed our efforts to help 28 million
married working couples when the President vetoed our efforts to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
This legislation is good legislation. It helps folks back home in
Illinois. There are three provisions I would like to highlight. Of
course, the 5-year extension of the research and development tax
credit. That is so important in Illinois, a multiyear commitment to
providing this incentive for research into cancer, research into
biotechnology, to increase food productivity, to increase the
opportunity to grow our new economy, particularly in high technology
since Illinois ranks fourth in technology. I also would note that
Puerto Rico is included with this extension of the R&D tax credit,
extension of the work opportunity tax credit.
We want welfare reform to work. If we want welfare reform to work, of
course we want to ensure that there is a job for those on welfare. The
work opportunity tax credits help contribute to a 50 percent reduction
in the welfare rolls in Illinois. We extend it for 2\1/2\ years.
Third and last, I want to note the brownfields tax incentive, a
provision that many of us worked on to include in the 1997 budget act.
This is successfully working. Of course we extend it. I would point out
that the district I represent on the South Side of Chicago, that the
former Republic Steel property, the largest brownfield in Illinois, the
largest new industrial park in Illinois benefited from this brownfields
tax incentive. This is good legislation, and it deserves bipartisan
support.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from Texas for the
courtesies he has extended to me. While we have had major policy
differences, he has always been a gentleman, he has been fair, he has
been honest, and above all he has been sincere. I want to thank Mr.
Singleton and the entire majority staff as well as Janice Mays. We have
probably one of the best staffs in the House and they have worked hard
and they have worked with us.
While it is my opinion that we did not accomplish too much in this
first year, I look forward to working with the gentleman side by side,
hand in hand to see what we can do to restore confidence in the Social
Security system, the Medicare system, and see what we can do about
prescription drugs.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
thank the gentleman for his comments. We have much work to do next
year, where we can work hopefully together on a strong bipartisan basis
on Social Security, trade issues, and many other issues before our
committee.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a provision relating
to the rum cover over provision for Puerto Rico. The House-Senate
conference agreement calls for an increase in the rum cover over for
Puerto Rico from the current level of $10.50 to $13.25. It is my
understanding that by an agreement between the Administration and the
Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Pedro Rossello, one-sixth of the
$2.75 increase in the rum cover over to Puerto Rico will be dedicated
to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust, a private, nonprofit section
501(c)(3) organization operating in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico
Conservation Trust was created for the protection of natural resources
and environmental beauty of Puerto Rico and was established pursuant to
a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior
and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico dated December 24, 1968.''
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this
legislation even though it is not paid for because added to the Ticket
To Work program are important ``must pass'' tax provisions vital to all
our constituents.
The most important provision in this bill is the extension of the
current waiver of the alternative minimum tax rules affecting
nonrefundable personal credits. Without enactment of this provision,
next April approximately 1 million taxpayers will find they owe more
money to the federal government than they thought, for an average
``stealth'' tax increase of about $900 each. Millions more will have to
though the alternative minimum tax calculations, which can take 5 or 6
hours, just to find out they don't owe any more money.
In 1997 Congress approved new credits for children, and for
education. We promised our constituents that the federal government
would help them with these responsibilities. However, we subjected
these credits to the alternative minimum tax. The result is that more
and more middle income Americans will be forced into the AMA by our
actions--and we will rightly get the blame.
So now we have to fix it. This bill does that for 3 years. But what
we really need to do is to fix this problem permanently, because no
middle income American should ever by subject to the alternative
minimum tax calculation simply because they decided to send their kids
to college.
Mr. Speaker, other members may focus their remarks regarding taxes on
the research and development tax credit, or the Subpart F extension, or
employer provided educational assistance. All important items. But not
items that drive this bill--what is of paramount importance is the AMA
fix, and I am pleased that we are finally taking steps to fix this for
the immediate future.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regret to oppose what is being
called the ``Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act
Conference Report.'' This title would never pass the ``Truth in
Labeling'' test if it were on a box of food, but you can get still away
with such falsehoods here in Congress--especially in the waning hours
of the session.
[[Page 30729]]
The reason for my regret is that I have worked much of the year to
encourage passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act here in the
House. This legislation is vitally important for disabled individuals.
Our current system--which actively discourages disabled people from
returning to the workforce--simply makes no sense. Allowing disabled
people to maintain their health insurance through Medicare when they
return to work is something that should have always been law, not
something we are finally doing today.
I support that component of this bill which we are here considering
today. I am unhappy that it has been weakened from the version that
originally passed the House. In that bill, we would have given disabled
individuals the ability to keep their Medicare health insurance for 10
years, while the bill before us today only extends that coverage for
8\1/2\ years. But, there is no question that this would be a
significant improvement from the status quo.
However, there is much more to this bill than the title would
suggest. Through late night negotiations, this bill changed. In
addition to the provisions relating to the Work Incentive Improvement
Act, the bill includes two completely unrelated provisions. The first
of these is a 90-day moratorium preventing the Secretary of Health and
Human Services from implementing a regulation to improve our organ
allocation program in the U.S. Also included is a package of tax
extenders that is not fully paid for.
The moratorium on the organ allocation regulation is especially
egregious. The regulation is a product of negotiations with the
transplant community, patients, and the general public and ensures the
sickest patients get organs first--instead of basing life and death
decisions on geography.
Republicans included this same 90-day delay of the HHS organ
allocation regulations in legislation earlier this year. The President
vetoed that bill and cited the organ allocation moratorium as ``a
highly objectionable provision.'' After that veto, Congressional budget
negotiators and the White House agreed to permit the HHS organ
allocation rule to go into effect after a 42-day consultation period.
Yet only a few days later, they have decided to renege on that
agreement.
Congress has already delayed the HHS rules for over a year--
permitting the Institute of Medicine (IoM) to study the current system.
The IoM report strongly validates the HHS regulations by calling for
broader sharing of organs and for HHS to exercise its ``legitimate
oversight responsibilities.'' Twelve patients die every day while
awaiting an organ transplant under the current system. The fact of the
matter is this moratorium is a pork barrel project for members of
Congress who either represent the federal contractor, or small
transplant centers with poorer outcomes who stand to lose under the new
regulations. The Secretary's regulation will save lives. This
moratorium will cause people to die. Which side do you think is right?
Just like every other bill the Republicans have tried to push through
this Congress, the tax extender provisions in the bill give big tax
breaks to big business. It includes tens of millions of rifle-shot
give-aways to GE--certainly not one of the neediest taxpayers in this
country. It also spends $13 billion to give corporations money for
research. Most companies would conduct research on their own regardless
of whether or not taxpayers foot the bill. Do you really think that
corporations like Schering-Plough would have halted research for their
highly profitable drug Claritin if Congress had denied a research tax
credit? Companies must conduct research in order to create profits.
They don't need tax incentives from Congress to make a profit.
In addition, this bill throws money to the wind through the highly
unsuccessful windmill tax credit. There are windmills up and down the
highways of California in hopes that they might produce effective forms
of electricity. Once again, we're extending $3 billion in tax breaks to
energy companies so that they can continue pouring money into a lofty
goal. Coupled with this tax break is one that will provide tax
incentives to energy companies who can produce energy from poultry
droppings. Why stop at energy? We should give them tax incentives to
produce gold from chicken droppings!
Because of these unrelated provisions that were snuck into an
otherwise very worthy bill, I am forced to vote against this bill
today.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1180, the
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. As Chairman of the Committee
on Science, I would like to highlight a provision of the bill that is
particularly important to our nation's research base: the Research and
Development Tax Credit (R&D tax credit).
H.R. 1180 includes the longest ever extension of the R&D tax credit.
While I support a permanent extension of the R&D credit, this five-year
extension is a step in the right direction. As federal discretionary
spending for R&D is squeezed, incentives must be used to maximize
private sector innovation and maintain our global leadership in high-
tech, high-growth industries that help keep our economy the strongest
in the world.
A long-term extension of the credit will aid the research community
by creating incentives for private industry to fund research projects.
Congress has extended the R&D Tax Credit repeatedly over a period of 18
years. The credit again lapsed on June 30th of this year. This five-
year extension will put an end to the start-and-stop approach that has
characterized this extension process.
A 1998 Coopers & Lybrand study found that U.S. companies would spend
$41 billion more (in 1998 dollars) on R&D as a result of extending the
credit. This in turn would lead to greater innovation from additional
R&D investment and would begin to improve productivity almost
immediately, adding more than $13 billion a year to the economy's
productive capacity by the year 2010. The Coopers & Lybrand report went
on to note that the R&D tax credit would ultimately pay for itself.
``In the long run,'' the report states, ``$1.75 of additional tax
revenue (on a present value basis) would be generated for each dollar
the government spends on the credit, creating a win-win situation for
both taxpayers and the government.''
Last year, the Science Committee released a National Science Policy
Study entitled Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science
Policy. The Unlocking Our Future is the most comprehensive study of
federal science policies ever conducted by Congress. And the full House
passed a resolution adopting its recommendations. One of the study's
primary recommendations was the permanent extension of the R&D tax
credit. I am pleased that the House today is taking a concrete step
toward enacting the study's recommendations.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1180,
the conference report on the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act.
This bill will provide a true ``Ticket-to-Work'' for disabled
individuals by bringing them back into the workforce while still
providing them with a safety net of government services that are needed
to help make the transition. It is an important first step toward
addressing the disincentives which exist in current law that discourage
disabled individuals from working.
According to a Washington Post article published earlier this year,
6.6 million working-age Americans receive disability checks from the
Federal Government every month. All too often, these individuals are
unable to return to the workforce. Among the barriers they face upon
returning to work is they risk the loss of important federal benefits
such as Medicare health care coverage. Under this legislation,
individuals would be eligible for up to four and a half additional
years of Medicare benefits. While I would have preferred to have
individuals eligible for Medicare for an additional six years, I
believe this is a positive step forward and that further steps should
be taken in the future.
In addition, this bill provides a voucher that individuals can
exchange for rehabilitation, employment or other necessary services
with their provider of choice.
The Ticket to Work bill will change the Social Security
Administration's disability programs for the better. As Tony Young of
the United Cerebral Palsy Association said in his testimony before the
Ways and means Committee in March, these programs, ``are transformed
from a safety net into a trampoline; not only catching people with
disabilities as they fall out of work, but also giving them a boost
back into work as they are ready.''
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is an
important step toward helping individuals with disabilities be
independent, and to become a vital part of the workforce.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1180, the
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. I am a cosponsor of this
important legislation and was proud to expeditiously move this proposal
through my Subcommittee and support its passage through the House
Commerce Committee.
My Subcommittee held a hearing at which we heard from federal, state
and local officials, as well as individuals living with disabilities.
All of the witnesses emphasized the need for this legislation. They
noted that the current system unfairly forces people to choose between
work and health care.
H.R. 1180 was introduced in March by our colleagues Rick Lazio and
Henry Waxman, and this bill underscores the positive power of
bipartisanship.
The bill removes barriers for individuals who want to work. By
encouraging work over welfare, it also promotes personal dignity and
self-sufficiency.
[[Page 30730]]
Two federal programs--Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)--provide cash benefits to people
with disabilities. By qualifying for these benefits, individuals are
also eligible for health coverage through Medicare and Medicaid. These
programs provide comprehensive services that people with disabilities
value and need.
Ironically, individuals with disabilities risk losing these health
protections if they enter the work force. Under current law, earnings
above a minimal amount trigger the loss of both cash benefits and
health coverage under Medicare and Medicaid.
H.R. 1180 would allow states to expand the Medicaid buy-in option to
persons with disabilities through two optional programs. The bill also
creates a trial program to extend Medicare Part A benefits to SSDI
recipients. Further, it provides infrastructure and demonstration
grants to assist the states in developing their capacity to run these
expanded programs.
Finally, the bill creates a new payment system for vocational
rehabilitation programs that serve individuals with disabilities.
Similar provisions were passed by the House of representatives last
year.
As I have emphasized before, H.R. 1180 will help people help
themselves. Approval of this bill by the House of Representatives today
is an important step in improving the quality of life for millions of
Americans who live with disabilities.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act.
This bill includes three separate bills, including the conference
report for H.R. 1180, the tax extenders legislation, and a provision
related to organ transplantation regulations. I strongly support all
three of these proposals and urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I am pleased that the conference report for H.R. 1180 does not
include certain provisions related to school-based health services. An
earlier version of this bill, as approved by the House, included
Section 407 to help offset the costs associated with this bill. Section
407 would be detrimental to our local schools districts who have worked
to screen children for Medicaid eligibility. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau there are 4.4 million children who are eligible for, but
not enrolled in, Medicaid. Under existing laws, public schools can
receive reimbursements through the Medicaid Administrative Claiming
(MAC) program to help screen for these Medicaid eligible children. I
learned about these provisions through the efforts of a local school
district, the La Porte Independent School District (PISD). PISD is the
lead district for a consortium of 200 small and rural Texas school
districts participating in the MAC program. After learning about this
provision, I also organized a letter to Speaker Hastert in opposition
to these offset provisions. I am pleased that the conference committee
has removed all provisions related to school-based health programs that
would have been harmful.
I support passage of this measure because it ensures that disabled
persons can keep their health insurance when they return to work. Under
current law, disabled persons who are eligible for Social Security
disability benefits are precluded from earning significant income
without losing their Medicare or Medicaid health insurance. This bill
would permit disabled persons to work while maintaining their health
insurance coverage. For many disabled persons, this health insurance is
critically important since they can neither afford nor purchase health
insurance in the open market. This bill would provide SSDI
beneficiaries with Medicare coverage for eight and \1/2\ years, instead
of the current 4-year term. This legislation also provides vocational
rehabilitative services to disabled persons, ensuring their access to
the training they need to become more self-sufficient. As an original
cosponsor of the underlying bill, I support all of these provisions.
This bill also includes a critically important provision related to
organ transplantation policy. This bill would impose a 90-day
moratorium on the proposed Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) regulations related to organ transplantation policy that would
change the current allocation system from a regionally-based system to
a national medical-need system. This provision also includes a
requirement that HHS must reopen this proposal for public comment about
this issue. I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed
regulation on organ transplants done at the Texas Medical Center. The
Texas Medical Center and the local organ procurement organization,
LifeGift, have done an excellent job of encouraging organ donations in
our area. The impact of this regulation would be to override the
current system which was developed in consultation with our nation's
premier transplantation physicians and practitioners. If this new
regulation were implemented, many of these organs could possibly be
transferred away from the local patients who need them. I am pleased
that Congress has acted to provide itself with sufficient time to
reauthorize the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). The House has
already approved this bill, giving the Senate sufficient time to
consider and approve a NOTA measure.
This is an important bill which we should approve and I would urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the basic
provisions of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentive Improvement Act. The core
program contained in this bill is designed to provide support and
health care assistance to severely disabled people who want to work
despite the obstacles their disabilities present, indeed who are
determined to work and become productive and contributing members of
society.
These are people who need to keep their health care coverage through
Medicaid and Medicare to enable them to stay in the work force. We owe
them nothing less.
It is a testament to the compelling nature of their case that this
bill has had such broad and bipartisan support in both the House and
the Senate. The President has also been strongly committed to seeing it
enacted, from his call to the Congress to enact this program in his
State of the Union message last January to the final negotiations to
bring this bill here today. And I want to particularly note the
contributions of Rick Lazio, who I was pleased to join as the original
sponsor of the bill, Nancy Johnson and Bob Matsui from the Ways and
Means Committee, and John Dingell and Charlie Rangel who served on the
conference committee.
We can all be proud of its enactment. I am especially pleased that
the conference report increased the funds available to support
demonstrations by States to provide health services to persons with
potentially severe disabilities in order to keep their health from
deteriorating and to allow them to continue to work. Surely, this is
one of the most sensible and cost-effective things we can do.
But it is unfortunate that this exemplary piece of legislation has
been used in the closing days of this session to pursue other agendas.
The conference report includes a rider added to H.R. 1180 through
stealth and political extortion which delays vital reforms of our
national organ allocation system.
The one-year moratorium on the Department of Health and Human
Service's Final Rule expired last month. Last week, the Administration
and the appropriators, including Chairman Young and Mr. Obey, agreed to
a final compromise 42-day comment period on the Final Rule's
implementation.
But the defenders of UNOS and the status quo weren't satisfied. They
twisted arms behind closed doors. They blocked passage of the Health
Research and Quality Act of 1999 and the reauthorization of the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. They blocked
enactment of critical medical education payments for children's
hospitals. And they subverted the authority of the committees of
jurisdiction.
Now, the compromise is being abandoned by the Republican leadership.
The commitments made to the Administration and to Members have been
broken in bad faith.
And what's the result? The 42 days becomes 90 days.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.
There is no excuse for this action. The Final Rule is the result of
years of deliberation. It embodies the consensus that organs should be
shared more broadly to end unjust racial and geographical disparities.
Every day of delay is another day of unconscionable 200 to 300
percent disparities in transplant and survival rates across the
country--disparities which the Final Rule addresses.
Every day delays action on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation
``that the Final Rule be implemented'' because broader sharing ``will
result in more opportunities to transplant sicker patients without
adversely affecting less sick patients.''
And every day condones a status quo of gross racial injustice and
unjust, parochial self-interest.
Mr. Speaker, the status quo is slowly killing patients who deserve to
live, but are deprived of that right by a system that stacks the odds
against them. But in spite of this rider, in spite of the delay and the
back-room politics, reforms will come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues
to support the Final Rule and to oppose the organ allocation rider.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax relief
provisions which have been attached to H.R. 1180.
[[Page 30731]]
This tax relief package renews several temporary tax relief
provisions and addresses other time sensitive tax items.
For example, we give at least one million American families relief
from an increase in their alternative minimum tax that would occur when
they take advantage of the child tax credit, the dependent care tax
credit, or other tax credits. In addition, we renew and extend the
exclusion from income for employer-provided educational assistance.
For businesses, we are extending the very valuable research and
experimentation (R&E) tax credit for five years while we extend the
creditor to Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories for the first
time. The R&E credit will allow U.S. companies to continue to lead the
world in innovative, cutting-edge technology.
In an effort to help get Americans off government assistance and into
the workplace, we are extending the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the
Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit through the end of 2001.
One item that I was particularly grateful to have included in this
package is an increase in the rum excise tax cover-over to Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands from the current $10.50 per proof gallon to
$13.25 per proof gallon. I was, however, disappointed that the
provision did not include language to specifically state that a portion
of Puerto Rico's increase is designated for the Conservation Trust Fund
of Puerto Rico.
Instead, I understand that an agreement has been reached with the
Governor of Puerto Rico to provide one-sixth of the increase to the
Trust Fund during the time of the increase of the cover-over (July 1,
1999 through December 31, 2001). I appreciate the support of the
Governor in this endeavor. The Conservation Trust Fund, which enjoys
tremendous support from the people of Puerto Rico, plays an important
role in the preservation of the natural resources of the island for the
benefit of her future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of our Chairman, Bill Archer, in
putting together this tax relief package and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax extender and
Ticket to Work package. I commend the Chairman and my colleagues Rick
Lazio of New York and Kenny Hulshof of Missouri for their leadership on
this issue.
So many people with disabilities want to work, and technological as
well as medical advances now make it possible for many of them to do
so. Unfortunately, the current Social Security Disability program has
an inherent number of obstacles and disincentives for people to leave
the rolls and seek gainful employment because they will lose cash and
critical Medicare benefits.
This proposal before us today is designed to eliminate those
obstacles and allow beneficiaries to select from a wider choice of
rehabilitation and support services. It also extends health benefits
for disabled people returning to work, which has been one of the single
biggest challenges for helping people to make this transition.
Specifically, it expands state options under the Medicaid program for
workers with disabilities, and it extends Medicare coverage for SSDI
beneficiaries.
Importantly, this bill not only will well serve the disabled, and
also will save millions of Social Security dollars in the coming years.
The key to this bill is that it will provide people with the
opportunities and means they have asked us for to become productive
members of society. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill.
I'd also like to express my support for the important package of tax
extenders contained in this legislation. These extenders--like the R&D
tax credit and others--are essential elements in our effort to maintain
our strong economy.
I urge my colleagues to support this responsible package.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the inclusion
of the provision that stops the Department of Health and Human Services
from improving the system of organ allocation in this country. The
organ provision was only thrown into this bill at the last minute, and
it has no place in this bill.
The current system for organ sharing is not fair and needs to be
improved. Organ sharing is a matter of life and death. The problem is
that every year people die unnecessarily because the current organ
allocation system is broken. We can do better and I urge my colleagues
not to let parochial interests get in the way of fixing the problem.
Whether or not you get the organ that will save your life should not
depend on where you live. Organs do not and should not belong to any
geographical or political entity. But, under the current system,
depending on where the organ was harvested, it could be given to
someone with years to live--while someone in the next town across the
wrong border may die waiting for a transplant.
The most difficult organ to transplant is the liver. Pioneered at the
University of Pittsburgh, upwards of 90% of all the liver transplant
surgeons today were either trained at Pittsburgh or by doctors who were
trained there. Yet facilities like Pittsburgh, Mt. Sinai, Cedars-Sinai,
Stanford and other highly regarded transplant centers which take on the
most difficult and riskiest transplant patients are struggling with the
longest waiting times in the country.
While these centers are highly regarded, many of their patients do
not come to them because of their reputations. The fact is that many of
their patients only seek them out after having been turned down by
their local transplant centers. There is strong evidence to suggest
that many smaller transplant centers avoid the riskier transplants on
the sicker patients because they are more difficult and would adversely
impact their reputations should they not be successful.
This isn't right. Whether you live or die should not depend on where
you live.
This debate is not about pitting big transplant centers against small
ones, or about pitting one region against another. It is about making
sure that the gift of life
goes to the person who needs it the most rather than someone who
happens to have the good fortune to live in the right state, county or
city. Its about helping at least 300 people each year to continue to
live.
The fact is that the current system discriminates against people who
live near the highly regarded centers with the longer waiting lists.
It's not their fault that their local center is willing to take the
harder and sicker patients when other centers avoid the sicker patients
in favor of patients who may be still able to work, go to school, or
even play golf while patients elsewhere are near death without any
opportunity to receive that organ because they have the misfortune of
being on the wrong side of the Pennsylvania--Ohio line.
All HHS wants to do is: (1) require UNOS to develop policies that
would standardize its criteria for listing patients and for determining
their medical status, and (2) ensure that medical urgency, not
geography, is the main determinant for allocating organs.
HHS should be allowed to proceed. The longer we delay the more lives
are at risk. In this day of modern air travel and communications there
is no good reason for an organ to stop at the border. There is no good
reason why if I passed away while attending the Superbowl in New
Orleans that my liver should go to a golfer in Louisiana when I may
have a loved one who is in desperate need of a transplant at home.
People are dying because they happen to live in the wrong zip code
and because states do not want to share their organs. Nowhere else in
society would we allow a monopoly like this to continue. We must put an
end to this craziness. There is no room in this country for politics to
affect who lives and dies. The patients who need the organs the most
should get them. Period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418,
nays 2, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 611]
YEAS--418
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
[[Page 30732]]
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Berry
Stark
NOT VOTING--15
Baker
Brady (TX)
Callahan
Capps
Conyers
Everett
Fletcher
Frank (MA)
McIntosh
Nethercutt
Radanovich
Serrano
Shuster
Wexler
Wilson
{time} 1903
Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, due to a family illness I was unable to
attend votes today. Had I been here I would have made the following
votes:
Rollcall No. 598--``no''; 599--``yes''; 600--``yes''; 601--``yes'';
602--``yes''; 603--``no''; 604--``no''; 605--``no''; 606--``no''; 607--
``yes''; 608--``no''; 609--``yes''; 610--``yes''; 611--``yes''.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE S. 4, SOLDIERS',
SAILORS', AIRMEN'S, AND MARINES' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 1999
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of
the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 393) and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 393
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 4) entitled the
``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights
Act of 1999'', in the opinion of this House, contravenes the
first clause of the seventh section of the first article of
the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement
of the privileges of this House and that such bill be
respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). In the opinion of the Chair, the
resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the
bill, S. 4, which contravenes the constitutional requirement that
revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Section 202 of the bill authorizes members of the Armed Forces to
participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan and permits them to
contribute any part of a special or incentive pay that they might
receive. However, it also effectively provides that the limitations of
Internal Revenue Code section 415 will not apply to those extra
contributions. Thus, the provision allows certain members of the
uniformed services to avoid the negative tax consequences that would
otherwise result in their extra contributions to the TSP. Accordingly,
the provision is revenue affecting in a constitutional sense.
There are numerous precedents for this action I am requesting.
I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the
constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the
Senate bill. Proposed action today is procedural in nature, and it is
necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate
revenue measures, makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate
procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act
first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as
it sees fit.
This resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 4,
the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of
1999.'' S. 4 contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue
measures shall originate in the House of Representatives.
S. 4 would provide a variety of benefits to members of the Armed
Forces. I strongly support our Armed Forces and agree that we need to
modernize our military and compensate our officers and enlisted
personnel fairly. However, S. 4, as passed by the Senate, would not
only increase the compensation of members of the Armed Forces. It would
also modify the tax treatment of some of their compensation. This
change in tax treatment causes S. 4 to violate the Origination Clause
of the United States Constitution.
Section 202 of the bill generally authorizes members of the Armed
Forces to participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. In
particular, section 202 of the bill adds a new section 8440e to Title 5
of the United States Code. New section 8440e generally permits members
of the uniformed services or Ready Reserve who are authorized to
participate in the Thrift Savings Plan to contribute up to 5 percent of
their basic pay to the Thrift Savings Plan. In addition, subsection (d)
of new section 8440e permits members of the uniformed services to
contribute to the Thrift Savings
[[Page 30733]]
Plan any part of their special or incentive pay they receive under
section 308, 308a through 308h, or 318 of title 37. The subsection
further provides in effect that the limitations of Internal Revenue
Code section 415 will not apply to such contribution. Code section 415
generally provides limitations on benefits and contributions under
qualified employee benefit plans.
Thus, the effect of subsection (d) of new section 8440e is to
override the limits on the Thrift Savings Plan contribution imposed by
Internal Revenue Code section 415. By overriding Code section 415, the
provision allows certain members of the uniformed services to avoid the
negative tax consequences that would result from such contributions.
Accordingly, the provision is revenue-affecting in a constitutional
senses.
Plainly, allowing members of the Armed Forces to participate in the
Thrift Savings Plan causes a reduction in revenues as a budget
scorekeeping matter, since contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan
reduce the taxable incomes of participants by operation of the existing
tax laws, and therefore their tax liabilities. However, the reduction
in Federal revenues is viewed as an indirect effect of the provision
since the provision does not attempt to specify or modify the tax rules
that would otherwise apply to the provision, and therefore does not
offend the constitutional requirement. Rather, new subsection (d)
offends the Origination Clause because it directly amends the internal
revenue laws. Subsection (d) overrides the limitations imposed by Code
section 415, thereby directly modifying the tax liability of
individuals who would otherwise be subject to its limits. Such a
provision is plainly revenue-affecting and therefore constitutes a
revenue measure in the constitutional sense. Accordingly, I am asking
that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives.
There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For
example, on July 21, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1030,
containing a provision exempting certain veteran payments from
taxation. On October 7, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1216,
containing provisions exempting certain settlement income from
taxation. On September 27, 1996, the House returned to the Senate S.
1311, containing a provision that overrode the Federal income tax rules
governing recognition of tax-exempt status.
I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the
constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the
Senate bill. The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is
necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate
revenue measures. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate
procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act
first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as
it sees fit.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the bill of which the gentleman speaks, has
that been previously passed here in the House?
Mr. WELLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SKELTON. And the purpose of this is to comply with the
Constitution to state that it originates in the House; is that correct?
Mr. WELLER. Yes. This resolution does not address the merits of the
legislation, which many Members on both sides of the aisle support.
What it does is preserve the prerogatives of the House revenue-
affecting measures originating in the House under the Constitution.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
consider and pass House Joint Resolution 84, making further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2000.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I think the
House needs to understand exactly what it is we are doing, and I yield
to the gentleman for the purpose of explaining what is happening again.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Earlier this afternoon, we passed a continuing resolution taking us
to December 2, 1999. Our colleagues in the Senate have asked that we
extend that by one day, mainly because they need a clean vehicle over
there, and that is exactly what this is, it extends continuing spending
authority from December 2 to December 3, and it gives our colleagues in
the Senate a clean vehicle that they need to conduct their business.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I would
simply note two things and then ask a question.
When we were debating how dairy would be handled, we were told that
it had to be on the budget because we did not have any other vehicles.
Now, in the space of about 15 minutes, the House has created two
additional vehicles. I am beginning to think that we are making the
keystone cops look like Barishnikov.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the magic difference is between
December 2 and December 3. Perhaps we could reach a compromise on
December 2\1/2\. I do not know what is going on.
I mean, I have heard of continuing resolutions for a year, an hour,
but not 10 minutes, which is what it has been since we passed the last
one. How many more are we going to have to pass before we get our act
together tonight?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield
further, my response to his question is rather simple. I have been
advised that if we do not provide an extra vehicle for the Senate, it
may be necessary for the House to either stay in session or reconvene
tomorrow or the next day in order to complete legislative business. I
am also advised that if they have a clean vehicle, it is very likely
that we would not have to be back here sitting as the House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I would say I
thought that is what we were told a few minutes ago, that we needed to
pass the last one so we would not be in session.
I hope that sooner or later, we get things right.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield
further, I would like to say to my friend and my colleague with whom we
have worked so well together throughout this year that in my opinion,
we have done things right here; and I cannot answer for any other
venue.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I do not
quarrel with that statement with respect to the committee, but I do
think that this process, I have to say, has been the most chaotic that
I have seen in the 31 years that I have been privileged to be a Member
of this body. I do not think what is happening is the fault of the
gentleman from Florida, it certainly is not mine, but I would hope that
when we return in the first of the year in the next millennium, we will
have a different set of arrangements that will enable us to do things
in a quite different fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 84
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-62 is further amended by striking ``November 18,
1999'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof
``December 3, 1999'', and by striking ``$346,483,754'' in
section 119 and inserting in lieu thereof ``$755,719,054''.
Public Law 106-46 is amended by striking ``November 18,
1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 3, 1999''.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
[[Page 30734]]
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE S. 1232, FEDERAL
ERRONEOUS RETIREMENT COVERAGE CORRECTIONS ACT
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the
House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 394) and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 394
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1232) entitled
the ``Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections
Act'', in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first
clause of the seventh section of the first article of the
Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of
the privileges of this House and that such bill be
respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution
constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the
bill S. 1232 which contravenes the constitutional requirement that
revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Section 401 of the bill provides that no Federal retirement plan
involved in the corrections under the bill shall fail to be treated as
a tax-qualified retirement plan by reason of the correction.
{time} 1915
The bill also provides that no amount shall be includable in the
income of any individual for Federal tax purposes because of fund
transfers or government contributions made pursuant to the bill.
Accordingly, section 401 is revenue affecting in a constitutional
sense and the bill therefore violates the origination requirement.
There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. I want
to emphasize this action speaks solely to the constitutional
prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill.
The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is necessary to
preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures.
It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing
with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill,
for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit.
This resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S.
1232, which contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue
measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. The bill
provides that no Federal retirement plan involved in the corrections
under the bill shall fail to be treated as a tax-qualified retirement
plan by reason of the correction. The bill also provides that no
amounts shall be includible in the income of any individual for Federal
tax purposes because of fund transfers or government contributions made
pursuant to the bill. Therefore, the bill violates the origination
requirement.
Section 401 of the bill provides generally that no government
retirement plan shall fail to be treated as a tax-qualified plan under
the Internal Revenue Code for any failure to follow plan terms, or any
actions taken under the bill to correct errors in misclassification of
Federal employees into the wrong Federal retirement system. In general,
Federal retirement plans are subject to the same rules that apply to
tax-qualified retirement plans maintained by private sector employers.
For example, tax-qualified retirement plans are afforded special tax
treatment under the Code. These advantages include the fact that plan
participants pay no current income tax on amounts contributed on their
behalf, and the fact that earnings of the plan are tax-exempt.
Because of Section 401 of the bill, Federal retirement plans and
participants in those plans would retain these advantages even if
actions are taken pursuant to the bill that would otherwise jeopardize
this favorable tax treatment.
The Federal retirement plans are also subject to the rules applicable
to tax-qualified plans that limit the amount of contributions and
benefits that may be provided to a participant under a tax-qualified
plan. For example, section 415 of the Code limits that amount of annual
contributions that may be made to a defined contribution plan, and the
amount of annual benefits that are payable from a defined benefit plan.
If amounts are contributed or benefits are paid that exceed these
limits, plan participants could be subject to unfavorable tax
consequences. Section 401 of the bill would permit the Federal
government to make-up contributions on behalf of an employee without
violating applicable limits on contributions and benefits for the year
in which the make-up contribution was made.
Section 401 also provides that no amounts shall be includible in the
taxable income of participants in Federal retirement plans because of
fund transfers or government contributions made pursuant to the bill.
Without this provision, amounts transferred from fund to fund or
otherwise contributed by the government could be subject to income tax
under the Internal Revenue Code.
Accordingly, Section 401 is revenue-affecting in a constitutional
sense.
There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For
example, on July 21, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1030,
containing a provision exempting certain veteran payments from
taxation. On October 7, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1216,
containing provisions exempting certain settlement income from
taxation.
I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the
constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the
Senate bill. The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is
necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate
revenue measures. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate
procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act
first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as
it sees fit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by just saying to the Members it
is my privilege to say we have had the last vote of the day, the last
vote of the week, the last vote of the year, the last vote of the
century.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE AFTER COMPLETION OF BUSINESS OF
FIRST SESSION OF 106TH CONGRESS AND SETTING FORTH SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN
DATES DURING JANUARY 2000 OF SECOND SESSION
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution
(H.Con Res. 235), and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the concurrent
resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
That when the House adjourns on any legislative day from
Thursday, November 18, 1999, through Monday, November 22,
1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it shall
stand adjourned until noon on Thursday, December 2, 1999
(unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate
transmitting its concurrence in the conference report to
accompany H.R. 3194, in which case the House shall stand
adjourned sine die), or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of
this concurrent resolution; and that when the Senate adjourns
on any day from Thursday, November 18, 1999, through
Thursday, December 2, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it shall stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 2. When the House convenes for the second session of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress, it shall conduct no
organizational or legislative business on that day and, when
the House adjourns on that day, it shall stand adjourned
until noon on January 27, 2000, or until noon on the second
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
[[Page 30735]]
Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the
Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the
Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and Senate,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
Sec. 4. The Congress declares that clause 2(h) of rule II
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of
the Senate of January 6, 1999, authorize for the duration of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress the Clerk of the House of
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate,
respectively, to receive messages from the President during
periods when the House and Senate are not in session, and
thereby preserve until adjournment sine die of the final
regular session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress the
constitutional prerogative of the House and Senate to
reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections of the
President, since the availability of the Clerk and the
Secretary during any earlier adjournment of either House
during the current Congress does not prevent the return by
the President of any bill presented to him for approval.
Sec. 5. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall
inform the President of the United States of the adoption of
this concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
APPOINTING DAY FOR THE CONVENING OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE 106TH
CONGRESS
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 85),
and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 85
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED
SIXTH CONGRESS.
The second regular session of the One Hundred Sixth
Congress shall begin on Monday, January 24, 2000.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SESSION PRIOR TO CONVENING.
If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Majority Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
determine that it is in the public interest for the Members
of the House of Representatives and the Senate to reassemble
prior to the convening of the second regular session of the
One Hundred Sixth Congress as provided in section 1--
(1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall so notify their
respective Members; and
(2) Congress shall reassemble at noon on the second day
after the Members are so notified.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF TWO MEMBERS TO INFORM THE PRESIDENT THAT
THE TWO HOUSES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR BUSINESS OF THE SESSION
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res.
395), and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 395
Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by
the House to join a similar committee appointed by the
Senate, to wait upon the President of the United States and
inform him that the two Houses have completed their business
of the session and are ready to adjourn, unless the President
has some other communication to make to them.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 395, the Chair
appoints the following Members of the House to the committee to notify
the President, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 1999, on rollcall votes 596
and 597, I am recorded as not voting. I am happy to announce that I was
present at the birth of my first grandchild, Nicholas William Shanning.
Had I been present for votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall
596 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 597.
____________________
GRANTING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PRIVILEGE TO EXTEND AND REVISE REMARKS IN
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD UNTIL LAST EDITION IS PUBLISHED
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
Members may have until publication of the last edition of the
Congressional Record authorized for the first session by the Joint
Committee on Printing to revise and extend their remarks and to include
brief, related extraneous material on any matter occurring before the
adjournment of the first session sine die.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
____________________
AUTHORIZING SPEAKER TO ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS, APPOINT COMMISSIONS, BOARDS
AND COMMITTEES NOTWITHSTANDING SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that until
the day the House convenes for the second session of the 106th
Congress, and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, the
Speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader be authorized to
accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by
the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
____________________
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY'S RESERVATION INDIAN RESERVED
WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AND WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 438) to provide for the
settlement of the water rights claims of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the
Rocky Boy's Reservation, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, if the gentleman would take a moment to explain the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, last month the House passed H.R.
795, the Rocky Boy's Water Rights Settlement Act. Today we have before
us S. 438, a companion bill to H.R. 795. The only difference between
these bills is a small change regarding the treatment of tribal water
rights off reservation. This change has been agreed upon by all parties
involved in the legislation. The Rocky Boy's Water Rights Settlement
Act process has been important for a number of reasons. I congratulate
the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). In the State of Montana, the
tribe has spent a good deal of time working on the issues in a
constructive fashion, taking steps to minimize the impact on other
affected water users.
Furthermore, there has been minimal emphasis on some of the outmoded
basis that calculate in Federal reserve Indian water right claims. This
process has allowed the parties to look to newer, more flexible
negotiations that find the solutions which provide tribes with real
opportunities without making demands that may destroy the economic
livelihood of existing water users.
In addition, this process has brought new solutions, introduced
private sector expertise into the tribe's efforts to utilize the water
supplies once the settlement is authorized.
[[Page 30736]]
By approaching these water rights settlements in more creative ways,
Congress and the Federal Government can narrow the divergent
expectations of the parties as they enter negotiations and attempt to
correct problems that have existed for decades. It is important for
Congress to modernize the process and basis for settling these claims.
It is taking far too long to arrive at a settlement. Often tribes
receive water and money under circumstances that do not ultimately help
them realize the benefits of a broader economy.
It is the intention of this settlement to help the tribe reach this
goal of self-determination, and I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, last month, the House passed H.R. 795, the
Rocky Boys Water Rights Settlement Act. Today we have before us S. 438,
a companion bill to H.R. 795. The only difference between these two
bills is a small change regarding the treatment of tribal water rights
off reservation. This change has been agreed upon by all the parties
involved in the legislation.
The Rocky Boys water right settlement process has been important for
a number of reasons. Congressman Hill, the State of Montana and the
Tribe have spent a good deal of time working through the issues in a
constructive fashion, taking steps to minimize the impact on other
affected water users.
Furthermore, there has been minimal emphasis on some of the outmoded
bases for calculating Federal reserved Indian water right claims. This
process has allowed the parties to look to newer, more flexible
negotiations that find solutions which provide tribes with real
opportunities without making demands that may destroy the economic
livelihood of existing water users. Additionally, this process has
brought new solutions and introduced private sector expertise into the
tribes efforts to utilize these water supplies once the settlement is
authorized.
By approaching these Indian water right settlements in more creative
ways, Congress and the Federal Government can narrow the divergent
expectations of the parties as they enter negotiations and attempt to
correct problems that have existed for decades. It is important for
Congress to modernize the process and bases for settling these claims.
It is taking far too long to arrive at a settlement. Often tribes
receive water and money under circumstances that do not ultimately help
them realize the benefits of the broader economy. It is the intention
that this settlement will help the tribe reach their goal of self-
determination.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 438,
the Chippewa Cree Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, introduced by
Senator Conrad Burns.
I am the sponsor of the House companion to this bill which passed the
House on October 18th. I thank Subcommittee Chairman John Doolittle and
his staff Bob Faber and Josh Johnson for their tireless efforts to work
with all parties involved to move this important piece of legislation.
This is truly a historic day. This bill is the culmination of many
years of technical and legal work and many years of negotiations
involving the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the State of Montana, and
representatives of the United States Departments of the Interior and
Justice.
The bill will ratify a settlement quantifying the water rights of the
Tribe and providing for their development in a manner that will help
the Chippewa Cree Nation while helping their neighbors, local
communities, farmers and ranchers.
It provides Federal funds construction of water supply facilities and
for Tribal economic development, and defines the Federal Government's
role in implementing the settlement.
This Settlement bill has the full support of the Tribe, the State of
Montana, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior,
the Administration, and the water users who farm and ranch on streams
shared with the Reservation.
The bill will effectuate a settlement that is a textbook example of
how State, Tribal, and Federal governments can work together to resolve
differences in a way that meets the concerns of all.
It is also a settlement that reflects the effectiveness of Tribal and
non-Tribal water users in working together in good will and good faith
with respect for each other's needs and concerns.
It is not an overstatement to say that the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the
Rocky Boys Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act is a
historic agreement. This is truly a great occasion for all of those who
have worked so hard to get us to this point.
I again want to thank Chairman Doolittle, Chairman Young, and the
House leadership for scheduling this bill today. I also want to thank
Congressman Kildee for his cosponsorship and help in moving this bill
forward.
I urge the adoption of S. 438.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House will today
consider S. 438, a bill that would implement the settlement of the
water rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Montana. I am a cosponsor of
a similar bill passed by the House earlier this year. This bill marks
the 16th Indian water settlement presented to Congress in 10 years. I
recall a time when in the late 1980s and early 1990s Congress regularly
sanctioned and implemented state/tribal water agreements. I am
encouraged by the resolution (No. 98-029) from the National Governors'
Association endorsing the policy of negotiating Indian water rights
settlements.
During a recent hearing before the Water and Power Subcommittee,
Representative Rick Hill, sponsor of the bill, described this
settlement as a textbook example of how state and tribal governments
can work together with off-reservation local ranchers and farmers to
resolve their differences. I concur with that characterization of this
bill. I want to commend the state of Montana and the Tribe for working
almost 15 years to reach an agreement. It is my understanding that the
parties went sub-basin by sub-basin and even farm by farm until they
had resolved the concerns of all affected parties. I also want to
commend the Interior and Justice Departments--particularly Interior's
Acting Deputy Secretary, David Hayes--for the role he and his
colleagues played in reaching this accord.
One of the things I have learned over the years is that we must defer
to the wishes of the states and tribes that bring these settlements to
us. We all will have a tendency to want to micro-manage legislation of
this nature and contend that it is precedential one way or another way,
but history has proved that that is really not the case. A settlement
in Montana may have little to do with the status of negotiations in New
Mexico. While instream flows for fishery habitat may be vital to a
tribe in the Pacific Northwest, it may have little application in
Arizona. I say this because I have heard that certain members of the
Senate who are not from Montana are examining this bill to determine if
it is consistent with the laws of their state. Mr. Speaker, if a
negotiated settlement in a given state had to be consistent with the
laws and policies of every one of the other 49 states, or even just the
western states, we would never have another Indian water rights
settlement. So again, I hope we can agree that the individual States,
Tribes and the Federal government must be given great deference in
negotiating settlements that are consistent with the laws and policies
of the given State and Tribe and which do not violate federal law.
Finally, I say to my colleagues that we and the Administration must
follow up and ensure that funds are made available to implement the
Chippewa Cree/Montana settlement. We must do so in a manner that does
not take funds away from basic ongoing tribal programs. We must
reexamine the idea of creating a permanent settlement fund for these
types of State/Tribal agreements that is comparable to the Justice
Department's settlement fund and which is not scored against the BIA's
allocations. Again, my congratulations to the Chippewa Cree Tribe of
the Rocky Boy's Reservation, to the state of Montana and to the members
of the Federal Negotiating Team that helped bring this to fruition.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 438
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 ``Chippewa Cree Tribe of The
Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights
Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) in fulfillment of its trust responsibility to Indian
tribes and to promote tribal sovereignty and economic self-
sufficiency, it is the policy of the United States to settle
the water rights claims of the tribes without lengthy and
costly litigation;
(2) the Rocky Boy's Reservation was established as a
homeland for the Chippewa Cree Tribe;
(3) adequate water for the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky
Boy's Reservation is important to a permanent, sustainable,
and
[[Page 30737]]
sovereign homeland for the Tribe and its members;
(4) the sovereignty of the Chippewa Cree Tribe and the
economy of the Reservation depend on the development of the
water resources of the Reservation;
(5) the planning, design, and construction of the
facilities needed to utilize water supplies effectively are
necessary to the development of a viable Reservation economy
and to implementation of the Chippewa Cree-Montana Water
Rights Compact;
(6) the Rocky Boy's Reservation is located in a water-short
area of Montana and it is appropriate that the Act provide
funding for the development of additional water supplies,
including domestic water, to meet the needs of the Chippewa
Cree Tribe;
(7) proceedings to determine the full extent of the water
rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe are currently pending
before the Montana Water Court as a part of In the Matter of
the Adjudication of All Rights to the Use of Water, Both
Surface and Underground, within the State of Montana;
(8) recognizing that final resolution of the general stream
adjudication will take many years and entail great expense to
all parties, prolong uncertainty as to the availability of
water supplies, and seriously impair the long-term economic
planning and development of all parties, the Chippewa Cree
Tribe and the State of Montana entered into the Compact on
April 14, 1997; and
(9) the allocation of water resources from the Tiber
Reservoir to the Chippewa Cree Tribe under this Act is
uniquely suited to the geographic, social, and economic
characteristics of the area and situation involved.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To achieve a fair, equitable, and final settlement of
all claims to water rights in the State of Montana for--
(A) the Chippewa Cree Tribe; and
(B) the United States for the benefit of the Chippewa Cree
Tribe.
(2) To approve, ratify, and confirm, as modified in this
Act, the Chippewa Cree-Montana Water Rights Compact entered
into by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation and the State of Montana on April 14, 1997, and
to provide funding and other authorization necessary for the
implementation of the Compact.
(3) To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to execute
and implement the Compact referred to in paragraph (2) and to
take such other actions as are necessary to implement the
Compact in a manner consistent with this Act.
(4) To authorize Federal feasibility studies designed to
identify and analyze potential mechanisms to enhance, through
conservation or otherwise, water supplies in North Central
Montana, including mechanisms to import domestic water
supplies for the future growth of the Rocky Boy's Indian
Reservation.
(5) To authorize certain projects on the Rocky Boy's Indian
Reservation, Montana, in order to implement the Compact.
(6) To authorize certain modifications to the purposes and
operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's Tiber Dam and Lake
Elwell on the Marias River in Montana in order to provide the
Tribe with an allocation of water from Tiber Reservoir.
(7) To authorize the appropriation of funds necessary for
the implementation of the Compact.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Act.--The term ``Act'' means the ``Chippewa Cree Tribe
of The Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights
Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999''.
(2) Compact.--The term ``Compact'' means the water rights
compact between the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation and the State of Montana contained in section 85-
20-601 of the Montana Code Annotated (1997).
(3) Final.--The term ``final'' with reference to approval
of the decree in section 101(b) means completion of any
direct appeal to the Montana Supreme Court of a final decree
by the Water Court pursuant to section 85-2-235 of the
Montana Code Annotated (1997), or to the Federal Court of
Appeals, including the expiration of the time in which a
petition for certiorari may be filed in the United States
Supreme Court, denial of such a petition, or the issuance of
the Supreme Court's mandate, whichever occurs last.
(4) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Chippewa Cree Indian
Reserved Water Rights Settlement Fund established under
section 104.
(5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 101(2) of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a(2)).
(6) Mr&i feasibility study.--The term ``MR&I feasibility
study'' means a municipal, rural, and industrial, domestic,
and incidental drought relief feasibility study described in
section 202.
(7) Missouri river system.--The term ``Missouri River
System'' means the mainstem of the Missouri River and its
tributaries, including the Marias River.
(8) Reclamation law.--The term ``Reclamation Law'' has the
meaning given the term ``reclamation law'' in section 4 of
the Act of December 5, 1924 (43 Stat. 701, chapter 4; 43
U.S.C. 371).
(9) Rocky boy's reservation; reservation.--The term ``Rocky
Boy's Reservation'' or ``Reservation'' means the Rocky Boy's
Reservation of the Chippewa Cree Tribe in Montana.
(10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, or his or her duly authorized
representative.
(11) Towe Ponds.--The term ``Towe Ponds'' means the
reservoir or reservoirs referred to as ``Stoneman Reservoir''
in the Compact.
(12) Tribal compact administration.--The term ``Tribal
Compact Administration'' means the activities assumed by the
Tribe for implementation of the Compact as set forth in
Article IV of the Compact.
(13) Tribal water code.--The term ``tribal water code''
means a water code adopted by the Tribe, as provided in the
Compact.
(14) Tribal water right.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Tribal Water Right'' means the
water right set forth in section 85-20-601 of the Montana
Code Annotated (1997) and includes the water allocation set
forth in Title II of this Act.
(B) Rule of construction.--The definition of the term
``Tribal Water Right'' under this paragraph and the treatment
of that right under this Act shall not be construed or
interpreted as a precedent for the litigation of reserved
water rights or the interpretation or administration of
future compacts between the United States and the State of
Montana or any other State.
(15) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Chippewa Cree
Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation and all officers,
agents, and departments thereof.
(16) Water development.--The term ``water development''
includes all activities that involve the use of water or
modification of water courses or water bodies in any way.
SEC. 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a) Nonexercise of Tribe's Rights.--Pursuant to Tribal
Resolution No. 40-98, and in exchange for benefits under this
Act, the Tribe shall not exercise the rights set forth in
Article VII.A.3 of the Compact, except that in the event that
the approval, ratification, and confirmation of the Compact
by the United States becomes null and void under section
101(b), the Tribe shall have the right to exercise the rights
set forth in Article VII.A.3 of the Compact.
(b) Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--Except to the extent
provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 208 of
the Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (43 U.S.C.
666), nothing in this Act may be construed to waive the
sovereign immunity of the United States.
(c) Tribal Release of Claims Against the United States.--
(1) In General.--Pursuant to Tribal Resolution No. 40-98,
and in exchange for benefits under this Act, the Tribe shall,
on the date of enactment of this Act, execute a waiver and
release of the claims described in paragraph (2) against the
United States, the validity of which are not recognized by
the United States, except that--
(A) the waiver and release of claims shall not become
effective until the appropriation of the funds authorized in
section 105, the water allocation in section 201, and the
appropriation of funds for the MR&I feasibility study
authorized in section 204 have been completed and the decree
has become final in accordance with the requirements of
section 101(b); and
(B) in the event that the approval, ratification, and
confirmation of the Compact by the United States becomes null
and void under section 101(b), the waiver and release of
claims shall become null and void.
(2) Claims described.--The claims referred to in paragraph
(1) are as follows:
(A) Any and all claims to water rights (including water
rights in surface water, ground water, and effluent), claims
for injuries to water rights, claims for loss or deprivation
of use of water rights, and claims for failure to acquire or
develop water rights for lands of the Tribe from time
immemorial to the date of ratification of the Compact by
Congress.
(B) Any and all claims arising out of the negotiation of
the Compact and the settlement authorized by this Act.
(3) Setoffs.--In the event the waiver and release do not
become effective as set forth in paragraph (1)--
(A) the United States shall be entitled to setoff against
any claim for damages asserted by the Tribe against the
United States, any funds transferred to the Tribe pursuant to
section 104, and any interest accrued thereon up to the date
of setoff; and
(B) the United States shall retain any other claims or
defenses not waived in this Act or in the Compact as modified
by this Act.
(d) Other Tribes Not Adversely Affected.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to quantify or otherwise adversely
affect the land and water rights, or claims or entitlements
to land or water of an Indian tribe other than the Chippewa
Cree Tribe.
(e) Environmental Compliance.--In implementing the Compact,
the Secretary shall comply with all aspects of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
and all other applicable environmental Acts and regulations.
[[Page 30738]]
(f) Execution of Compact.--The execution of the Compact by
the Secretary as provided for in this Act shall not
constitute a major Federal action under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The
Secretary is directed to carry out all necessary
environmental compliance required by Federal law in
implementing the Compact.
(g) Congressional Intent.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit the Tribe from seeking additional
authorization or appropriation of funds for tribal programs
or purposes.
(h) Act not Precedential.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed or interpreted as a precedent for the litigation of
reserved water rights or the interpretation or administration
of future water settlement Acts.
TITLE I--CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY'S RESERVATION INDIAN
RESERVED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT
SEC. 101. RATIFICATION OF COMPACT AND ENTRY OF DECREE.
(a) Water Rights Compact Approved.--Except as modified by
this Act, and to the extent the Compact does not conflict
with this Act--
(1) the Compact, entered into by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of
the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the State of Montana on April
14, 1997, is hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed; and
(2) the Secretary shall--
(A) execute and implement the Compact together with any
amendments agreed to by the parties or necessary to bring the
Compact into conformity with this Act; and
(B) take such other actions as are necessary to implement
the Compact.
(b) Approval of Decree.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the United States, the Tribe, or the
State of Montana shall petition the Montana Water Court,
individually or jointly, to enter and approve the decree
agreed to by the United States, the Tribe, and the State of
Montana attached as Appendix 1 to the Compact, or any amended
version thereof agreed to by the United States, the Tribe,
and the State of Montana.
(2) Resort to the federal district court.--Under the
circumstances set forth in Article VII.B.4 of the Compact, 1
or more parties may file an appropriate motion (as provided
in that article) in the United States district court of
appropriate jurisdiction.
(3) Effect of failure of approval to become final.--In the
event the approval by the appropriate court, including any
direct appeal, does not become final within 3 years after the
filing of the decree, or the decree is approved but is
subsequently set aside by the appropriate court--
(A) the approval, ratification, and confirmation of the
Compact by the United States shall be null and void; and
(B) except as provided in subsections (a) and (c)(3) of
section 5 and section 105(e)(1), this Act shall be of no
further force and effect.
SEC. 102. USE AND TRANSFER OF THE TRIBAL WATER RIGHT.
(a) Administration and Enforcement.--As provided in the
Compact, until the adoption and approval of a tribal water
code by the Tribe, the Secretary shall administer and enforce
the Tribal Water Right.
(b) Tribal Member Entitlement.--
(1) In general.--Any entitlement to Federal Indian reserved
water of any tribal member shall be satisfied solely from the
water secured to the Tribe by the Compact and shall be
governed by the terms and conditions of the Compact.
(2) Administration.--An entitlement described in paragraph
(1) shall be administered by the Tribe pursuant to a tribal
water code developed and adopted pursuant to Article IV.A.2
of the Compact, or by the Secretary pending the adoption and
approval of the tribal water code.
(c) Temporary Transfer of Tribal Water Right.--The Tribe
may, with the approval of the Secretary and the approval of
the State of Montana pursuant to Article IV.A.4 of the
Compact, transfer any portion of the Tribal water right for
use off the Reservation by service contract, lease, exchange,
or other agreement. No service contract, lease, exchange, or
other agreement entered into under this subsection may
permanently alienate any portion of the Tribal water right.
The enactment of this subsection shall constitute a plenary
exercise of the powers set forth in Article I, section 8(3)
of the United States Constitution and is statutory law of the
United States within the meaning of Article IV.A.4.b.(3) of
the Compact.
SEC. 103. ON-RESERVATION WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Water Development Projects.--The Secretary, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation, is authorized and directed
to plan, design, and construct, or to provide, pursuant to
subsection (b), for the planning, design, and construction of
the following water development projects on the Rocky Boy's
Reservation:
(1) Bonneau Dam and Reservoir Enlargement.
(2) East Fork of Beaver Creek Dam Repair and Enlargement.
(3) Brown's Dam Enlargement.
(4) Towe Ponds' Enlargement.
(5) Such other water development projects as the Tribe
shall from time to time consider appropriate.
(b) Implementation Agreement.--The Secretary, at the
request of the Tribe, shall enter into an agreement, or, if
appropriate, renegotiate an existing agreement, with the
Tribe to implement the provisions of this Act through the
Tribe's annual funding agreement entered into under the self-
governance program under title IV of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa
et seq.) by which the Tribe shall plan, design, and construct
any or all of the projects authorized by this section.
(c) Bureau of Reclamation Project Administration.--
(1) In general.--Congress finds that the Secretary, through
the Bureau of Reclamation, has entered into an agreement with
the Tribe, pursuant to title IV of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa
et seq.)--
(A) defining and limiting the role of the Bureau of
Reclamation in its administration of the projects authorized
in subsection (a);
(B) establishing the standards upon which the projects will
be constructed; and
(C) for other purposes necessary to implement this section.
(2) Agreement.--The agreement referred to in paragraph (1)
shall become effective when the Tribe exercises its right
under subsection (b).
SEC. 104. CHIPPEWA CREE INDIAN RESERVED WATER RIGHTS
SETTLEMENT TRUST FUND.
(a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Establishment.--There is hereby established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund for the Chippewa
Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation to be known as the
``Chippewa Cree Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Trust
Fund''.
(B) Availability of amounts in fund.--
(i) In general.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available to
the Secretary for management and investment on behalf of the
Tribe and distribution to the Tribe in accordance with this
Act.
(ii) Availability.--Funds made available from the Fund
under this section shall be available without fiscal year
limitation.
(2) Management of fund.--The Secretary shall deposit and
manage the principal and interest in the Fund in a manner
consistent with subsection (b) and other applicable
provisions of this Act.
(3) Contents of fund.--The Fund shall consist of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Fund under
section 105(a) and such other amounts as may be transferred
or credited to the Fund.
(4) Withdrawal.--The Tribe, with the approval of the
Secretary, may withdraw the Fund and deposit it in a mutually
agreed upon private financial institution. That withdrawal
shall be made pursuant to the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
(5) Accounts.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
establish the following accounts in the Fund and shall
allocate appropriations to the various accounts as required
in this Act:
(A) The Tribal Compact Administration Account.
(B) The Economic Development Account.
(C) The Future Water Supply Facilities Account.
(b) Fund Management.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Amounts in fund.--The Fund shall consist of such
amounts as are appropriated to the Fund and allocated to the
accounts of the Fund by the Secretary as provided for in this
Act and in accordance with the authorizations for
appropriations in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section
105(a), together with all interest that accrues in the Fund.
(B) Management by secretary.--The Secretary shall manage
the Fund, make investments from the Fund, and make available
funds from the Fund for distribution to the Tribe in a manner
consistent with the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
(2) Tribal management.--
(A) In general.--If the Tribe exercises its right pursuant
to subsection (a)(4) to withdraw the Fund and deposit it in a
private financial institution, except as provided in the
withdrawal plan, neither the Secretary nor the Secretary of
the Treasury shall retain any oversight over or liability for
the accounting, disbursement, or investment of the funds.
(B) Withdrawal plan.--The withdrawal plan referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall provide for--
(i) the creation of accounts and allocation to accounts in
a fund established under the plan in a manner consistent with
subsection (a); and
(ii) the appropriate terms and conditions, if any, on
expenditures from the fund (in addition to the requirements
of the plans set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (c)).
(c) Use of Fund.--The Tribe shall use the Fund to fulfill
the purposes of this Act, subject to the following
restrictions on expenditures:
[[Page 30739]]
(1) Except for $400,000 necessary for capital expenditures
in connection with Tribal Compact Administration, only
interest accrued on the Tribal Compact Administration Account
referred to in subsection (a)(5)(A) shall be available to
satisfy the Tribe's obligations for Tribal Compact
Administration under the provisions of the Compact.
(2) Both principal and accrued interest on the Economic
Development Account referred to in subsection (a)(5)(B) shall
be available to the Tribe for expenditure pursuant to an
economic development plan approved by the Secretary.
(3) Both principal and accrued interest on the Future Water
Supply Facilities Account referred to in subsection (a)(5)(C)
shall be available to the Tribe for expenditure pursuant to a
water supply plan approved by the Secretary.
(d) Investment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Applicable laws.--The Secretary shall invest amounts in
the Fund in accordance with--
(i) the Act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. 70, chapter 41; 25
U.S.C. 161);
(ii) the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to
authorize the payment of interest of certain funds held in
trust by the United States for Indian tribes'', approved
February 12, 1929 (25 U.S.C. 161a); and
(iii) the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to
authorize the deposit and investment of Indian funds'',
approved June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C.162a).
(B) Crediting of amounts to the fund.--The interest on, and
the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations
of the United States held in the Fund shall be credited to
and form part of the Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury
shall credit to each of the accounts contained in the Fund a
proportionate amount of that interest and proceeds.
(2) Certain withdrawn funds.--
(A) In general.--Amounts withdrawn from the Fund and
deposited in a private financial institution pursuant to a
withdrawal plan approved by the Secretary under the American
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C.
4001 et seq.) shall be invested by an appropriate official
under that plan.
(B) Deposit of interest and proceeds.--The interest on, and
the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations
held under this paragraph shall be deposited in the private
financial institution referred to in subparagraph (A) in the
fund established pursuant to the withdrawal plan referred to
in that subparagraph. The appropriate official shall credit
to each of the accounts contained in that fund a
proportionate amount of that interest and proceeds.
(e) Agreement Regarding Fund Expenditures.--If the Tribe
does not exercise its right under subsection (a)(4) to
withdraw the funds in the Fund and transfer those funds to a
private financial institution, the Secretary shall enter into
an agreement with the Tribe providing for appropriate terms
and conditions, if any, on expenditures from the Fund in
addition to the plans set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (c).
(f) Per Capita Distributions Prohibited.--No part of the
Fund shall be distributed on a per capita basis to members of
the Tribe.
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Chippewa Cree Fund.--There is authorized to be
appropriated for the Fund, $21,000,000 to be allocated by the
Secretary as follows:
(1) Tribal compact administration account.--For Tribal
Compact Administration assumed by the Tribe under the Compact
and this Act, $3,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.
(2) Economic development account.--For tribal economic
development, $3,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.
(3) Future water supply facilities account.--For the total
Federal contribution to the planning, design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of a future water
supply system for the Reservation, there are authorized to be
appropriated--
(A) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(C) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(b) On-Reservation Water Development.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of the Interior, for the Bureau of
Reclamation, for the construction of the on-Reservation water
development projects authorized by section 103--
(A) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, for the planning,
design, and construction of the Bonneau Dam Enlargement, for
the development of additional capacity in Bonneau Reservoir
for storage of water secured to the Tribe under the Compact;
(B) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, for the planning,
design, and construction of the East Fork Dam and Reservoir
enlargement, of the Brown's Dam and Reservoir enlargement,
and of the Towe Ponds enlargement of which--
(i) $4,000,000 shall be used for the East Fork Dam and
Reservoir enlargement;
(ii) $2,000,000 shall be used for the Brown's Dam and
Reservoir enlargement; and
(iii) $2,000,000 shall be used for the Towe Ponds
enlargement; and
(C) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, for the planning,
design, and construction of such other water resource
developments as the Tribe, with the approval of the
Secretary, from time to time may consider appropriate or for
the completion of the 4 projects enumerated in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
(2) Unexpended balances.--Any unexpended balance in the
funds authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph (A) or
(B) of paragraph (1), after substantial completion of all of
the projects enumerated in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
section 103(a)--
(A) shall be available to the Tribe first for completion of
the enumerated projects; and
(B) then for other water resource development projects on
the Reservation.
(c) Administration Costs.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of the Interior, for the
Bureau of Reclamation, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, for
the costs of administration of the Bureau of Reclamation
under this Act, except that--
(1) if those costs exceed $1,000,000, the Bureau of
Reclamation may use funds authorized for appropriation under
subsection (b) for costs; and
(2) the Bureau of Reclamation shall exercise its best
efforts to minimize those costs to avoid expenditures for the
costs of administration under this Act that exceed a total of
$1,000,000.
(d) Availability of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The amounts authorized to be appropriated
to the Fund and allocated to its accounts pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be deposited into the Fund and allocated
immediately on appropriation.
(2) Investments.--Investments may be made from the Fund
pursuant to section 104(d).
(3) Availability of certain moneys.--The amounts authorized
to be appropriated in subsection (a)(1) shall be available
for use immediately upon appropriation in accordance with
subsection 104(c)(1).
(4) Limitation.--Those moneys allocated by the Secretary to
accounts in the Fund or in a fund established under section
104(a)(4) shall draw interest consistent with section 104(d),
but the moneys authorized to be appropriated under subsection
(b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall not be
available for expenditure until the requirements of section
101(b) have been met so that the decree has become final and
the Tribe has executed the waiver and release required under
section 5(c).
(e) Return of Funds to the Treasury.--
(1) In general.--In the event that the approval,
ratification, and confirmation of the Compact by the United
States becomes null and void under section 101(b), all
unexpended funds appropriated under the authority of this Act
together with all interest earned on such funds,
notwithstanding whether the funds are held by the Tribe, a
private institution, or the Secretary, shall revert to the
general fund of the Treasury 12 months after the expiration
of the deadline established in section 101(b).
(2) Inclusion in agreements and plan.--The requirements in
paragraph (1) shall be included in all annual funding
agreements entered into under the self-governance program
under title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.), withdrawal plans,
withdrawal agreements, or any other agreements for withdrawal
or transfer of the funds to the Tribe or a private financial
institution under this Act.
(f) Without Fiscal Year Limitation.--All money appropriated
pursuant to authorizations under this title shall be
available without fiscal year limitation.
SEC. 106. STATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO SETTLEMENT.
Consistent with Articles VI.C.2 and C.3 of the Compact, the
State contribution to settlement shall be as follows:
(1) The contribution of $150,000 appropriated by Montana
House Bill 6 of the 55th Legislative Session (1997) shall be
used for the following purposes:
(A) Water quality discharge monitoring wells and monitoring
program.
(B) A diversion structure on Big Sandy Creek.
(C) A conveyance structure on Box Elder Creek.
(D) The purchase of contract water from Lower Beaver Creek
Reservoir.
(2) Subject to the availability of funds, the State shall
provide services valued at $400,000 for administration
required by the Compact and for water quality sampling
required by the Compact.
TITLE II--TIBER RESERVOIR ALLOCATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AUTHORIZATION.
SEC. 201. TIBER RESERVOIR.
(a) Allocation of Water to the Tribe.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall permanently allocate
to the Tribe, without cost to the Tribe, 10,000 acre-feet per
year of stored water from the water right of the Bureau of
Reclamation in Lake Elwell, Lower Marias Unit, Upper Missouri
Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Montana,
measured at the outlet works of the dam or at the diversion
point from the reservoir.
[[Page 30740]]
The allocation shall become effective when the decree
referred to in section 101(b) has become final in accordance
with that section. The allocation shall be part of the Tribal
Water Right and subject to the terms of this Act.
(2) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement
with the Tribe setting forth the terms of the allocation and
providing for the Tribe's use or temporary transfer of water
stored in Lake Elwell, subject to the terms and conditions of
the Compact and this Act.
(3) Prior reserved water rights.--The allocation provided
in this section shall be subject to the prior reserved water
rights, if any, of any Indian tribe, or person claiming water
through any Indian tribe.
(b) Use and Temporary Transfer of Allocation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the limitations and conditions
set forth in the Compact and this Act, the Tribe shall have
the right to devote the water allocated by this section to
any use, including agricultural, municipal, commercial,
industrial, mining, or recreational uses, within or outside
the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
(2) Contracts and agreements.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of statutory or common law, the Tribe may, with the
approval of the Secretary and subject to the limitations and
conditions set forth in the Compact, enter into a service
contract, lease, exchange, or other agreement providing for
the temporary delivery, use, or transfer of the water
allocated by this section, except that no such service
contract, lease, exchange, or other agreement may permanently
alienate any portion of the tribal allocation.
(c) Remaining Storage.--The United States shall retain the
right to use for any authorized purpose, any and all storage
remaining in Lake Elwell after the allocation made to the
Tribe in subsection (a).
(d) Water Transport Obligation; Development and Delivery
Costs.--The United States shall have no responsibility or
obligation to provide any facility for the transport of the
water allocated by this section to the Rocky Boy's
Reservation or to any other location. Except for the
contribution set forth in section 105(a)(3), the cost of
developing and delivering the water allocated by this title
or any other supplemental water to the Rocky Boy's
Reservation shall not be borne by the United States.
(e) Section not Precedential.--The provisions of this
section regarding the allocation of water resources from the
Tiber Reservoir to the Tribe shall not be construed as
precedent in the litigation or settlement of any other Indian
water right claims.
SEC. 202. MUNICIPAL, RURAL, AND INDUSTRIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY.
(a) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, shall perform an MR&I feasibility study of water
and related resources in North Central Montana to evaluate
alternatives for a municipal, rural, and industrial supply
for the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
(B) Use of funds made available for fiscal year 1999.--The
authority under subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to apply to
MR&I feasibility study activities for which funds were made
available by appropriations for fiscal year 1999.
(2) Contents of study.--The MR&I feasibility study shall
include the feasibility of releasing the Tribe's Tiber
allocation as provided for in section 201 into the Missouri
River System for later diversion to a treatment and delivery
system for the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
(3) Utilization of existing studies.--The MR&I feasibility
study shall include utilization of existing Federal and non-
Federal studies and shall be planned and conducted in
consultation with other Federal agencies, the State of
Montana, and the Chippewa Cree Tribe.
(b) Acceptance or Participation in Identified Off-
Reservation System.--The United States, the Chippewa Cree
Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, and the State of
Montana shall not be obligated to accept or participate in
any potential off-Reservation water supply system identified
in the MR&I feasibility study authorized in subsection (a).
SEC. 203. REGIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDY--
(a) In General.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, shall conduct, pursuant to Reclamation Law, a
regional feasibility study (referred to in this subsection as
the ``regional feasibility study'') to evaluate water and
related resources in North-Central Montana in order to
determine the limitations of those resources and how those
resources can best be managed and developed to serve the
needs of the citizens of Montana.
(2) Use of funds made available for fiscal year 1999.--The
authority under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to apply to
regional feasibility study activities for which funds were
made available by appropriations for fiscal year 1999.
(b) Contents of Study.--The regional feasibility study
shall--
(1) evaluate existing and potential water supplies, uses,
and management;
(2) identify major water-related issues, including
environmental, water supply, and economic issues;
(3) evaluate opportunities to resolve the issues referred
to in paragraph (2); and
(4) evaluate options for implementation of resolutions to
the issues.
(c) Requirements.--Because of the regional and
international impact of the regional feasibility study, the
study may not be segmented. The regional study shall--
(1) utilize, to the maximum extent possible, existing
information; and
(2) be planned and conducted in consultation with all
affected interests, including interests in Canada.
SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEASIBILITY
STUDIES.
(a) Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations.--Of the amounts made
available by appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for the
Bureau of Reclamation, $1,000,000 shall be used for the
purpose of commencing the MR&I feasibility study under
section 202 and the regional study under section 203, of
which--
(1) $500,000 shall be used for the MR&I study under section
202; and
(2) $500,000 shall be used for the regional study under
section 203.
(b) Feasibility Studies.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of the Interior, for the
Bureau of Reclamation, for the purpose of conducting the MR&I
feasibility study under section 202 and the regional study
under section 203, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, of
which--
(1) $500,000 shall be used for the MR&I feasibility study
under section 202; and
(2) $2,500,000 shall be used for the regional study under
section 203.
(c) Without Fiscal Year Limitation.--All money appropriated
pursuant to authorizations under this title shall be
available without fiscal year limitation.
(d) Availability of Certain Moneys.--The amounts made
available for use under subsection (a) shall be deemed to
have been available for use as of the date on which those
funds were appropriated. The amounts authorized to be
appropriated in subsection (b) shall be available for use
immediately upon appropriation.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TO FILE REPORT AFTER SINE
DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to file a
report after adjournment. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Government Reform be permitted to file an investigative report by
December 10, 1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
FOUR CORNERS INTERPRETIVE CENTER ACT
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 28) to authorize an interpretive
center and related visitor facilities within the Four Corners Monument
Tribal Park, and for other purpose, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I do so to yield to the gentleman to quickly explain the bill.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 28, the Four Corners
Interpretive Center Act. Having introduced companion legislation, H.R.
1384, S. 28 simply establishes the Four Corners Interpretive Center to
provide a unique collection of cultural, historical and archeological
specimens for the millions of people who visit the only geographic
location in the nation where the boundaries of four States, Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico and Utah come together.
The Four Corners Monument Tribal Park is located on lands that fall
within the Navajo Reservation and the Ute Mountain Reservation. In
1996, these tribes entered into a memorandum of understanding governing
the future development of the park.
[[Page 30741]]
S. 28 and H.R. 1384 reflect that agreement, providing the initial
facility of base communities to lead to full development of the park.
This bill represents the cooperation of Federal, State and local and
tribal governments in an effort to reaffirm the ties of our past while
extending those ties to the future. I urge support for this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 28
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 ``Four Corners Interpretive
Center Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Four Corners Monument is nationally significant as
the only geographic location in the United States where 4
State boundaries meet;
(2) the States with boundaries that meet at the Four
Corners are Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah;
(3) between 1868 and 1875 the boundary lines that created
the Four Corners were drawn, and in 1899 a monument was
erected at the site;
(4) a United States postal stamp will be issued in 1999 to
commemorate the centennial of the original boundary marker;
(5) the Four Corners area is distinct in character and
possesses important historical, cultural, and prehistoric
values and resources within the surrounding cultural
landscape;
(6) although there are no permanent facilities or utilities
at the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park, each year the park
attracts approximately 250,000 visitors;
(7) the area of the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park falls
entirely within the Navajo Nation or Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
reservations;
(8) the Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe have
entered into a memorandum of understanding governing the
planning and future development of the Four Corners Monument
Tribal Park;
(9) in 1992, through agreements executed by the Governors
of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, the Four Corners
Heritage Council was established as a coalition of State,
Federal, tribal, and private interests;
(10) the State of Arizona has obligated $45,000 for
planning efforts and $250,000 for construction of an
interpretive center at the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park;
(11) numerous studies and extensive consultation with
American Indians have demonstrated that development at the
Four Corners Monument Tribal Park would greatly benefit the
people of the Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe;
(12) the Arizona Department of Transportation has completed
preliminary cost estimates that are based on field experience
with rest-area development for the construction of a Four
Corners Interpretive Center and surrounding infrastructure,
including restrooms, roadways, parking areas, and water,
electrical, telephone, and sewage facilities;
(13) an interpretive center would provide important
educational and enrichment opportunities for all Americans;
and
(14) Federal financial assistance and technical expertise
are needed for the construction of an interpretive center.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize the importance of the Four Corners
Monument and surrounding landscape as a distinct area in the
heritage of the United States that is worthy of
interpretation and preservation;
(2) to assist the Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe in establishing the Four Corners Interpretive Center
and related facilities to meet the needs of the general
public;
(3) to highlight and showcase the collaborative resource
stewardship of private individuals, Indian tribes,
universities, Federal agencies, and the governments of States
and political subdivisions thereof (including counties); and
(4) to promote knowledge of the life, art, culture,
politics, and history of the culturally diverse groups of the
Four Corners region.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the Four Corners
Interpretive Center established under section 4, including
restrooms, parking areas, vendor facilities, sidewalks,
utilities, exhibits, and other visitor facilities.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means
the State of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, or Utah, or any
consortium of 2 or more of those States.
(3) Four corners heritage council.--The term ``Four Corners
Heritage Council'' means the nonprofit coalition of Federal,
State, tribal, and private entities established in 1992 by
agreements of the Governors of the States of Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
(4) Four corners monument.--The term ``Four Corners
Monument'' means the physical monument where the boundaries
of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah
meet.
(5) Four corners monument tribal park.--The term ``Four
Corners Monument Tribal Park'' means lands within the legally
defined boundaries of the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 4. FOUR CORNERS INTERPRETIVE CENTER.
(a) Establishment.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary is authorized to establish
within the boundaries of the Four Corners Monument Tribal
Park a center for the interpretation and commemoration of the
Four Corners Monument, to be known as the ``Four Corners
Interpretive Center''.
(b) Land Designated and Made Available.--Land for the
Center shall be designated and made available by the Navajo
Nation or the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe within the boundaries of
the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park in consultation with
the Four Corners Heritage Council and in accordance with--
(1) the memorandum of understanding between the Navajo
Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe that was entered into
on October 22, 1996; and
(2) applicable supplemental agreements with the Bureau of
Land Management, the National Park Service, and the United
States Forest Service.
(c) Concurrence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no such center shall be established without the
consent of the Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
(d) Components of Center.--The Center shall include--
(1) a location for permanent and temporary exhibits
depicting the archaeological, cultural, and natural heritage
of the Four Corners region;
(2) a venue for public education programs;
(3) a location to highlight the importance of efforts to
preserve southwestern archaeological sites and museum
collections;
(4) a location to provide information to the general public
about cultural and natural resources, parks, museums, and
travel in the Four Corners region; and
(5) visitor amenities including restrooms, public
telephones, and other basic facilities.
SEC. 5. CONSTRUCTION GRANT.
(a) Grant.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award a
grant to an eligible entity for the construction of the
Center in an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the cost of
construction of the Center.
(2) Assurances.--To be eligible for the grant, the eligible
entity that is selected to receive the grant shall provide
assurances that--
(A) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction is
paid from non-Federal sources (which may include
contributions made by States, private sources, the Navajo
Nation, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe for planning, design,
construction, furnishing, startup, and operational expenses);
and
(B) the aggregate amount of non-Federal funds contributed
by the States used to carry out the activities specified in
subparagraph (A) will not be less than $2,000,000, of which
each of the States that is party to the grant will contribute
equally in cash or in kind.
(3) Funds from private sources.--A State may use funds from
private sources to meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(B).
(4) Funds of state of arizona.--The State of Arizona may
apply $45,000 authorized by the State of Arizona during
fiscal year 1998 for planning and $250,000 that is held in
reserve by the State for construction toward the Arizona
share.
(b) Grant Requirements.--In order to receive a grant under
this Act, the eligible entity selected to receive the grant
shall--
(1) submit to the Secretary a proposal that--
(A) meets all applicable--
(i) laws, including building codes and regulations; and
(ii) requirements under the memorandum of understanding
described in paragraph (2); and
(B) provides such information and assurances as the
Secretary may require; and
(2) enter into a memorandum of understanding with the
Secretary providing--
(A) a timetable for completion of construction and opening
of the Center;
(B) assurances that design, architectural, and construction
contracts will be competitively awarded;
(C) specifications meeting all applicable Federal, State,
and local building codes and laws;
(D) arrangements for operations and maintenance upon
completion of construction;
(E) a description of the Center collections and educational
programming;
[[Page 30742]]
(F) a plan for design of exhibits including, but not
limited to, the selection of collections to be exhibited, and
the providing of security, preservation, protection,
environmental controls, and presentations in accordance with
professional museum standards;
(G) an agreement with the Navajo Nation and the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe relative to site selection and public
access to the facilities; and
(H) a financing plan developed jointly by the Navajo Nation
and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe outlining the long-term
management of the Center, including--
(i) the acceptance and use of funds derived from public and
private sources to minimize the use of appropriated or
borrowed funds;
(ii) the payment of the operating costs of the Center
through the assessment of fees or other income generated by
the Center;
(iii) a strategy for achieving financial self-sufficiency
with respect to the Center by not later than 5 years after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(iv) appropriate vendor standards and business activities
at the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park.
SEC. 6. SELECTION OF GRANT RECIPIENT.
The Four Corners Heritage Council may make recommendations
to the Secretary on grant proposals regarding the design of
facilities at the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorizations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of the Interior to carry out
this Act--
(1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
(2) $50,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for
maintenance and operation of the Center, program development,
or staffing in a manner consistent with the requirements of
section 5(b).
(b) Carryover.--Funds made available under subsection
(a)(1) that are unexpended at the end of the fiscal year for
which those funds are appropriated, may be used by the
Secretary through fiscal year 2002 for the purposes for which
those funds are made available.
(c) Reservation of Funds.--The Secretary may reserve funds
appropriated pursuant to this Act until a grant proposal
meeting the requirements of this Act is submitted, but no
later than September 30, 2001.
SEC. 8. DONATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
the planning, construction, and operation of the Center, the
Secretary may accept, retain, and expend donations of funds,
and use property or services donated, from private persons
and entities or from public entities.
SEC. 9. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act is intended to abrogate, modify, or
impair any right or claim of the Navajo Nation or the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe, that is based on any law (including any
treaty, Executive order, agreement, or Act of Congress).
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ACT
OF 1999
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate
bill (S. 548) to establish the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort
Miamis National Historical Site in the State of Ohio, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I do so for the purposes of yielding to the gentleman so he may
explain the bill.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr.
Speaker, S. 548 introduced by Senator Mike DeWine from Ohio and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who have worked so diligently on
this bill, authorizes the establishment of the Fallen Timbers
Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historical Site in Ohio.
The historical site shall be established as an affiliated area of the
national park system and shall be administered in a manner consistent
with the National Park Service.
The Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo area would be
established as the management entity and is responsible for developing
a management plan for the site. The Secretary of the Interior will
provide both financial and technical assistance to implement the
management plan and develop programs to preserve and interpret the
historical, cultural, natural, recreational and scenic resources of the
site.
The National Park Service completed a special resource study in
October of 1998 of the site, which is already designated as a national
historic landmark, and recommended affiliate status.
The bill has support from the National Park Service and the minority,
and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Ohio, who has worked so very, very hard on this legislation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to, as we close out this first
session of the 106th Congress, and we close out this century, extend my
deepest appreciation on behalf of the people of Ohio and, by
affiliation, the people of Michigan, Indiana and Illinois to the
chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who could not have been
more diligent in working with us, and the ranking member, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), to permit the people of our region
of the United States to tell the full story of our history, the battle
that occurred on this site and the assumption of the northwest
territory and the opening of our entire region of the Nation to
settlement.
I cannot thank the gentlemen enough on behalf of the people of the
Buckeye State and our adjoining sister States for making this possible,
before this century ends.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a matter of great
significance to the American Midwest and to the 9th District of Ohio in
particular. The bill under consideration today, Senator DeWine's S.
548, is the companion to legislation I have introduced in the House,
H.R. 868. I wish to thank Senator DeWine for taking the lead on this
measure in the Senate.
Some authorities place the Battle of Fallen Timbers among the three
most important battles in the formation of the United States, alongside
the battles of Yorktown and Gettysburg. We should note that the Battle
of Fallen Timbers did secure and open a large territory--now embracing
parts of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois--for new settlements in
our fledgling nation.
Another, contemporary battle should also be recognized here today.
That is the struggle for national recognition of the Battle of Fallen
Timbers as a keystone in the Maumee Valley and the Midwest.
In 1991, I was able to secure authorization in the Interior
Appropriations bill for the National Park Service to assess the Maumee
River Heritage Corridor for historically significant sites. The first
site assessed was the Fallen Timbers battlefield.
We will hear later this morning from two people who have served in
that more recent battle, Dr. G. Michael Pratt from Heidelberg College
and Jean Ward, Director of Metroparks of the Toledo Area. Dr. Pratt
heads the Center for Historic and Military Archeology. He led the
archaeological study that definitively located the Fallen Timbers
Battlefield site. Jean Ward has served the Toledo area as director of
its park system for more than 30 years. Toledo Metroparks manages over
7,000 acres of parkland and historic sites in Lucas County.
The Battle of Fallen Timbers
In 1794, the line of control between British forces and their Native
American allies and the forces of the United States lay across the
``Foot of the Rapids'' on the Maumee River. On August 20, 1794, General
Anthony Wayne led his legion down the Maumee River valley from near
what is now Waterville, Ohio. Coming to an area where a recent storm
had toppled much of the forest, Wayne's leading elements were engaged
by about 1,100 warriors from a confederacy of Ohio and Great Lakes
tribes. The U.S. soldiers fell back to their main lines and a pitched
battle surged back and forth over the ``fallen timbers.'' Finally, a
concerted charge by the entire legion drove the Native Americans back
to within sight of Fort Miamis to the northeast, and their resistance
dissipated.
The Native American coalition included members of the Wyandot, Miami,
Ottawa,
[[Page 30743]]
Delaware, Mingo, Shawnee, Potawatomi, and Chippewa tribes as well as a
few Canadian militia.
The battle was a clear victory for the United States, a policy
failure for the British, and a disaster for the Native American
Confederacy. The resultant Treaty of Greenville in 1795 gained the City
of Detroit, then the largest city on the Great Lakes and secured much
of the Northwest Territory for the growing United States.
I am holding here a typical U.S. Department of Defense sketch of the
Battle of Fallen Timbers that has been widely displayed in Army
installations across our nation for decades.
In addition to the battlefield, the Historic Site would include the
nearby site of Fort Miamis, which played a role not only in the Wayne
campaign but also in the War of 1812. In the spring of 1813, British
forces landed troops and artillery on the site of the deteriorated Fort
Miamis on the lower Maumee River. Together with Shawnee Chief Tecumseh,
the British twice attacked the American garrison at Fort Meigs--another
military outpost along the Maumee River--and twice were repulsed. These
U.S. victories at Fort Meigs frustrated British attempts to regain the
Northwest Territory and were a prelude to the victory of Commodore
Perry's Battle of Lake Erie victory later in 1813, a large mural of
which hangs just outside the House chamber.
the battle for fallen timbers
The people of northwest Ohio have long held a strong interest in the
history of our region and, in particular, in the battle that won the
territory for the United States. In the mid-1930's, a 9-acre site on
the banks of the Maumee River then thought to be the location of the
Battle of Fallen Timbers was dedicated and a statue commemorating the
battle erected. As interest in preserving both our local history and
natural areas grew earlier this decade, I was able to secure the
authorization for a resource study of the Fallen Timbers area by the
National Park Service as part of a possible Maumee River Valley
Heritage Corridor that lies between Toledo, Ohio, and Fort Wayne,
Indiana. It remains one of the most scenic and bucolic stretches in the
Midwest.
Beginning in 1995, an archaeological investigation led by Dr. Pratt
set out to identify the exact location of the battle. Dr. Pratt's
excellent work has proven conclusively that the battle actually took
place some distance from the existing Fallen Timbers Monument.
Development is beginning to encroach on the battlefield site, but a
significant portion of the core battlefield is still in agricultural
use and owned by the City of Toledo.
It is that site, along with the Monument site and the Fort Miamis
site, that this legislation would establish as a National Historic Site
and an interpretive locus for the entire heritage corridor.
Most impressive, however, has been the outpouring of grassroots
interest in the Battle of Fallen Timbers and the preservation of its
sites. Our office has received hundreds of letters supporting
preservation of these sites including this batch of drawings of Fort
Miamis sent by the students at the Fort Miami School in Maumee, Ohio.
Local press coverage has been extensive.
We should particularly note the efforts of Marianne Duvendack and the
Fallen Timbers Battlefield Commission. The Commission has produced a
flyer describing the battle and its historic significance. It has also
produced an excellent video presentation in support of preservation.
Another person whose efforts must not be forgotten is the former
Mayor of the City of Maumee, Steve Pauken. His tireless efforts
contributed as much as anyone's to saving Fallen Timbers.
Others that have contributed financial, individual, and
organizational resources to the effort include the Ohio Historical
Society, the City of Maumee, the City of Toledo, the Maumee Valley
Heritage Corridor, Heidelberg College, Toledo Metroparks, and the
Toledo Blade and its editorial staff, particularly Ralph Johnson.
The Fallen Timbers Battlefield was listed as number two on the 1996
list of the ten most endangered National Historic Landmarks in a report
by the National Park Service. It was included in the 1959 National
Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings as one of 22 sites representing
the national historic theme ``The Advance of the Frontier, 1763-1830.''
It was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 as ``the
culminating event which demonstrated the tenacity of the American
people in their efforts of western expansion through the struggle for
dominance in the Old Northwest Territory.''
The National Park Service Resource Study concluded that the Fallen
Timbers Battlefield site would be ``eligible, suitable, and feasible
for recognition as an affiliated area of the National Park System if
the 185-acre core battlefield can be acquired for preservation
purposes.'' The House should know that we have the commitments of the
State of Ohio, the City of Toledo, and the City of Maumee to see this
project through to completion.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill which
helps complete the appreciation of our nation's early history.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 548
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 ``Fallen Timbers Battlefield
and Fort Miamis National Historic Site Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(a) Definitions.--
(1) The term ``historic site'' means the Fallen Timbers
Battlefield and Monument and Fort Miamis National Historic
Site established by section 4 of this Act.
(2) The term ``management plan'' means the general
management plan developed pursuant to section 5(d).
(3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(4) The term ``management entity'' means the Metropolitan
Park District of the Toledo Area.
(5) The term ``technical assistance'' means any guidance,
advice, or other aid, other than financial assistance,
provided by the Secretary.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield is the site of
the 1794 battle between General Anthony Wayne and a
confederation of Native American tribes led by Little Turtle
and Blue Jacket.
(2) Fort Miamis was occupied by General Wayne's legion from
1796 to 1798.
(3) In the spring of 1813, British troops, led by General
Henry Proctor, landed at Fort Miamis and attacked the fort
twice, without success.
(4) Fort Miamis and Fallen Timbers Battlefield are in Lucas
County, Ohio, in the city of Maumee.
(5) The 9-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield Monument is
listed as a National Historic Landmark.
(6) Fort Miamis is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places as a historic site.
(7) In 1959, the Fallen Timbers Battlefield was included in
the National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings as 1 of
22 sites representing the ``Advance of the Frontier, 1763-
1830''.
(8) In 1960, the Fallen Timbers Battlefield was designated
as a National Historic Landmark.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers
Battlefield site;
(2) to recognize and preserve the Fort Miamis site;
(3) to formalize the linkage of the Fallen Timbers
Battlefield and Monument to Fort Miamis;
(4) to preserve and interpret United States military
history and Native American culture during the period from
1794 through 1813;
(5) to provide assistance to the State of Ohio, political
subdivisions of the State, and nonprofit organizations in the
State to implement the management plan and develop programs
that will preserve and interpret the historical, cultural,
natural, recreational and scenic resources of the historic
site; and
(6) to authorize the Secretary to provide technical
assistance to the State of Ohio, political subdivisions of
the State, and nonprofit organizations in the State,
including the Ohio Historical Society, the city of Maumee,
the Maumee Valley Heritage Corridor, the Fallen Timbers
Battlefield Commission, Heidelberg College, the city of
Toledo, and the Metropark District of the Toledo Area, to
implement the management plan.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND
FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.
(a) In General.--There is established, as an affiliated
area of the National Park System, the Fallen Timbers
Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historic Site in the
State of Ohio.
(b) Description.--The historic site is comprised of the
following as generally depicted on the map entitled Fallen
Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historical Site-
proposed, number NHS-FTFM, and dated May 1999:
(1) The Fallen Timbers site, comprised generally of the
following:
(A) The Fallen Timbers Battlefield site, consisting of an
approximately 185-acre parcel located north of U.S. 24, west
of U.S. 23/
[[Page 30744]]
I-475, south of the Norfolk and Western Railroad line, and
east of Jerome Road.
(B) The approximately 9-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield
Monument, located south of U.S. 24; and
(2) The Fort Miamis Park site.
(c) Map.--The map shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park
Service.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITES.
(a) Applicability of National Park System Laws.--The
historic site shall be administered in a manner consistent
with this Act and all laws generally applicable to units of
the National Park System, including the Act of August 25,
1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4; commonly known as the National Park
Service Organic Act), and the Act of August 21, 1935 (16
U.S.C. 461 et seq.; commonly known as the Historic Sites,
Buildings, and Antiquities Act).
(b) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a
cooperative agreement with the management entity to provide
technical assistance to ensure the marking, research,
interpretation, education and preservation of the Fallen
Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historic Site.
(c) Reimbursement.--Any payment made by the Secretary
pursuant to this section shall be subject to an agreement
that conversion, use, or disposal of the project so assisted
for purposes contrary to the purposes of this section as
determined by the Secretary, shall result in a right of the
United States to reimbursement of all funds made available to
such project or the proportion of the increased value of the
project attributable to such funds as determined at the time
of such conversion, use, or disposal, whichever is greater.
(d) General Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
management entity and Native American tribes whose ancestors
were involved in events at these sites, shall develop a
general management plan for the historic site. The plan shall
be prepared in accordance with section 12(b) of Public Law
91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.; commonly known as the
National Park System General Authorities Act).
(2) Completion.--The plan shall be completed not later than
2 years after the date funds are made available.
(3) Transmittal.--Not later than 30 days after completion
of the plan, the Secretary shall provide a copy of the plan
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
There is authorized to be appropriated such funds as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
DIRECTING SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO MAP
RELATING TO COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R.
34) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical
corrections to a map relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
{time} 1930
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I do so for the purpose of asking the gentleman from New Jersey
to explain his unanimous consent request.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, coastal barriers are dynamic ecosystems and
are prone to frequent moving and shifting as the result of storms and
other natural processes. Despite their vulnerability, these areas are
attractive locations to live in and are popular for vacation
destinations.
Congress approved the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 to
protect these areas by establishing a system of barrier units that are
precluded from receiving Federal development assistance, including
Federal flood insurance. The System is administered by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Maps depicting the various units are adopted by Congress, and any
changes to the boundaries of System units require legislative action.
The System includes 274 otherwise protected areas. Otherwise protected
areas include lands that are held for conservation purposes by the
Federal, State, and local governments or private conservation groups.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 adopts maps drawn by the Fish and Wildlife
Service that correctly portray the boundaries of the Cayo Costa State
Park in Florida, and this is supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Committee on Resources majority and minority.
H.R. 34 passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 1431 on
September 21, 1999.
Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 34 corrects a true mapping error, and I
strongly urge the passage of this legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my
right to object, this bill would authorize a minor map correction to
change the boundaries of an otherwise protected area (OPA) to make
these boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of a State park. This
correction would exclude 14 acres of private land from the OPA.
The Committee on Resources has thoroughly reviewed the underlying
justification for this map correction and has worked closely with the
Fish and Wildlife Service throughout. The Committee has found nothing
to prove conclusively that Congress intended to include private lands
abutting the boundaries of the State park when it created this OPA in
1990. Also, there is reasonable doubt that these private lands would
have qualified for inclusion under the Fish and Wildlife Service's
designation criteria for otherwise protected areas or undeveloped
coastal barriers.
This bill will rectify a previous mapping error by the Fish and
Wildlife Service and bring this OPA into conformance with congressional
intent to use existing park boundaries as the basis for OPA boundaries.
The Administration supports this legislation and I urge that the House
pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 34
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall,
before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, make such corrections to the map
described in subsection (b) as are necessary to ensure that
depictions of areas on that map are consistent with the
depictions of areas appearing on the map entitled
``Amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources System'', dated
______, and on file with the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Map Described.--The map described in this subsection is
the map that--
(1) is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier
Resources System'', dated November 2, 1994; and
(2) relates to unit P19-P of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a joint
resolution of the House of the following title:
H.J. Res. 83. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other
purposes.
____________________
DIRECTING SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO MAKE CORRECTIONS TO MAP RELATING
TO COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate
bill (S. 574) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to make
corrections to a map relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
[[Page 30745]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I do so for the purpose of asking the gentleman from New Jersey
to explain his unanimous consent request.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, S. 574 is a second correction to the Coastal
Barrier Resources System. In this case, the proposed change is to a
unit affecting the Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware.
This modification will remove approximately 32 acres of this
privately owned land that lies outside of the State park. This property
was incorrectly incorporated within the unit, and it is appropriate to
properly adjust the boundaries of DE-03P. Furthermore, this legislation
adds approximately 245 acres of State park land that was inadvertently
left out of the otherwise protected area in 1990. Therefore, the net
effect of these boundary adjustments is to add some 213 acres to the
Coastal Barrier Resources System.
Mr. Speaker, the House version of this legislation was the subject of
a subcommittee hearing. It was carefully considered by the full
Committee on Resources. It was adopted by the House of Representatives
with the passage of H.R. 1431.
In addition, the other body unanimously adopted S. 574 as introduced
by Senator Biden of Delaware on April 22. During our hearing, the
administrative witnesses testified that the ``modification of the
boundary constitutes a valid technical correction that conforms to the
boundaries of the OPA to the boundaries of the State park, which the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department supports.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my
right to object, this bill has been thoroughly reviewed by the
Committee on Resources. The technical corrections contained in this
bill are legitimate, non-controversial, and supported by the
Administration.
I am especially pleased that this legislation would add an additional
213 acres of land within Cape Henlopen State Park to the Coastal
Barrier Resource System. I support this bill and I urge an ``aye''
vote.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 574, a bill
to correct the boundary of the Coastal Barrier Resources System Map in
Lewes, Delaware.
Back in 1990, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was drawing the
boundary for this map, the service inadvertently included the Cape
Shores Development and the Barcroft Corporation in the system. The Fish
and Wildlife Service had intended to follow the boundary of Cape
Henlopen State Park, but followed the wrong line on the map. As a
result, this has made it difficult for Barcroft and the homeowners in
Cape Shores to obtain affordable flood insurance.
This summer, the House passed an identical bill introduced to correct
this problem as a subtitle to H.R. 1431, a comprehensive bill to
reauthorize the Coast Barrier Resources Act. Due to time constraints,
the Senate was not able to pass its own comprehensive reauthorization
bill.
Therefore, in order to expedite the legislative process and make sure
Barcroft Corporation and the residents of Cape Shores can obtain
affordable flood insurance before winter storms strike Delaware, it is
essential that we pass this legislation before the session ends.
I want to thank the Resources Committee Chairman, Don Young; the
Resources Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman, Jim Saxton; and their staff
for their tremendous efforts on this bill. The citizens of Delaware
truly appreciate your assistance not just because it provides relief
for Barcroft and Cape Shores, but also because it extends the
protection of the Coastal Barrier Resources System to 245 additional
acres in Cape Henlopen State Park.
I commend your work and urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 574
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAP.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
make such corrections to the map described in subsection (b)
as are necessary to move on that map the boundary of the
otherwise protected area (as defined in section 12 of the
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 note;
Public Law 101-591)) to the Cape Henlopen State Park boundary
to the extent necessary--
(1) to exclude from the otherwise protected area the
adjacent property leased, as of the date of enactment of this
Act, by the Barcroft Company and Cape Shores Associates
(which are privately held corporations under the law of the
State of Delaware); and
(2) to include in the otherwise protected area the
northwestern corner of Cape Henlopen State Park seaward of
the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.
(b) Map Described.--The map described in this subsection is
the map that is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal
Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, as
revised October 15, 1992, and that relates to the unit of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System entitled ``Cape Henlopen
Unit DE-03P''.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM ACT
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate
bill (S. 1866) to redesignate the Coastal Barrier Resources System as
the ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System,'' and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I take this time for the purpose of asking the gentleman from
New Jersey for an explanation of his unanimous consent request.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, finally, we are considering S. 1866, the
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. The late Senator
John Chafee was instrumental in the creation of this program in 1982,
and he remained one of the program's biggest supporters up until his
untimely death earlier this year.
The late Senator Chafee, in his role as ranking member and later
chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was a
guardian of this System's integrity, and worked tirelessly to prevent
any unnecessary encroachment into the System.
Senator Chafee served the people of Rhode Island with great
distinction for over 20 years. It is a fitting tribute to his name to
name the Coastal Barrier Resources System in his honor. I urge my
colleagues to vote aye on this measure.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my
right to object, with the recent passing of Senator John H. Chafee,
Congress has lost a compassionate and persuasive advocate for the
protection and conservation of our Nation's natural heritage. Senator
Chafee's many legislative contributions, including his leadership in
authorizing and improving keystone environmental legislation such as
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act
to only name a few, leave a legacy of accomplishment that is both
daunting and admirable. As many people know, Senator Chafee deeply
loved the coastal barrier beaches and islands of his beloved Ocean
State. Perhaps this lifelong affection explains why Senator Chafee
worked so tirelessly to create the Coastal Barrier Resource System in
1982, and why he fought so strenuously to protect it in the intervening
years.
If there really is a way to pay tribute to this modest and self-
effacing man, I can think of no better testimonial than to re-name the
Coastal Barrier Resources System in his honor. It will serve as a
lasting tribute to the man, and a reminder to us all of the important
work that still remains unfinished in order to protect our Nation's
environment. I support this bill and urge all Members to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
[[Page 30746]]
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) during the past 2 decades, Senator John H. Chafee was a
leading voice for the protection of the environment and the
conservation of the natural resources of the United States;
(2) Senator Chafee served on the Environment and Public
Works Committee of the Senate for 22 years, influencing every
major piece of environmental legislation enacted during that
time;
(3) Senator Chafee led the fight for clean air, clean
water, safe drinking water, and cleanup of toxic wastes, and
for strengthening of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
protections for endangered species and their habitats;
(4) millions of people of the United States breathe cleaner
air, drink cleaner water, and enjoy more plentiful outdoor
recreation opportunities because of the work of Senator
Chafee;
(5) in 1982, Senator Chafee authored and succeeded in
enacting into law the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) to minimize loss of human life, wasteful
expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish,
wildlife, and other natural resources associated with the
coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts; and
(6) to reflect the invaluable national contributions made
by Senator Chafee during his service in the Senate, the
Coastal Barrier Resources System should be named in his
honor.
SEC. 3. REDESIGNATION OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM IN
HONOR OF JOHN H. CHAFEE.
(a) In General.--The Coastal Barrier Resources System
established by section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) is redesignated as the ``John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Coastal Barrier Resources System shall be deemed to be a
reference to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 2(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16
U.S.C. 3501(b)) is amended by striking ``a Coastal Barrier
Resources System'' and inserting ``the John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System''.
(2) Section 3 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16
U.S.C. 3502) is amended by striking ``Coastal Barrier
Resources System'' each place it appears and inserting ``John
H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System''.
(3) Section 4 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16
U.S.C. 3503) is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM'' and inserting ``JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL
BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM''; and
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Coastal Barrier
Resources System'' and inserting ``the John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System''.
(4) Section 10(c)(2) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(16 U.S.C. 3509(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``Coastal
Barrier Resources System'' and inserting ``System''.
(5) Section 10(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 1441a-3(c)(2)(B)(i)) is
amended by striking ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and
inserting ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System''.
(6) Section 12(5) of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of
1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 note; Public Law 101-591) is amended by
striking ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and inserting
``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System''.
(7) Section 1321 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4028) is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``john h. chafee coastal barrier resources system'';
and
(B) by striking ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' each
place it appears and inserting ``John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System''.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1999
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce be
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3443) to amend
part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide States with
more funding and greater flexibility in carrying out programs designed
to help children make the transition from foster care to self-
sufficiency, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to explain her request.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me under his reservation.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may recall that the House acted on the
Independent Living bill, H.R. 1802, in June and approved it
overwhelmingly by a vote of 380 to 6. Every provision of this bill has
been developed and written on a bipartisan basis. In this regard, I
want to once again thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for
his exceptionally capable work on this legislation.
I also want to thank the administration, especially Secretary
Shalala, for their timely help with this legislation. In addition, I
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority Whip, who
testified in the House and Senate as a foster parent and who has been
instrumental in securing passage of this legislation. Indeed, we would
not be here today without his help.
We have been working with our colleagues in the other body over the
last several days to resolve differences and have agreed upon the
version of the bill before us. H.R. 3443 represents that consensus
text. I want to especially acknowledge the work of Senators Lott, Roth,
Grassley, Nickles, Moynihan, and Rockefeller on this bill.
Since the House is expected to conclude its business shortly, we are
taking this action in order to expedite consideration in the other body
and move the bill to the President's desk.
This bill will provide, for the first time, realistic support for our
most unfortunate children, those who have been in foster care for many
years and who reach adulthood essentially alone. Unfortunately,
research shows that these children have terribly high levels of
unemployment, mental illness, school failure, teen pregnancy, and
homelessness, and are frequently the victims or predators of crime.
These young Americans need our help to have the opportunity in life
that all Americans dream of.
This bill contains only nine changes from the original legislation,
all of them minor.
I close by commending the other body for commemorating the life of
the great Senator, the life and work of the great Senator from Rhode
Island, the incomparable John Chafee. Senator Chafee was a wonderful
friend to many of us here in this House and a diligent worker for
children. He was full of enthusiasm for this legislation and worked
tirelessly to secure its progress through his committee, looking toward
its passage in the Senate. In fact, we have been told that his last
actions as a United States Senator were to lobby for this bill. Thus,
it is highly fitting that we should rename this program the ``John H.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program.''
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, let me
quickly point out how pleased I am that we were able to reach a
bipartisan agreement and get this legislation moving, the Foster Care
Independence Act. This represents a real victory for the 20,000
children who age out of foster care every year.
I want to especially congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson), chair of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, for the
steadfast dedication to helping children and her incredible work with
the other body so that we, in fact, could accomplish this legislation
before we adjourn sine die.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the Clinton
administration for their help in drafting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, although we are acting on this bill, H.R. 3443, it
started as H.R.
[[Page 30747]]
671 back in February of this year and became H.R. 1802 in the work of
our subcommittee.
I finally want to also acknowledge the fine work of our staff Ron
Haskins and Nick Wynn in the Committee on Ways and Means, the work that
they have done.
I also want to join in recognizing Senator John Chafee for the work
that he did in regards to this bill along with Senator Rockefeller. He
and Senator Chafee were incredible in seeing this legislation pass.
Senator Chafee's untimely death is a loss to all of us. Senator
Chafee's unyielding commitment to improving the well being of all
children and his willingness to reach beyond party and ideology will
sorely be missed.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important. As I indicated
earlier, it is commitment by this body and by the Congress to say to
children aging out of foster care that they are not going to be lost at
the age of 18.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 3443
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 ``Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--IMPROVED INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM
Subtitle A--Improved Independent Living Program
Sec. 101. Improved independent living program.
Subtitle B--Related Foster Care Provision
Sec. 111. Increase in amount of assets allowable for children in foster
care.
Sec. 112. Preparation of foster parents to provide for the needs of
children in State care.
Subtitle C--Medicaid Amendments
Sec. 121. State option of Medicaid coverage for adolescents leaving
foster care.
Subtitle D--Adoption Incentive Payments
Sec. 131. Increased funding for adoption incentive payments.
TITLE II--SSI FRAUD PREVENTION
Subtitle A--Fraud Prevention and Related Provisions
Sec. 201. Liability of representative payees for overpayments to
deceased recipients.
Sec. 202. Recovery of overpayments of SSI benefits from lump sum SSI
benefit payments.
Sec. 203. Additional debt collection practices.
Sec. 204. Requirement to provide State prisoner information to Federal
and federally assisted benefit programs.
Sec. 205. Treatment of assets held in trust under the SSI program.
Sec. 206. Disposal of resources for less than fair market value under
the SSI program.
Sec. 207. Administrative procedure for imposing penalties for false or
misleading statements.
Sec. 208. Exclusion of representatives and health care providers
convicted of violations from participation in social
security programs.
Sec. 209. State data exchanges.
Sec. 210. Study on possible measures to improve fraud prevention and
administrative processing.
Sec. 211. Annual report on amounts necessary to combat fraud.
Sec. 212. Computer matches with Medicare and Medicaid
institutionalization data.
Sec. 213. Access to information held by financial institutions.
Subtitle B--Benefits For Certain World War II Veterans
Sec. 251. Establishment of program of special benefits for certain
World War II veterans.
Subtitle C--Study
Sec. 261. Study of denial of SSI benefits for family farmers.
TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT
Sec. 301. Narrowing of hold harmless provision for State share of
distribution of collected child support.
TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
Sec. 401. Technical corrections relating to amendments made by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996.
TITLE I--IMPROVED INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM
Subtitle A--Improved Independent Living Program
SEC. 101. IMPROVED INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) States are required to make reasonable efforts to find
adoptive families for all children, including older children,
for whom reunification with their biological family is not in
the best interests of the child. However, some older children
will continue to live in foster care. These children should
be enrolled in an Independent Living program designed and
conducted by State and local government to help prepare them
for employment, postsecondary education, and successful
management of adult responsibilities.
(2) Older children who continue to be in foster care as
adolescents may become eligible for Independent Living
programs. These Independent Living programs are not an
alternative to adoption for these children. Enrollment in
Independent Living programs can occur concurrent with
continued efforts to locate and achieve placement in adoptive
families for older children in foster care.
(3) About 20,000 adolescents leave the Nation's foster care
system each year because they have reached 18 years of age
and are expected to support themselves.
(4) Congress has received extensive information that
adolescents leaving foster care have significant difficulty
making a successful transition to adulthood; this information
shows that children aging out of foster care show high rates
of homelessness, non-marital childbearing, poverty, and
delinquent or criminal behavior; they are also frequently the
target of crime and physical assaults.
(5) The Nation's State and local governments, with
financial support from the Federal Government, should offer
an extensive program of education, training, employment, and
financial support for young adults leaving foster care, with
participation in such program beginning several years before
high school graduation and continuing, as needed, until the
young adults emancipated from foster care establish
independence or reach 21 years of age.
(b) Improved Independent Living Program.--Section 477 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 677) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 477. JOHN H. CHAFEE FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
States with flexible funding that will enable programs to be
designed and conducted--
``(1) to identify children who are likely to remain in
foster care until 18 years of age and to help these children
make the transition to self-sufficiency by providing services
such as assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career
exploration, vocational training, job placement and
retention, training in daily living skills, training in
budgeting and financial management skills, substance abuse
prevention, and preventive health activities (including
smoking avoidance, nutrition education, and pregnancy
prevention);
``(2) to help children who are likely to remain in foster
care until 18 years of age receive the education, training,
and services necessary to obtain employment;
``(3) to help children who are likely to remain in foster
care until 18 years of age prepare for and enter
postsecondary training and education institutions;
``(4) to provide personal and emotional support to children
aging out of foster care, through mentors and the promotion
of interactions with dedicated adults; and
``(5) to provide financial, housing, counseling,
employment, education, and other appropriate support and
services to former foster care recipients between 18 and 21
years of age to complement their own efforts to achieve self-
sufficiency and to assure that program participants recognize
and accept their personal responsibility for preparing for
and then making the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
``(b) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--A State may apply for funds from its
allotment under subsection (c) for a period of five
consecutive fiscal years by submitting to the Secretary, in
writing, a plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (2)
and the certifications required by paragraph (3) with respect
to the plan.
``(2) State plan.--A plan meets the requirements of this
paragraph if the plan specifies which State agency or
agencies will administer, supervise, or oversee the programs
carried out under the plan, and describes how the State
intends to do the following:
``(A) Design and deliver programs to achieve the purposes
of this section.
``(B) Ensure that all political subdivisions in the State
are served by the program, though not necessarily in a
uniform manner.
``(C) Ensure that the programs serve children of various
ages and at various stages of achieving independence.
``(D) Involve the public and private sectors in helping
adolescents in foster care achieve independence.
``(E) Use objective criteria for determining eligibility
for benefits and services under the
[[Page 30748]]
programs, and for ensuring fair and equitable treatment of
benefit recipients.
``(F) Cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of
the programs in achieving the purposes of this section.
``(3) Certifications.--The certifications required by this
paragraph with respect to a plan are the following:
``(A) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will provide assistance and services to
children who have left foster care because they have attained
18 years of age, and who have not attained 21 years of age.
``(B) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that not more than 30 percent of the amounts paid to
the State from its allotment under subsection (c) for a
fiscal year will be expended for room or board for children
who have left foster care because they have attained 18 years
of age, and who have not attained 21 years of age.
``(C) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that none of the amounts paid to the State from its
allotment under subsection (c) will be expended for room or
board for any child who has not attained 18 years of age.
``(D) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will use training funds provided under
the program of Federal payments for foster care and adoption
assistance to provide training to help foster parents,
adoptive parents, workers in group homes, and case managers
understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living, and will, to the extent
possible, coordinate such training with the independent
living program conducted for adolescents.
``(E) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State has consulted widely with public and
private organizations in developing the plan and that the
State has given all interested members of the public at least
30 days to submit comments on the plan.
``(F) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will make every effort to coordinate the
State programs receiving funds provided from an allotment
made to the State under subsection (c) with other Federal and
State programs for youth (especially transitional living
youth projects funded under part B of title III of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974),
abstinence education programs, local housing programs,
programs for disabled youth (especially sheltered workshops),
and school-to-work programs offered by high schools or local
workforce agencies.
``(G) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that each Indian tribe in the State has been consulted
about the programs to be carried out under the plan; that
there have been efforts to coordinate the programs with such
tribes; and that benefits and services under the programs
will be made available to Indian children in the State on the
same basis as to other children in the State.
``(H) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will ensure that adolescents
participating in the program under this section participate
directly in designing their own program activities that
prepare them for independent living and that the adolescents
accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of
the program.
``(I) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State has established and will enforce
standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the
programs carried out under the plan.
``(4) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve an application
submitted by a State pursuant to paragraph (1) for a period
if--
``(A) the application is submitted on or before June 30 of
the calendar year in which such period begins; and
``(B) the Secretary finds that the application contains the
material required by paragraph (1).
``(5) Authority to implement certain amendments;
notification.--A State with an application approved under
paragraph (4) may implement any amendment to the plan
contained in the application if the application,
incorporating the amendment, would be approvable under
paragraph (4). Within 30 days after a State implements any
such amendment, the State shall notify the Secretary of the
amendment.
``(6) Availability.--The State shall make available to the
public any application submitted by the State pursuant to
paragraph (1), and a brief summary of the plan contained in
the application.
``(c) Allotments to States.--
``(1) In general.--From the amount specified in subsection
(h) that remains after applying subsection (g)(2) for a
fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each State with an
application approved under subsection (b) for the fiscal year
the amount which bears the same ratio to such remaining
amount as the number of children in foster care under a
program of the State in the most recent fiscal year for which
such information is available bears to the total number of
children in foster care in all States for such most recent
fiscal year, as adjusted in accordance with paragraph (2).
``(2) Hold harmless provision.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall allot to each State
whose allotment for a fiscal year under paragraph (1) is less
than the greater of $500,000 or the amount payable to the
State under this section for fiscal year 1998, an additional
amount equal to the difference between such allotment and
such greater amount.
``(B) Ratable reduction of certain allotments.--In the case
of a State not described in subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the
amount allotted to the State for the fiscal year under
paragraph (1) by the amount that bears the same ratio to the
sum of the differences determined under subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph for the fiscal year as the excess of the
amount so allotted over the greater of $500,000 or the amount
payable to the State under this section for fiscal year 1998
bears to the sum of such excess amounts determined for all
such States.
``(d) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A State to which an amount is paid from
its allotment under subsection (c) may use the amount in any
manner that is reasonably calculated to accomplish the
purposes of this section.
``(2) No supplantation of other funds available for same
general purposes.--The amounts paid to a State from its
allotment under subsection (c) shall be used to supplement
and not supplant any other funds which are available for the
same general purposes in the State.
``(3) Two-year availability of funds.--Payments made to a
State under this section for a fiscal year shall be expended
by the State in the fiscal year or in the succeeding fiscal
year.
``(e) Penalties.--
``(1) Use of grant in violation of this part.--If the
Secretary is made aware, by an audit conducted under chapter
75 of title 31, United States Code, or by any other means,
that a program receiving funds from an allotment made to a
State under subsection (c) has been operated in a manner that
is inconsistent with, or not disclosed in the State
application approved under subsection (b), the Secretary
shall assess a penalty against the State in an amount equal
to not less than 1 percent and not more than 5 percent of the
amount of the allotment.
``(2) Failure to comply with data reporting requirement.--
The Secretary shall assess a penalty against a State that
fails during a fiscal year to comply with an information
collection plan implemented under subsection (f) in an amount
equal to not less than 1 percent and not more than 5 percent
of the amount allotted to the State for the fiscal year.
``(3) Penalties based on degree of noncompliance.--The
Secretary shall assess penalties under this subsection based
on the degree of noncompliance.
``(f) Data Collection and Performance Measurement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with
State and local public officials responsible for
administering independent living and other child welfare
programs, child welfare advocates, members of Congress, youth
service providers, and researchers, shall--
``(A) develop outcome measures (including measures of
educational attainment, high school diploma, employment,
avoidance of dependency, homelessness, nonmarital childbirth,
incarceration, and high-risk behaviors) that can be used to
assess the performance of States in operating independent
living programs;
``(B) identify data elements needed to track--
``(i) the number and characteristics of children receiving
services under this section;
``(ii) the type and quantity of services being provided;
and
``(iii) State performance on the outcome measures; and
``(C) develop and implement a plan to collect the needed
information beginning with the second fiscal year beginning
after the date of the enactment of this section.
``(2) Report to the congress.--Within 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report detailing the plans and timetable for collecting from
the States the information described in paragraph (1) and a
proposal to impose penalties consistent with paragraph (e)(2)
on States that do not report data.
``(g) Evaluations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct evaluations
of such State programs funded under this section as the
Secretary deems to be innovative or of potential national
significance. The evaluation of any such program shall
include information on the effects of the program on
education, employment, and personal development. To the
maximum extent practicable, the evaluations shall be based on
rigorous scientific standards including random assignment to
treatment and control groups. The Secretary is encouraged to
work directly with State and local governments to design
methods for conducting the evaluations, directly or by grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement.
``(2) Funding of evaluations.--The Secretary shall reserve
1.5 percent of the amount specified in subsection (h) for a
fiscal year to carry out, during the fiscal year,
[[Page 30749]]
evaluation, technical assistance, performance measurement,
and data collection activities related to this section,
directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements with appropriate entities.
``(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To
carry out this section and for payments to States under
section 474(a)(4), there are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary $140,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
(c) Payments to States.--Section 474(a)(4) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 674(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) the lesser of--
``(A) 80 percent of the amount (if any) by which--
``(i) the total amount expended by the State during the
fiscal year in which the quarter occurs to carry out programs
in accordance with the State application approved under
section 477(b) for the period in which the quarter occurs
(including any amendment that meets the requirements of
section 477(b)(5)); exceeds
``(ii) the total amount of any penalties assessed against
the State under section 477(e) during the fiscal year in
which the quarter occurs; or
``(B) the amount allotted to the State under section 477
for the fiscal year in which the quarter occurs, reduced by
the total of the amounts payable to the State under this
paragraph for all prior quarters in the fiscal year.''.
(d) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall issue such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.
(e) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that States should provide medical assistance under the State
plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security Act to
18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds who have been emancipated from
foster care.
Subtitle B--Related Foster Care Provision
SEC. 111. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF ASSETS ALLOWABLE FOR CHILDREN
IN FOSTER CARE.
Section 472(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
672(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In
determining whether a child would have received aid under a
State plan approved under section 402 (as in effect on July
16, 1996), a child whose resources (determined pursuant to
section 402(a)(7)(B), as so in effect) have a combined value
of not more than $10,000 shall be considered to be a child
whose resources have a combined value of not more than $1,000
(or such lower amount as the State may determine for purposes
of such section 402(a)(7)(B)).''.
SEC. 112. PREPARATION OF FOSTER PARENTS TO PROVIDE FOR THE
NEEDS OF CHILDREN IN STATE CARE.
(a) State Plan Requirement.--Section 471(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (22);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (23) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) include a certification that, before a child in
foster care under the responsibility of the State is placed
with prospective foster parents, the prospective foster
parents will be prepared adequately with the appropriate
knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child,
and that such preparation will be continued, as necessary,
after the placement of the child.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
Subtitle C--Medicaid Amendments
SEC. 121. STATE OPTION OF MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR ADOLESCENTS
LEAVING FOSTER CARE.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), title XIX of
the Social Security Act is amended--
(1) in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii))--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XIII);
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XIV); and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(XV) who are independent foster care adolescents (as
defined in (section 1905(v)(1)), or who are within any
reasonable categories of such adolescents specified by the
State;''; and
(2) by adding at the end of section 1905 (42 U.S.C. 1396d)
the following new subsection:
``(v)(1) For purposes of this title, the term `independent
foster care adolescent' means an individual--
``(A) who is under 21 years of age;
``(B) who, on the individual's 18th birthday, was in foster
care under the responsibility of a State; and
``(C) whose assets, resources, and income do not exceed
such levels (if any) as the State may establish consistent
with paragraph (2).
``(2) The levels established by a State under paragraph
(1)(C) may not be less than the corresponding levels applied
by the State under section 1931(b).
``(3) A State may limit the eligibility of independent
foster care adolescents under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV)
to those individuals with respect to whom foster care
maintenance payments or independent living services were
furnished under a program funded under part E of title IV
before the date the individuals attained 18 years of age.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to medical assistance for items and services furnished
on or after October 1, 1999.
(c) Contingency in Enactment.--If the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is enacted (whether
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act)--
(1) the amendments made by that Act shall be executed as if
this Act had been enacted after the enactment of such other
Act;
(2) with respect to subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section,
any reference to subclause (XIII) is deemed a reference to
subclause (XV);
(3) with respect to subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section,
any reference to subclause (XIV) is deemed a reference to
subclause (XVI);
(4) the subclause (XV) added by subsection (a)(1)(C) of
this section--
(A) is redesignated as subclause (XVII); and
(B) is amended by striking ``section 1905(v)(1)'' and
inserting ``section 1905(w)(1)''; and
(5) the subsection (v) added by subsection (a)(2) of this
section--
(A) is redesignated as subsection (w); and
(B) is amended by striking ``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV)'' and
inserting ``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVII)''.
Subtitle D--Adoption Incentive Payments
SEC. 131. INCREASED FUNDING FOR ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
(a) Supplemental Grants.--Section 473A of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(j) Supplemental Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of such
amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts,
in addition to any amount otherwise payable under this
section to any State that is an incentive-eligible State for
fiscal year 1998, the Secretary shall make a grant to the
State in an amount equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the amount by which--
``(i) the amount that would have been payable to the State
under this section during fiscal year 1999 (on the basis of
adoptions in fiscal year 1998) in the absence of subsection
(d)(2) if sufficient funds had been available for the
payment; exceeds
``(ii) the amount that, before the enactment of this
subsection, was payable to the State under this section
during fiscal year 1999 (on such basis); or
``(B) the amount that bears the same ratio to the dollar
amount specified in paragraph (2) as the amount described by
subparagraph (A) for the State bears to the aggregate of the
amounts described by subparagraph (A) for all States that are
incentive-eligible States for fiscal year 1998.
``(2) Funding.--$23,000,000 of the amounts appropriated
under subsection (h)(1) for fiscal year 2000 may be used for
grants under paragraph (1) of this subsection.''.
(b) Limitation on Authorization of Appropriations.--Section
473A(h)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(h)(1))
is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--For grants under subsection (a), there
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
``(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
``(B) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
``(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2003.''.
TITLE II--SSI FRAUD PREVENTION
Subtitle A--Fraud Prevention and Related Provisions
SEC. 201. LIABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES FOR OVERPAYMENTS
TO DECEASED RECIPIENTS.
(a) Amendment to Title II.--Section 204(a)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404(a)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``If any payment of more
than the correct amount is made to a representative payee on
behalf of an individual after the individual's death, the
representative payee shall be liable for the repayment of the
overpayment, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall
establish an overpayment control record under the social
security account number of the representative payee.''.
(b) Amendment to Title XVI.--Section 1631(b)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``If any payment of more than the
correct amount is made to a representative payee on behalf of
an individual after the individual's death, the
representative payee shall be liable for the repayment of the
overpayment, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall
establish an overpayment control record under the social
security account number of the representative payee.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to overpayments made 12 months or more after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
[[Page 30750]]
SEC. 202. RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF SSI BENEFITS FROM LUMP
SUM SSI BENEFIT PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1631(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``monthly'' before ``benefit payments'';
and
(2) by inserting ``and in the case of an individual or
eligible spouse to whom a lump sum is payable under this
title (including under section 1616(a) of this Act or under
an agreement entered into under section 212(a) of Public Law
93-66) shall, as at least one means of recovering such
overpayment, make the adjustment or recovery from the lump
sum payment in an amount equal to not less than the lesser of
the amount of the overpayment or 50 percent of the lump sum
payment,'' before ``unless fraud''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 12 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act and shall apply to amounts incorrectly paid which
remain outstanding on or after such date.
SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--Section 1631(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4)(A) With respect to any delinquent amount, the
Commissioner of Social Security may use the collection
practices described in sections 3711(f), 3716, 3717, and 3718
of title 31, United States Code, and in section 5514 of title
5, United States Code, all as in effect immediately after the
enactment of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
`delinquent amount' means an amount--
``(i) in excess of the correct amount of payment under this
title;
``(ii) paid to a person after such person has attained 18
years of age; and
``(iii) determined by the Commissioner of Social Security,
under regulations, to be otherwise unrecoverable under this
section after such person ceases to be a beneficiary under
this title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3701(d)(2) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 204(f)''
and inserting ``sections 204(f) and 1631(b)(4)''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 204(f) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``3711(e)'' and inserting ``3711(f)''; and
(2) by inserting ``all'' before ``as in effect''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to debt outstanding on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE STATE PRISONER INFORMATION
TO FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED BENEFIT
PROGRAMS.
Section 1611(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``is
authorized to'' and inserting ``shall''.
SEC. 205. TREATMENT OF ASSETS HELD IN TRUST UNDER THE SSI
PROGRAM.
(a) Treatment as Resource.--Section 1613 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382b) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Trusts
``(e)(1) In determining the resources of an individual,
paragraph (3) shall apply to a trust (other than a trust
described in paragraph (5)) established by the individual.
``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, an individual
shall be considered to have established a trust if any assets
of the individual (or of the individual's spouse) are
transferred to the trust other than by will.
``(B) In the case of an irrevocable trust to which are
transferred the assets of an individual (or of the
individual's spouse) and the assets of any other person, this
subsection shall apply to the portion of the trust
attributable to the assets of the individual (or of the
individual's spouse).
``(C) This subsection shall apply to a trust without regard
to--
``(i) the purposes for which the trust is established;
``(ii) whether the trustees have or exercise any discretion
under the trust;
``(iii) any restrictions on when or whether distributions
may be made from the trust; or
``(iv) any restrictions on the use of distributions from
the trust.
``(3)(A) In the case of a revocable trust established by an
individual, the corpus of the trust shall be considered a
resource available to the individual.
``(B) In the case of an irrevocable trust established by an
individual, if there are any circumstances under which
payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of
the individual or the individual's spouse, the portion of the
corpus from which payment to or for the benefit of the
individual or the individual's spouse could be made shall be
considered a resource available to the individual.
``(4) The Commissioner of Social Security may waive the
application of this subsection with respect to an individual
if the Commissioner determines that such application would
work an undue hardship (as determined on the basis of
criteria established by the Commissioner) on the individual.
``(5) This subsection shall not apply to a trust described
in subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 1917(d)(4).
``(6) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `trust' includes any legal instrument or
device that is similar to a trust;
``(B) the term `corpus' means, with respect to a trust, all
property and other interests held by the trust, including
accumulated earnings and any other addition to the trust
after its establishment (except that such term does not
include any such earnings or addition in the month in which
the earnings or addition is credited or otherwise transferred
to the trust); and
``(C) the term `asset' includes any income or resource of
the individual or of the individual's spouse, including--
``(i) any income excluded by section 1612(b);
``(ii) any resource otherwise excluded by this section; and
``(iii) any other payment or property to which the
individual or the individual's spouse is entitled but does
not receive or have access to because of action by--
``(I) the individual or spouse;
``(II) a person or entity (including a court) with legal
authority to act in place of, or on behalf of, the individual
or spouse; or
``(III) a person or entity (including a court) acting at
the direction of, or on the request of, the individual or
spouse.''.
(b) Treatment as Income.--Section 1612(a)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382a(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) any earnings of, and additions to, the corpus of a
trust established by an individual (within the meaning of
section 1613(e)), of which the individual is a beneficiary,
to which section 1613(e) applies, and, in the case of an
irrevocable trust, with respect to which circumstances exist
under which a payment from the earnings or additions could be
made to or for the benefit of the individual.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F); and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) that, in applying eligibility criteria of the
supplemental security income program under title XVI for
purposes of determining eligibility for medical assistance
under the State plan of an individual who is not receiving
supplemental security income, the State will disregard the
provisions of section 1613(e);''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2000, and shall apply to
trusts established on or after such date.
SEC. 206. DISPOSAL OF RESOURCES FOR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET
VALUE UNDER THE SSI PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1613(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382b(c)) is amended--
(1) in the caption, by striking ``Notification of Medicaid
Policy Restricting Eligibility of Institutionalized
Individuals for Benefits Based on'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``paragraph (1) and'' after ``provisions
of'';
(ii) by striking ``title XIX'' the first place it appears
and inserting ``this title and title XIX, respectively,'';
(iii) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting
``clause (ii)'';
(iv) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (B)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``by the State agency''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 1917(c)'' and all that follows
and inserting ``paragraph (1) or section 1917(c).''; and
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (A)(ii)'';
(4) by striking ``(c)(1)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
(5) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated
by paragraph (4) of this subsection) the following:
``(c)(1)(A)(i) If an individual or the spouse of an
individual disposes of resources for less than fair market
value on or after the look-back date described in clause
(ii)(I), the individual is ineligible for benefits under this
title for months during the period beginning on the date
described in clause (iii) and equal to the number of months
calculated as provided in clause (iv).
``(ii)(I) The look-back date described in this subclause is
a date that is 36 months before the date described in
subclause (II).
``(II) The date described in this subclause is the date on
which the individual applies for benefits under this title
or, if later, the date
[[Page 30751]]
on which the individual (or the spouse of the individual)
disposes of resources for less than fair market value.
``(iii) The date described in this clause is the first day
of the first month in or after which resources were disposed
of for less than fair market value and which does not occur
in any other period of ineligibility under this paragraph.
``(iv) The number of months calculated under this clause
shall be equal to--
``(I) the total, cumulative uncompensated value of all
resources so disposed of by the individual (or the spouse of
the individual) on or after the look-back date described in
clause (ii)(I); divided by
``(II) the amount of the maximum monthly benefit payable
under section 1611(b), plus the amount (if any) of the
maximum State supplementary payment corresponding to the
State's payment level applicable to the individual's living
arrangement and eligibility category that would otherwise be
payable to the individual by the Commissioner pursuant to an
agreement under section 1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b)
of Public Law 93-66, for the month in which occurs the date
described in clause (ii)(II),
rounded, in the case of any fraction, to the nearest whole
number, but shall not in any case exceed 36 months.
``(B)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), this subsection
shall not apply to a transfer of a resource to a trust if the
portion of the trust attributable to the resource is
considered a resource available to the individual pursuant to
subsection (e)(3) (or would be so considered but for the
application of subsection (e)(4)).
``(ii) In the case of a trust established by an individual
or an individual's spouse (within the meaning of subsection
(e)), if from such portion of the trust, if any, that is
considered a resource available to the individual pursuant to
subsection (e)(3) (or would be so considered but for the
application of subsection (e)(4)) or the residue of the
portion on the termination of the trust--
``(I) there is made a payment other than to or for the
benefit of the individual; or
``(II) no payment could under any circumstance be made to
the individual,
then, for purposes of this subsection, the payment described
in clause (I) or the foreclosure of payment described in
clause (II) shall be considered a transfer of resources by
the individual or the individual's spouse as of the date of
the payment or foreclosure, as the case may be.
``(C) An individual shall not be ineligible for benefits
under this title by reason of the application of this
paragraph to a disposal of resources by the individual or the
spouse of the individual, to the extent that--
``(i) the resources are a home and title to the home was
transferred to--
``(I) the spouse of the transferor;
``(II) a child of the transferor who has not attained 21
years of age, or is blind or disabled;
``(III) a sibling of the transferor who has an equity
interest in such home and who was residing in the
transferor's home for a period of at least 1 year immediately
before the date the transferor becomes an institutionalized
individual; or
``(IV) a son or daughter of the transferor (other than a
child described in subclause (II)) who was residing in the
transferor's home for a period of at least 2 years
immediately before the date the transferor becomes an
institutionalized individual, and who provided care to the
transferor which permitted the transferor to reside at home
rather than in such an institution or facility;
``(ii) the resources--
``(I) were transferred to the transferor's spouse or to
another for the sole benefit of the transferor's spouse;
``(II) were transferred from the transferor's spouse to
another for the sole benefit of the transferor's spouse;
``(III) were transferred to, or to a trust (including a
trust described in section 1917(d)(4)) established solely for
the benefit of, the transferor's child who is blind or
disabled; or
``(IV) were transferred to a trust (including a trust
described in section 1917(d)(4)) established solely for the
benefit of an individual who has not attained 65 years of age
and who is disabled;
``(iii) a satisfactory showing is made to the Commissioner
of Social Security (in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Commissioner) that--
``(I) the individual who disposed of the resources intended
to dispose of the resources either at fair market value, or
for other valuable consideration;
``(II) the resources were transferred exclusively for a
purpose other than to qualify for benefits under this title;
or
``(III) all resources transferred for less than fair market
value have been returned to the transferor; or
``(iv) the Commissioner determines, under procedures
established by the Commissioner, that the denial of
eligibility would work an undue hardship as determined on the
basis of criteria established by the Commissioner.
``(D) For purposes of this subsection, in the case of a
resource held by an individual in common with another person
or persons in a joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or similar
arrangement, the resource (or the affected portion of such
resource) shall be considered to be disposed of by the
individual when any action is taken, either by the individual
or by any other person, that reduces or eliminates the
individual's ownership or control of such resource.
``(E) In the case of a transfer by the spouse of an
individual that results in a period of ineligibility for the
individual under this subsection, the Commissioner shall
apportion the period (or any portion of the period) among the
individual and the individual's spouse if the spouse becomes
eligible for benefits under this title.
``(F) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `benefits under this title' includes
payments of the type described in section 1616(a) of this Act
and of the type described in section 212(b) of Public Law 93-
66;
``(ii) the term `institutionalized individual' has the
meaning given such term in section 1917(e)(3); and
``(iii) the term `trust' has the meaning given such term in
subsection (e)(6)(A) of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)), as amended by
section 205(c) of this Act, is amended by striking ``section
1613(e)'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and (e) of section
1613''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to disposals made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR
FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 1129 the following:
``SEC. 1129A. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES
FOR FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--Any person who makes, or causes to be
made, a statement or representation of a material fact for
use in determining any initial or continuing right to or the
amount of--
``(1) monthly insurance benefits under title II; or
``(2) benefits or payments under title XVI,
that the person knows or should know is false or misleading
or knows or should know omits a material fact or who makes
such a statement with knowing disregard for the truth shall
be subject to, in addition to any other penalties that may be
prescribed by law, a penalty described in subsection (b) to
be imposed by the Commissioner of Social Security.
``(b) Penalty.--The penalty described in this subsection
is--
``(1) nonpayment of benefits under title II that would
otherwise be payable to the person; and
``(2) ineligibility for cash benefits under title XVI,
for each month that begins during the applicable period
described in subsection (c).
``(c) Duration of Penalty.--The duration of the applicable
period, with respect to a determination by the Commissioner
under subsection (a) that a person has engaged in conduct
described in subsection (a), shall be--
``(1) six consecutive months, in the case of the first such
determination with respect to the person;
``(2) twelve consecutive months, in the case of the second
such determination with respect to the person; and
``(3) twenty-four consecutive months, in the case of the
third or subsequent such determination with respect to the
person.
``(d) Effect on Other Assistance.--A person subject to a
period of nonpayment of benefits under title II or
ineligibility for title XVI benefits by reason of this
section nevertheless shall be considered to be eligible for
and receiving such benefits, to the extent that the person
would be receiving or eligible for such benefits but for the
imposition of the penalty, for purposes of--
``(1) determination of the eligibility of the person for
benefits under titles XVIII and XIX; and
``(2) determination of the eligibility or amount of
benefits payable under title II or XVI to another person.
``(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `benefits
under title XVI' includes State supplementary payments made
by the Commissioner pursuant to an agreement under section
1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66.
``(f) Consultations.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall consult with the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration regarding initiating actions under
this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Precluding Delayed Retirement
Credit for any Month to Which a Nonpayment of Benefits
Penalty Applies.--Section 202(w)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(w)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``, and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) such individual was not subject to a penalty
imposed under section 1129A.''.
(c) Elimination of Redundant Provision.--Section 1611(e) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended--
[[Page 30752]]
(1) by striking paragraph (4);
(2) in paragraph (6)(A)(i), by striking ``(5)'' and
inserting ``(4)''; and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively.
(d) Regulations.--Within 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall develop regulations that prescribe the administrative
process for making determinations under section 1129A of the
Social Security Act (including when the applicable period in
subsection (c) of such section shall commence), and shall
provide guidance on the exercise of discretion as to whether
the penalty should be imposed in particular cases.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to statements and representations made on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 208. EXCLUSION OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS FROM
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act is amended by inserting before section 1137 (42 U.S.C.
1320b-7) the following:
``exclusion of representatives and health care providers convicted of
violations from participation in social security programs
``Sec. 1136. (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Social
Security shall exclude from participation in the social
security programs any representative or health care
provider--
``(1) who is convicted of a violation of section 208 or
1632 of this Act;
``(2) who is convicted of any violation under title 18,
United States Code, relating to an initial application for or
continuing entitlement to, or amount of, benefits under title
II of this Act, or an initial application for or continuing
eligibility for, or amount of, benefits under title XVI of
this Act; or
``(3) who the Commissioner determines has committed an
offense described in section 1129(a)(1) of this Act.
``(b) Notice, Effective Date, and Period of Exclusion.--(1)
An exclusion under this section shall be effective at such
time, for such period, and upon such reasonable notice to the
public and to the individual excluded as may be specified in
regulations consistent with paragraph (2).
``(2) Such an exclusion shall be effective with respect to
services furnished to any individual on or after the
effective date of the exclusion. Nothing in this section may
be construed to preclude, in determining disability under
title II or title XVI, consideration of any medical evidence
derived from services provided by a health care provider
before the effective date of the exclusion of the health care
provider under this section.
``(3)(A) The Commissioner shall specify, in the notice of
exclusion under paragraph (1), the period of the exclusion.
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an
exclusion under subsection (a), the minimum period of
exclusion shall be five years, except that the Commissioner
may waive the exclusion in the case of an individual who is
the sole source of essential services in a community. The
Commissioner's decision whether to waive the exclusion shall
not be reviewable.
``(C) In the case of an exclusion of an individual under
subsection (a) based on a conviction or a determination
described in subsection (a)(3) occurring on or after the date
of the enactment of this section, if the individual has
(before, on, or after such date of the enactment) been
convicted, or if such a determination has been made with
respect to the individual--
``(i) on one previous occasion of one or more offenses for
which an exclusion may be effected under such subsection, the
period of the exclusion shall be not less than 10 years; or
``(ii) on two or more previous occasions of one or more
offenses for which an exclusion may be effected under such
subsection, the period of the exclusion shall be permanent.
``(c) Notice to State Agencies.--The Commissioner shall
promptly notify each appropriate State agency employed for
the purpose of making disability determinations under section
221 or 1633(a)--
``(1) of the fact and circumstances of each exclusion
effected against an individual under this section; and
``(2) of the period (described in subsection (b)(3)) for
which the State agency is directed to exclude the individual
from participation in the activities of the State agency in
the course of its employment.
``(d) Notice to State Licensing Agencies.--The Commissioner
shall--
``(1) promptly notify the appropriate State or local agency
or authority having responsibility for the licensing or
certification of an individual excluded from participation
under this section of the fact and circumstances of the
exclusion;
``(2) request that appropriate investigations be made and
sanctions invoked in accordance with applicable State law and
policy; and
``(3) request that the State or local agency or authority
keep the Commissioner and the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration fully and currently informed with
respect to any actions taken in response to the request.
``(e) Notice, Hearing, and Judicial Review.--(1) Any
individual who is excluded (or directed to be excluded) from
participation under this section is entitled to reasonable
notice and opportunity for a hearing thereon by the
Commissioner to the same extent as is provided in section
205(b), and to judicial review of the Commissioner's final
decision after such hearing as is provided in section 205(g).
``(2) The provisions of section 205(h) shall apply with
respect to this section to the same extent as it is
applicable with respect to title II.
``(f) Application for Termination of Exclusion.--(1) An
individual excluded from participation under this section may
apply to the Commissioner, in the manner specified by the
Commissioner in regulations and at the end of the minimum
period of exclusion provided under subsection (b)(3) and at
such other times as the Commissioner may provide, for
termination of the exclusion effected under this section.
``(2) The Commissioner may terminate the exclusion if the
Commissioner determines, on the basis of the conduct of the
applicant which occurred after the date of the notice of
exclusion or which was unknown to the Commissioner at the
time of the exclusion, that--
``(A) there is no basis under subsection (a) for a
continuation of the exclusion; and
``(B) there are reasonable assurances that the types of
actions which formed the basis for the original exclusion
have not recurred and will not recur.
``(3) The Commissioner shall promptly notify each State
agency employed for the purpose of making disability
determinations under section 221 or 1633(a) of the fact and
circumstances of each termination of exclusion made under
this subsection.
``(g) Availability of Records of Excluded Representatives
and health care providers.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to have the effect of limiting access by any
applicant or beneficiary under title II or XVI, any State
agency acting under section 221 or 1633(a), or the
Commissioner to records maintained by any representative or
health care provider in connection with services provided to
the applicant or beneficiary prior to the exclusion of such
representative or health care provider under this section.
``(h) Reporting Requirement.--Any representative or health
care provider participating in, or seeking to participate in,
a social security program shall inform the Commissioner, in
such form and manner as the Commissioner shall prescribe by
regulation, whether such representative or health care
provider has been convicted of a violation described in
subsection (a).
``(i) Delegation of Authority.--The Commissioner may
delegate authority granted by this section to the Inspector
General.
``(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Exclude.--The term `exclude' from participation
means--
``(A) in connection with a representative, to prohibit from
engaging in representation of an applicant for, or recipient
of, benefits, as a representative payee under section 205(j)
or section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii), or otherwise as a
representative, in any hearing or other proceeding relating
to entitlement to benefits; and
``(B) in connection with a health care provider, to
prohibit from providing items or services to an applicant
for, or recipient of, benefits for the purpose of assisting
such applicant or recipient in demonstrating disability.
``(2) Social security program.--The term `social security
programs' means the program providing for monthly insurance
benefits under title II, and the program providing for
monthly supplemental security income benefits to individuals
under title XVI (including State supplementary payments made
by the Commissioner pursuant to an agreement under section
1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66).
``(3) Convicted.--An individual is considered to have been
`convicted' of a violation--
``(A) when a judgment of conviction has been entered
against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court,
except if the judgment of conviction has been set aside or
expunged;
``(B) when there has been a finding of guilt against the
individual by a Federal, State, or local court;
``(C) when a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the
individual has been accepted by a Federal, State, or local
court; or
``(D) when the individual has entered into participation in
a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement
or program where judgment of conviction has been withheld.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to convictions of violations
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1136(a) of the
Social Security Act and determinations described in paragraph
(3) of such section occurring on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 209. STATE DATA EXCHANGES.
Whenever the Commissioner of Social Security requests
information from a State for
[[Page 30753]]
the purpose of ascertaining an individual's eligibility for
benefits (or the correct amount of such benefits) under title
II or XVI of the Social Security Act, the standards of the
Commissioner promulgated pursuant to section 1106 of such Act
or any other Federal law for the use, safeguarding, and
disclosure of information are deemed to meet any standards of
the State that would otherwise apply to the disclosure of
information by the State to the Commissioner.
SEC. 210. STUDY ON POSSIBLE MEASURES TO IMPROVE FRAUD
PREVENTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING.
(a) Study.--As soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security,
in consultation with the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration and the Attorney General, shall
conduct a study of possible measures to improve--
(1) prevention of fraud on the part of individuals entitled
to disability benefits under section 223 of the Social
Security Act or benefits under section 202 of such Act based
on the beneficiary's disability, individuals eligible for
supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of such
Act, and applicants for any such benefits; and
(2) timely processing of reported income changes by
individuals receiving such benefits.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a written report
that contains the results of the Commissioner's study under
subsection (a). The report shall contain such recommendations
for legislative and administrative changes as the
Commissioner considers appropriate.
SEC. 211. ANNUAL REPORT ON AMOUNTS NECESSARY TO COMBAT FRAUD.
(a) In General.--Section 704(b)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(b)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) The Commissioner shall include in the annual budget
prepared pursuant to subparagraph (A) an itemization of the
amount of funds required by the Social Security
Administration for the fiscal year covered by the budget to
support efforts to combat fraud committed by applicants and
beneficiaries.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to annual budgets prepared for
fiscal years after fiscal year 1999.
SEC. 212. COMPUTER MATCHES WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
INSTITUTIONALIZATION DATA.
(a) In General.--Section 1611(e)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(J) For the purpose of carrying out this paragraph, the
Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct periodic
computer matches with data maintained by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under title XVIII or XIX. The
Secretary shall furnish to the Commissioner, in such form and
manner and under such terms as the Commissioner and the
Secretary shall mutually agree, such information as the
Commissioner may request for this purpose. Information
obtained pursuant to such a match may be substituted for the
physician's certification otherwise required under
subparagraph (G)(i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1611(e)(1)(G) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(G)) is amended by striking
``subparagraph (H)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (H) or
(J)''.
SEC. 213. ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
Section 1631(e)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(B) The'' and inserting ``(B)(i) The'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii)(I) The Commissioner of Social Security may require
each applicant for, or recipient of, benefits under this
title to provide authorization by the applicant or recipient
(or by any other person whose income or resources are
material to the determination of the eligibility of the
applicant or recipient for such benefits) for the
Commissioner to obtain (subject to the cost reimbursement
requirements of section 1115(a) of the Right to Financial
Privacy Act) from any financial institution (within the
meaning of section 1101(1) of such Act) any financial record
(within the meaning of section 1101(2) of such Act) held by
the institution with respect to the applicant or recipient
(or any such other person) whenever the Commissioner
determines the record is needed in connection with a
determination with respect to such eligibility or the amount
of such benefits.
``(II) Notwithstanding section 1104(a)(1) of the Right to
Financial Privacy Act, an authorization provided by an
applicant or recipient (or any other person whose income or
resources are material to the determination of the
eligibility of the applicant or recipient) pursuant to
subclause (I) of this clause shall remain effective until the
earliest of--
``(aa) the rendering of a final adverse decision on the
applicant's application for eligibility for benefits under
this title;
``(bb) the cessation of the recipient's eligibility for
benefits under this title; or
``(cc) the express revocation by the applicant or recipient
(or such other person referred to in subclause (I)) of the
authorization, in a written notification to the Commissioner.
``(III)(aa) An authorization obtained by the Commissioner
of Social Security pursuant to this clause shall be
considered to meet the requirements of the Right to Financial
Privacy Act for purposes of section 1103(a) of such Act, and
need not be furnished to the financial institution,
notwithstanding section 1104(a) of such Act.
``(bb) The certification requirements of section 1103(b) of
the Right to Financial Privacy Act shall not apply to
requests by the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to
an authorization provided under this clause.
``(cc) A request by the Commissioner pursuant to an
authorization provided under this clause is deemed to meet
the requirements of section 1104(a)(3) of the Right to
Financial Privacy Act and the flush language of section 1102
of such Act.
``(IV) The Commissioner shall inform any person who
provides authorization pursuant to this clause of the
duration and scope of the authorization.
``(V) If an applicant for, or recipient of, benefits under
this title (or any such other person referred to in subclause
(I)) refuses to provide, or revokes, any authorization made
by the applicant or recipient for the Commissioner of Social
Security to obtain from any financial institution any
financial record, the Commissioner may, on that basis,
determine that the applicant or recipient is ineligible for
benefits under this title.''.
Subtitle B--Benefits For Certain World War II Veterans
SEC. 251. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM OF SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR
CERTAIN WORLD WAR II VETERANS.
(a) In General.--The Social Security Act is amended by
inserting after title VII the following new title:
``TITLE VIII--SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN WORLD WAR II VETERANS
``Table of Contents
``Sec. 801. Basic entitlement to benefits.
``Sec. 802. Qualified individuals.
``Sec. 803. Residence outside the United States.
``Sec. 804. Disqualifications.
``Sec. 805. Benefit amount.
``Sec. 806. Applications and furnishing of information.
``Sec. 807. Representative payees.
``Sec. 808. Overpayments and underpayments.
``Sec. 809. Hearings and review.
``Sec. 810. Other administrative provisions.
``Sec. 811. Penalties for fraud.
``Sec. 812. Definitions.
``Sec. 813. Appropriations.
``SEC. 801. BASIC ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS.
``Every individual who is a qualified individual under
section 802 shall, in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of this title, be entitled to a monthly benefit
paid by the Commissioner of Social Security for each month
after September 2000 (or such earlier month, if the
Commissioner determines is administratively feasible) the
individual resides outside the United States.
``SEC. 802. QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS.
``Except as otherwise provided in this title, an
individual--
``(1) who has attained the age of 65 on or before the date
of the enactment of this title;
``(2) who is a World War II veteran;
``(3) who is eligible for a supplemental security income
benefit under title XVI for--
``(A) the month in which this title is enacted; and
``(B) the month in which the individual files an
application for benefits under this title;
``(4) whose total benefit income is less than 75 percent of
the Federal benefit rate under title XVI;
``(5) who has filed an application for benefits under this
title; and
``(6) who is in compliance with all requirements imposed by
the Commissioner of Social Security under this title,
shall be a qualified individual for purposes of this title.
``SEC. 803. RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
``For purposes of section 801, with respect to any month,
an individual shall be regarded as residing outside the
United States if, on the first day of the month, the
individual so resides outside the United States.
``SEC. 804. DISQUALIFICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 802, an
individual may not be a qualified individual for any month--
``(1) that begins after the month in which the Commissioner
of Social Security is notified by the Attorney General that
the individual has been removed from the United States
pursuant to section 237(a) or 212(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act and before the month in which the
individual is lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence;
``(2) during any part of which the individual is fleeing to
avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after
conviction, under
[[Page 30754]]
the laws of the United States or the jurisdiction within the
United States from which the person has fled, for a crime, or
an attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the laws
of the place from which the individual has fled, or which, in
the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor
under the laws of such State;
``(3) during any part of which the individual violates a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or
State law; or
``(4) during which the individual resides in a foreign
country and is not a citizen or national of the United States
if payments for such month to individuals residing in such
country are withheld by the Treasury Department under section
3329 of title 31, United States Code.
``(b) Requirement for Attorney General.--For the purpose of
carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Attorney General shall
notify the Commissioner of Social Security as soon as
practicable after the removal of any individual under section
237(a) or 212(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
``SEC. 805. BENEFIT AMOUNT.
``The benefit under this title payable to a qualified
individual for any month shall be in an amount equal to 75
percent of the Federal benefit rate under title XVI for the
month, reduced by the amount of the qualified individual's
benefit income for the month.
``SEC. 806. APPLICATIONS AND FURNISHING OF INFORMATION.
``(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall, subject to subsection (b), prescribe such requirements
with respect to the filing of applications, the furnishing of
information and other material, and the reporting of events
and changes in circumstances, as may be necessary for the
effective and efficient administration of this title.
``(b) Verification Requirement.--The requirements
prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Security under
subsection (a) shall preclude any determination of
entitlement to benefits under this title solely on the basis
of declarations by the individual concerning qualifications
or other material facts, and shall provide for verification
of material information from independent or collateral
sources, and the procurement of additional information as
necessary in order to ensure that the benefits are provided
only to qualified individuals (or their representative
payees) in correct amounts.
``SEC. 807. REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.
``(a) In General.--If the Commissioner of Social Security
determines that the interest of any qualified individual
under this title would be served thereby, payment of the
qualified individual's benefit under this title may be made,
regardless of the legal competency or incompetency of the
qualified individual, either directly to the qualified
individual, or for his or her benefit, to another person (the
meaning of which term, for purposes of this section, includes
an organization) with respect to whom the requirements of
subsection (b) have been met (in this section referred to as
the qualified individual's `representative payee'). If the
Commissioner of Social Security determines that a
representative payee has misused any benefit paid to the
representative payee pursuant to this section, section
205(j), or section 1631(a)(2), the Commissioner of Social
Security shall promptly revoke the person's designation as
the qualified individual's representative payee under this
subsection, and shall make payment to an alternative
representative payee or, if the interest of the qualified
individual under this title would be served thereby, to the
qualified individual.
``(b) Examination of Fitness of Prospective Representative
Payee.--
``(1) Any determination under subsection (a) to pay the
benefits of a qualified individual to a representative payee
shall be made on the basis of--
``(A) an investigation by the Commissioner of Social
Security of the person to serve as representative payee,
which shall be conducted in advance of the determination and
shall, to the extent practicable, include a face-to-face
interview with the person (or, in the case of an
organization, a representative of the organization); and
``(B) adequate evidence that the arrangement is in the
interest of the qualified individual.
``(2) As part of the investigation referred to in paragraph
(1), the Commissioner of Social Security shall--
``(A) require the person being investigated to submit
documented proof of the identity of the person;
``(B) in the case of a person who has a social security
account number issued for purposes of the program under title
II or an employer identification number issued for purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, verify the number;
``(C) determine whether the person has been convicted of a
violation of section 208, 811, or 1632; and
``(D) determine whether payment of benefits to the person
in the capacity as representative payee has been revoked or
terminated pursuant to this section, section 205(j), or
section 1631(a)(2)(A)(iii) by reason of misuse of funds paid
as benefits under this title, title II, or XVI, respectively.
``(c) Requirement for Maintaining Lists of Undesirable
Payees.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish
and maintain lists which shall be updated periodically and
which shall be in a form that renders such lists available to
the servicing offices of the Social Security Administration.
The lists shall consist of--
``(1) the names and (if issued) social security account
numbers or employer identification numbers of all persons
with respect to whom, in the capacity of representative
payee, the payment of benefits has been revoked or terminated
under this section, section 205(j), or section
1631(a)(2)(A)(iii) by reason of misuse of funds paid as
benefits under this title, title II, or XVI, respectively;
and
``(2) the names and (if issued) social security account
numbers or employer identification numbers of all persons who
have been convicted of a violation of section 208, 811, or
1632.
``(d) Persons Ineligible To Serve as Representative
Payees.--
``(1) In general.--The benefits of a qualified individual
may not be paid to any other person pursuant to this section
if--
``(A) the person has been convicted of a violation of
section 208, 811, or 1632;
``(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), payment of
benefits to the person in the capacity of representative
payee has been revoked or terminated under this section,
section 205(j), or section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii) by reason of
misuse of funds paid as benefits under this title, title II,
or title XVI, respectively; or
``(C) except as provided in paragraph (2)(B), the person is
a creditor of the qualified individual and provides the
qualified individual with goods or services for
consideration.
``(2) Exemptions.--
``(A) The Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe
circumstances under which the Commissioner of Social Security
may grant an exemption from paragraph (1) to any person on a
case-by-case basis if the exemption is in the best interest
of the qualified individual whose benefits would be paid to
the person pursuant to this section.
``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply with respect to any
person who is a creditor referred to in such paragraph if the
creditor is--
``(i) a relative of the qualified individual and the
relative resides in the same household as the qualified
individual;
``(ii) a legal guardian or legal representative of the
individual;
``(iii) a facility that is licensed or certified as a care
facility under the law of the political jurisdiction in which
the qualified individual resides;
``(iv) a person who is an administrator, owner, or employee
of a facility referred to in clause (iii), if the qualified
individual resides in the facility, and the payment to the
facility or the person is made only after the Commissioner of
Social Security has made a good faith effort to locate an
alternative representative payee to whom payment would serve
the best interests of the qualified individual; or
``(v) a person who is determined by the Commissioner of
Social Security, on the basis of written findings and
pursuant to procedures prescribed by the Commissioner of
Social Security, to be acceptable to serve as a
representative payee.
``(C) The procedures referred to in subparagraph (B)(v)
shall require the person who will serve as representative
payee to establish, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner
of Social Security, that--
``(i) the person poses no risk to the qualified individual;
``(ii) the financial relationship of the person to the
qualified individual poses no substantial conflict of
interest; and
``(iii) no other more suitable representative payee can be
found.
``(e) Deferral of Payment Pending Appointment of
Representative Payee.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the
Commissioner of Social Security makes a determination
described in the first sentence of subsection (a) with
respect to any qualified individual's benefit and determines
that direct payment of the benefit to the qualified
individual would cause substantial harm to the qualified
individual, the Commissioner of Social Security may defer (in
the case of initial entitlement) or suspend (in the case of
existing entitlement) direct payment of the benefit to the
qualified individual, until such time as the selection of a
representative payee is made pursuant to this section.
``(2) Time limitation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
any deferral or suspension of direct payment of a benefit
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be for a period of not more
than 1 month.
``(B) Exception in the case of incompetency.--Subparagraph
(A) shall not apply in any case in which the qualified
individual is, as of the date of the Commissioner of Social
Security's determination, legally incompetent under the laws
of the jurisdiction in which the individual resides.
``(3) Payment of retroactive benefits.--Payment of any
benefits which are deferred or suspended pending the
selection of a representative payee shall be made to the
qualified individual or the representative payee as
[[Page 30755]]
a single sum or over such period of time as the Commissioner
of Social Security determines is in the best interest of the
qualified individual.
``(f) Hearing.--Any qualified individual who is
dissatisfied with a determination by the Commissioner of
Social Security to make payment of the qualified individual's
benefit to a representative payee under subsection (a) of
this section or with the designation of a particular person
to serve as representative payee shall be entitled to a
hearing by the Commissioner of Social Security to the same
extent as is provided in section 809(a), and to judicial
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final
decision as is provided in section 809(b).
``(g) Notice Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--In advance, to the extent practicable,
of the payment of a qualified individual's benefit to a
representative payee under subsection (a), the Commissioner
of Social Security shall provide written notice of the
Commissioner's initial determination to so make the payment.
The notice shall be provided to the qualified individual,
except that, if the qualified individual is legally
incompetent, then the notice shall be provided solely to the
legal guardian or legal representative of the qualified
individual.
``(2) Specific requirements.--Any notice required by
paragraph (1) shall be clearly written in language that is
easily understandable to the reader, shall identify the
person to be designated as the qualified individual's
representative payee, and shall explain to the reader the
right under subsection (f) of the qualified individual or of
the qualified individual's legal guardian or legal
representative--
``(A) to appeal a determination that a representative payee
is necessary for the qualified individual;
``(B) to appeal the designation of a particular person to
serve as the representative payee of the qualified
individual; and
``(C) to review the evidence upon which the designation is
based and to submit additional evidence.
``(h) Accountability Monitoring.--
``(1) In general.--In any case where payment under this
title is made to a person other than the qualified individual
entitled to the payment, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall establish a system of accountability monitoring under
which the person shall report not less often than annually
with respect to the use of the payments. The Commissioner of
Social Security shall establish and implement statistically
valid procedures for reviewing the reports in order to
identify instances in which persons are not properly using
the payments.
``(2) Special reports.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Commissioner of Social Security may require a report at any
time from any person receiving payments on behalf of a
qualified individual, if the Commissioner of Social Security
has reason to believe that the person receiving the payments
is misusing the payments.
``(3) Maintaining lists of payees.--The Commissioner of
Social Security shall maintain lists which shall be updated
periodically of--
``(A) the name, address, and (if issued) the social
security account number or employer identification number of
each representative payee who is receiving benefit payments
pursuant to this section, section 205(j), or section
1631(a)(2); and
``(B) the name, address, and social security account number
of each individual for whom each representative payee is
reported to be providing services as representative payee
pursuant to this section, section 205(j), or section
1631(a)(2).
``(4) Maintaining lists of agencies.--The Commissioner of
Social Security shall maintain lists, which shall be updated
periodically, of public agencies and community-based
nonprofit social service agencies which are qualified to
serve as representative payees pursuant to this section and
which are located in the jurisdiction in which any qualified
individual resides.
``(i) Restitution.--In any case where the negligent failure
of the Commissioner of Social Security to investigate or
monitor a representative payee results in misuse of benefits
by the representative payee, the Commissioner of Social
Security shall make payment to the qualified individual or
the individual's alternative representative payee of an
amount equal to the misused benefits. The Commissioner of
Social Security shall make a good faith effort to obtain
restitution from the terminated representative payee.
``SEC. 808. OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS.
``(a) In General.--Whenever the Commissioner of Social
Security finds that more or less than the correct amount of
payment has been made to any person under this title, proper
adjustment or recovery shall be made, as follows:
``(1) With respect to payment to a person of more than the
correct amount, the Commissioner of Social Security shall
decrease any payment--
``(A) under this title to which the overpaid person (if a
qualified individual) is entitled, or shall require the
overpaid person or his or her estate to refund the amount in
excess of the correct amount, or, if recovery is not obtained
under these 2 methods, shall seek or pursue recovery by means
of reduction in tax refunds based on notice to the Secretary
of the Treasury, as authorized under section 3720A of title
31, United States Code; or
``(B) under title II to recover the amount in excess of the
correct amount, if the person is not currently eligible for
payment under this title.
``(2) With respect to payment of less than the correct
amount to a qualified individual who, at the time the
Commissioner of Social Security is prepared to take action
with respect to the underpayment--
``(A) is living, the Commissioner of Social Security shall
make payment to the qualified individual (or the qualified
individual's representative payee designated under section
807) of the balance of the amount due the underpaid qualified
individual; or
``(B) is deceased, the balance of the amount due shall
revert to the general fund of the Treasury.
``(b) No Effect on Title VIII Eligibility or Benefit
Amount.--In any case in which the Commissioner of Social
Security takes action in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(B)
to recover an amount incorrectly paid to an individual, that
individual shall not, as a result of such action--
``(1) become qualified for benefits under this title; or
``(2) if such individual is otherwise so qualified, become
qualified for increased benefits under this title.
``(c) Waiver of Recovery of Overpayment.--In any case in
which more than the correct amount of payment has been made,
there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by
the United States from, any person who is without fault if
the Commissioner of Social Security determines that the
adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this title
or would be against equity and good conscience.
``(d) Limited Immunity for Disbursing Officers.--A
disbursing officer may not be held liable for any amount paid
by the officer if the adjustment or recovery of the amount is
waived under subsection (b), or adjustment under subsection
(a) is not completed before the death of the qualified
individual against whose benefits deductions are authorized.
``(e) Authorized Collection Practices.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to any delinquent amount,
the Commissioner of Social Security may use the collection
practices described in sections 3711(e), 3716, and 3718 of
title 31, United States Code, as in effect on October 1,
1994.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
`delinquent amount' means an amount--
``(A) in excess of the correct amount of the payment under
this title; and
``(B) determined by the Commissioner of Social Security to
be otherwise unrecoverable under this section from a person
who is not a qualified individual under this title.
``SEC. 809. HEARINGS AND REVIEW.
``(a) Hearings.--
``(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall make findings of fact and decisions as to the rights of
any individual applying for payment under this title. The
Commissioner of Social Security shall provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for a hearing to any individual who is
or claims to be a qualified individual and is in disagreement
with any determination under this title with respect to
entitlement to, or the amount of, benefits under this title,
if the individual requests a hearing on the matter in
disagreement within 60 days after notice of the determination
is received, and, if a hearing is held, shall, on the basis
of evidence adduced at the hearing affirm, modify, or reverse
the Commissioner of Social Security's findings of fact and
the decision. The Commissioner of Social Security may, on the
Commissioner of Social Security's own motion, hold such
hearings and conduct such investigations and other
proceedings as the Commissioner of Social Security deems
necessary or proper for the administration of this title. In
the course of any hearing, investigation, or other
proceeding, the Commissioner may administer oaths and
affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence.
Evidence may be received at any hearing before the
Commissioner of Social Security even though inadmissible
under the rules of evidence applicable to court procedure.
The Commissioner of Social Security shall specifically take
into account any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic
limitation of the individual (including any lack of facility
with the English language) in determining, with respect to
the entitlement of the individual for benefits under this
title, whether the individual acted in good faith or was at
fault, and in determining fraud, deception, or intent.
``(2) Effect of failure to timely request review.--A
failure to timely request review of an initial adverse
determination with respect to an application for any payment
under this title or an adverse determination on
reconsideration of such an initial determination shall not
serve as a basis for denial of a subsequent application for
any payment under this title if the applicant demonstrates
that the applicant failed to so request such a review acting
in good faith reliance upon incorrect, incomplete, or
misleading information, relating to the consequences of
reapplying for payments in lieu
[[Page 30756]]
of seeking review of an adverse determination, provided by
any officer or employee of the Social Security
Administration.
``(3) Notice requirements.--In any notice of an adverse
determination with respect to which a review may be requested
under paragraph (1), the Commissioner of Social Security
shall describe in clear and specific language the effect on
possible entitlement to benefits under this title of choosing
to reapply in lieu of requesting review of the determination.
``(b) Judicial Review.--The final determination of the
Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing under
subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to judicial review as
provided in section 205(g) to the same extent as the
Commissioner of Social Security's final determinations under
section 205.
``SEC. 810. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
``(a) Regulations and Administrative Arrangements.--The
Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe such
regulations, and make such administrative and other
arrangements, as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this title.
``(b) Payment of Benefits.--Benefits under this title shall
be paid at such time or times and in such installments as the
Commissioner of Social Security determines are in the
interests of economy and efficiency.
``(c) Entitlement Redeterminations.--An individual's
entitlement to benefits under this title, and the amount of
the benefits, may be redetermined at such time or times as
the Commissioner of Social Security determines to be
appropriate.
``(d) Suspension and Termination of Benefits.--Regulations
prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Security under
subsection (a) may provide for the suspension and termination
of entitlement to benefits under this title as the
Commissioner determines is appropriate.
``SEC. 811. PENALTIES FOR FRAUD.
``(a) In General.--Whoever--
``(1) knowingly and willfully makes or causes to be made
any false statement or representation of a material fact in
an application for benefits under this title;
``(2) at any time knowingly and willfully makes or causes
to be made any false statement or representation of a
material fact for use in determining any right to the
benefits;
``(3) having knowledge of the occurrence of any event
affecting--
``(A) his or her initial or continued right to the
benefits; or
``(B) the initial or continued right to the benefits of any
other individual in whose behalf he or she has applied for or
is receiving the benefit,
conceals or fails to disclose the event with an intent
fraudulently to secure the benefit either in a greater amount
or quantity than is due or when no such benefit is
authorized; or
``(4) having made application to receive any such benefit
for the use and benefit of another and having received it,
knowingly and willfully converts the benefit or any part
thereof to a use other than for the use and benefit of the
other individual,
shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both.
``(b) Restitution by Representative Payee.--If a person or
organization violates subsection (a) in the person's or
organization's role as, or in applying to become, a
representative payee under section 807 on behalf of a
qualified individual, and the violation includes a willful
misuse of funds by the person or entity, the court may also
require that full or partial restitution of funds be made to
the qualified individual.
``SEC. 812. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) World war ii veteran.--The term `World War II
veteran' means a person who--
``(A) served during World War II--
``(i) in the active military, naval, or air service of the
United States during World War II; or
``(ii) in the organized military forces of the Government
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while the forces were
in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States
pursuant to the military order of the President dated July
26, 1941, including among the military forces organized
guerrilla forces under commanders appointed, designated, or
subsequently recognized by the Commander in Chief, Southwest
Pacific Area, or other competent authority in the Army of the
United States, in any case in which the service was rendered
before December 31, 1946; and
``(B) was discharged or released therefrom under conditions
other than dishonorable--
``(i) after service of 90 days or more; or
``(ii) because of a disability or injury incurred or
aggravated in the line of active duty.
``(2) World war ii.--The term `World War II' means the
period beginning on September 16, 1940, and ending on July
24, 1947.
``(3) Supplemental security income benefit under title
xvi.--The term `supplemental security income benefit under
title XVI', except as otherwise provided, includes State
supplementary payments which are paid by the Commissioner of
Social Security pursuant to an agreement under section
1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66.
``(4) Federal benefit rate under title xvi.--The term
`Federal benefit rate under title XVI' means, with respect to
any month, the amount of the supplemental security income
cash benefit (not including any State supplementary payment
which is paid by the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant
to an agreement under section 1616(a) of this Act or section
212(b) of Public Law 93-66) payable under title XVI for the
month to an eligible individual with no income.
``(5) United states.--The term `United States' means,
notwithstanding section 1101(a)(1), only the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
``(6) Benefit income.--The term `benefit income' means any
recurring payment received by a qualified individual as an
annuity, pension, retirement, or disability benefit
(including any veterans' compensation or pension, workmen's
compensation payment, old-age, survivors, or disability
insurance benefit, railroad retirement annuity or pension,
and unemployment insurance benefit), but only if a similar
payment was received by the individual from the same (or a
related) source during the 12-month period preceding the
month in which the individual files an application for
benefits under this title.
``SEC. 813. APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2000 and
subsequent fiscal years, out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Social security trust funds lae account.--Section
201(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)) is amended--
(A) in the fourth sentence of paragraph (1)(A), by
inserting after ``this title,'' the following: ``title
VIII,'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(B)(i)(I), by inserting after ``this
title,'' the following: ``title VIII,''; and
(C) in paragraph (1)(C)(i), by inserting after ``this
title,'' the following: ``title VIII,''.
(2) Representative payee provisions of title ii.--Section
205(j) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``807 or'' before
``1631(a)(2)'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I), by inserting ``, title
VIII,'' before ``or title XVI'';
(C) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(III), by inserting ``, 811,''
before ``or 1632'';
(D) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(IV)--
(i) by inserting ``, the designation of such person as a
representative payee has been revoked pursuant to section
807(a),'' before ``or payment of benefits''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, title VIII,'' before ``or title
XVI'';
(E) in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)(I)--
(i) by inserting ``whose designation as a representative
payee has been revoked pursuant to section 807(a),'' before
``or with respect to whom''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, title VIII,'' before ``or title
XVI'';
(F) in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)(II), by inserting ``, 811,''
before ``or 1632'';
(G) in paragraph (2)(C)(i)(II), by inserting ``, the
designation of such person as a representative payee has been
revoked pursuant to section 807(a),'' before ``or payment of
benefits'';
(H) in each of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E), by
inserting ``, section 807,'' before ``or section
1631(a)(2)'';
(I) in paragraph (3)(F), by inserting ``807 or'' before
``1631(a)(2)''; and
(J) in paragraph (4)(B)(i), by inserting ``807 or'' before
``1631(a)(2)''.
(3) Withholding for child support and alimony
obligations.--Section 459(h)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
659(h)(1)(A)) is amended--
(A) at the end of clause (iii), by striking ``and'';
(B) at the end of clause (iv), by striking ``but'' and
inserting ``and''; and
(C) by adding at the end a new clause as follows:
``(v) special benefits for certain World War II veterans
payable under title VIII; but''.
(4) Social security advisory board.--Section 703(b) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 903(b)) is amended by striking ``title II''
and inserting ``title II, the program of special benefits for
certain World War II veterans under title VIII,''.
(5) Delivery of checks.--Section 708 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
908) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``title II'' and
inserting ``title II, title VIII,''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``title II'' and
inserting ``title II, title VIII,''.
(6) Civil monetary penalties.--Section 1129 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1320a-8) is amended--
(A) in the title, by striking ``II'' and inserting ``II,
VIII'';
(B) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) benefits or payments under title VIII, or'';
(C) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``or title VIII,''
after ``title II'';
[[Page 30757]]
(D) in subsection (e)(1)(C)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
(ii) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (i) the following new
clause:
``(ii) by decrease of any payment under title VIII to which
the person is entitled, or'';
(E) in subsection (e)(2)(B), by striking ``title XVI'' and
inserting ``title VIII or XVI''; and
(F) in subsection (l), by striking ``title XVI'' and
inserting ``title VIII or XVI''.
(7) Recovery of ssi overpayments.--Section 1147 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320b-17) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by inserting ``or VIII'' after ``title II'' the first
place it appears; and
(ii) by striking ``title II'' the second place it appears
and inserting ``such title''; and
(B) in the heading, by striking ``social security'' and
inserting ``other''.
(8) Recovery of social security overpayments.--Part A of
title XI of the Social Security Act is amended by inserting
after section 1147 (42 U.S.C. 1320b-17) the following new
section:
``recovery of social security benefit overpayments from title viii
benefits
``Sec. 1147A. Whenever the Commissioner of Social Security
determines that more than the correct amount of any payment
has been made under title II to an individual who is not
currently receiving benefits under that title but who is
receiving benefits under title VIII, the Commissioner may
recover the amount incorrectly paid under title II by
decreasing any amount which is payable to the individual
under title VIII.''.
(9) Representative payee provisions of title xvi.--Section
1631(a)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by inserting ``or 807'' after
``205(j)(1)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii)(I), by inserting ``, title
VIII,'' before ``or this title'';
(C) in subparagraph (B)(ii)(III), by inserting ``, 811,''
before ``or 1632'';
(D) in subparagraph (B)(ii)(IV)--
(i) by inserting ``whether the designation of such person
as a representative payee has been revoked pursuant to
section 807(a),'' before ``and whether certification''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, title VIII,'' before ``or this
title'';
(E) in subparagraph (B)(iii)(II), by inserting ``the
designation of such person as a representative payee has been
revoked pursuant to section 807(a),'' before ``or
certification''; and
(F) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II)(aa), by inserting ``or
807'' after ``205(j)(4)''.
(10) Administrative offset.--Section 3716(c)(3)(C) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``sections 205(b)(1)'' and inserting
``sections 205(b)(1), 809(a)(1),''; and
(B) by striking ``either title II'' and inserting ``title
II, VIII,''.
Subtitle C--Study
SEC. 261. STUDY OF DENIAL OF SSI BENEFITS FOR FAMILY FARMERS.
(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall
conduct a study of the reasons why family farmers with
resources of less than $100,000 are denied supplemental
security income benefits under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, including whether the deeming process unduly
burdens and discriminates against family farmers who do not
institutionalize a disabled dependent, and shall determine
the number of such farmers who have been denied such benefits
during each of the preceding 10 years.
(b) Report to the Congress.--Within 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social
Security shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Finance of the Senate a report that contains the results
of the study, and the determination, required by subsection
(a).
TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT
SEC. 301. NARROWING OF HOLD-HARMLESS PROVISION FOR STATE
SHARE OF DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTED CHILD
SUPPORT.
(a) In General.--Section 457(d) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 657(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Hold Harmless Provision.--If--
``(1) the State share of amounts collected in the fiscal
year which could be retained to reimburse the State for
amounts paid to families as assistance by the State is less
than the State share of such amounts collected in fiscal year
1995 (determined in accordance with section 457 as in effect
on August 21, 1996); and
``(2)(A) the State has distributed to families that include
an adult receiving assistance under the program under part A
at least 80 percent of the current support payments collected
during the preceding fiscal year on behalf of such families,
and the amounts distributed were disregarded in determining
the amount or type of assistance provided under the program
under part A; or
``(B) the State has distributed to families that formerly
received assistance under the program under part A the State
share of the amounts collected pursuant to section 464 that
could have been retained as reimbursement for assistance paid
to such families,
then the State share otherwise determined for the fiscal year
shall be increased by an amount equal to \1/2\ of the amount
(if any) by which the State share for fiscal year 1995
exceeds the State share for the fiscal year (determined
without regard to this subsection).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective with respect to calendar quarters
occurring during the period that begins on October 1, 1998,
and ends on September 30, 2001.
(c) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2001, section 457 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsections (e) and
(f)'' and inserting ``subsections (d) and (e)'';
(2) by striking subsection (d);
(3) in subsection (e), by striking the second sentence; and
(4) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
SEC. 401. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO AMENDMENTS MADE
BY THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK
OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996.
(a) Section 402(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``Act'' and
inserting ``section''.
(b) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)(II)) is amended by striking
``part'' and inserting ``section''.
(c) Section 413(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
613(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``Act'' and inserting
``section''.
(d) Section 416 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 616)
is amended by striking ``Opportunity Act'' and inserting
``Opportunity Reconciliation Act'' each place such term
appears.
(e) Section 431(a)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
629a(a)(6))) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, as in effect before August 22, 1986''
after ``482(i)(5)''; and
(2) by inserting ``, as so in effect'' after
``482(i)(7)(A)''.
(f) Sections 452(a)(7) and 466(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(7) and 666(c)(2)(A)(i)) are
each amended by striking ``Social Security'' and inserting
``social security''.
(g) Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``, or'' at the end of each of paragraphs
(6)(E)(i) and (19)(B)(i) and inserting ``; or'';
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end of
each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) and inserting a
semicolon; and
(3) by striking ``, and'' at the end of each of paragraphs
(19)(A) and (24)(A) and inserting ``; and''.
(h) Section 454(24)(B) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 654(24)(B)) is amended by striking ``Opportunity Act''
and inserting ``Opportunity Reconciliation Act''.
(i) Section 344(b)(1)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193; 110 Stat. 2236) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
`(B) equal to the percent specified in paragraph (3) of the
sums expended during such quarter that are attributable to
the planning, design, development, installation or
enhancement of an automatic data processing and information
retrieval system (including in such sums the full cost of the
hardware components of such system); and'; and''.
(j) Section 457(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 657(a)(2)(B)(i)(I)) is amended by striking ``Act
Reconciliation'' and inserting ``Reconciliation Act''.
(k) Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657)
is amended by striking ``Opportunity Act'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Opportunity Reconciliation Act''.
(l) Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act,
section 404(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 604(e))
is amended by inserting ``or tribe'' after ``State'' the
first and second places it appears, and by inserting ``or
tribal'' after ``State'' the third place it appears.
(m) Section 466(a)(7)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 666(a)(7)(A)) is amended by striking ``1681a(f))'' and
inserting ``1681a(f)))''.
(n) Section 466(b)(6)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 666(b)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``state'' and
inserting ``State''.
(o) Section 471(a)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``(including activities
under part F)''.
(p) Section 1137(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320b-7(a)(3)) is amended by striking
``453A(a)(2)(B)(iii))'' and inserting
``453A(a)(2)(B)(ii)))''.
(q) Except as provided in subsection (l), the amendments
made by this section shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.
2105).
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
[[Page 30758]]
____________________
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY ACT OF 1999
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 580) to amend title IX of the
Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the Agency for
Healthcare Policy and Research, and ask for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for an explanation of
his unanimous consent request.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
to me.
Mr. Speaker, S. 580 reauthorizes and renames the Agency for
Healthcare Policy and Research as the agency for Health Research and
Quality, AHRQ. It also refocuses the Agency's mission, which is to
conduct and support research on the quality, outcomes, cost, and
utilization of healthcare services, and access to those services.
The agency will promote quality by sharing information, build public-
private partnerships to advance and share quality measures, report
annually to Congress on the state of quality in the Nation, support the
evaluation of state-of-the-art information systems for healthcare
quality, support primary care and access in underserved areas,
facilitate innovation in patient care with streamlined assessment of
new technologies, coordinate quality improvement efforts to avoid
duplication, and facilitate utilization of preventative health
services.
The bill also authorizes appropriations for pediatric graduate
medical education in children's hospitals. These represent important
reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this request.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object,
with that explanation, I want to associate myself with the remarks of
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to let my colleagues know that
I support the adoption of S. 580.
I am particularly pleased because one of the key provisions in this
bill is the Graduate Medical Education Funding for children's
hospitals. They will receive actual dollars in fiscal year 2000 if this
authorization is enacted. We have worked in a bipartisan manner in this
bill, and I am glad to see its inclusion.
HCPR is needed to study key health care issues as we go into the next
century. These issues include access, cost, quality, and equity in
virtually all aspects of the health care system.
The true bipartisanship exhibited by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), his staff, the
Senate, particularly the efforts of Senators Jeffords, Frist, Kennedy,
and their staff, especially the efforts of Ellie Dehoney in my office.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend that this bill be adopted by unanimous
consent in the House of Representatives.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support consideration of
S. 580, the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999 by the House
today. I introduced H.R. 2506 in the House on September 14, 1999.
Following approval by my Subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee,
the House voted overwhelmingly to pass H.R. 2506 on September 28, 1999.
Late last week, the Senate passed S. 580 by unanimous consent. The
bill before us today represents a bipartisan agreement between the
House and Senate authorizing committees on a compromise version of the
bills previously approved by each body. This widely supported,
bipartisan measure is critical to improving the quality of health care
in this country. The ``Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999''
will significantly increase health care research and science-based
evidence to improve the quality of patient care.
S. 580 reauthorizes the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
(AHCPR) for fiscal years 2000-2005, renames it as the ``Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality,'' and refocuses the agency's mission
to become a focal point, and partner to the private sector, in
supporting of health care research and quality improvement activities.
Equally important, the bill authorizes critical funding for our
nation's children's hospitals. I was pleased to support the adoption of
these provisions when this bill was previously considered by the House.
Passage of this legislation today is an important step in ensuring that
America's children's hospitals receive the resources that they need.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 580
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 ``Healthcare Research and
Quality Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
(a) In General.--Title IX of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``TITLE IX--AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY
``PART A--ESTABLISHMENT AND GENERAL DUTIES
``SEC. 901. MISSION AND DUTIES.
``(a) In General.--There is established within the Public
Health Service an agency to be known as the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, which shall be headed by a
director appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall
carry out this title acting through the Director.
``(b) Mission.--The purpose of the Agency is to enhance the
quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health
services, and access to such services, through the
establishment of a broad base of scientific research and
through the promotion of improvements in clinical and health
system practices, including the prevention of diseases and
other health conditions. The Agency shall promote health care
quality improvement by conducting and supporting--
``(1) research that develops and presents scientific
evidence regarding all aspects of health care, including--
``(A) the development and assessment of methods for
enhancing patient participation in their own care and for
facilitating shared patient-physician decision-making;
``(B) the outcomes, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness
of health care practices, including preventive measures and
long-term care;
``(C) existing and innovative technologies;
``(D) the costs and utilization of, and access to health
care;
``(E) the ways in which health care services are organized,
delivered, and financed and the interaction and impact of
these factors on the quality of patient care;
``(F) methods for measuring quality and strategies for
improving quality; and
``(G) ways in which patients, consumers, purchasers, and
practitioners acquire new information about best practices
and health benefits, the determinants and impact of their use
of this information;
``(2) the synthesis and dissemination of available
scientific evidence for use by patients, consumers,
practitioners, providers, purchasers, policy makers, and
educators; and
``(3) initiatives to advance private and public efforts to
improve health care quality.
``(c) Requirements With Respect to Rural and Inner-city
Areas and Priority Populations.--
``(1) Research, evaluations and demonstration projects.--In
carrying out this title, the Director shall conduct and
support research and evaluations, and support demonstration
projects, with respect to--
``(A) the delivery of health care in inner-city areas, and
in rural areas (including frontier areas); and
``(B) health care for priority populations, which shall
include--
``(i) low-income groups;
``(ii) minority groups;
``(iii) women;
``(iv) children;
``(v) the elderly; and
``(vi) individuals with special health care needs,
including individuals with disabilities and individuals who
need chronic care or end-of-life health care.
``(2) Process to ensure appropriate research.--The Director
shall establish a process to ensure that the requirements of
paragraph (1) are reflected in the overall portfolio of
research conducted and supported by the Agency.
``(3) Office of priority populations.--The Director shall
establish an Office of Priority Populations to assist in
carrying out the requirements of paragraph (1).
``SEC. 902. GENERAL AUTHORITIES.
``(a) In General.--In carrying out section 901(b), the
Director shall conduct and support research, evaluations, and
training, support demonstration projects, research networks,
and multi-disciplinary centers, provide technical assistance,
and disseminate information on health care and on systems
[[Page 30759]]
for the delivery of such care, including activities with
respect to--
``(1) the quality, effectiveness, efficiency,
appropriateness and value of health care services;
``(2) quality measurement and improvement;
``(3) the outcomes, cost, cost-effectiveness, and use of
health care services and access to such services;
``(4) clinical practice, including primary care and
practice-oriented research;
``(5) health care technologies, facilities, and equipment;
``(6) health care costs, productivity, organization, and
market forces;
``(7) health promotion and disease prevention, including
clinical preventive services;
``(8) health statistics, surveys, database development, and
epidemiology; and
``(9) medical liability.
``(b) Health Services Training Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may provide training grants
in the field of health services research related to
activities authorized under subsection (a), to include pre-
and post-doctoral fellowships and training programs, young
investigator awards, and other programs and activities as
appropriate. In carrying out this subsection, the Director
shall make use of funds made available under section
487(d)(3) as well as other appropriated funds.
``(2) Requirements.--In developing priorities for the
allocation of training funds under this subsection, the
Director shall take into consideration shortages in the
number of trained researchers who are addressing health care
issues for the priority populations identified in section
901(c)(1)(B) and in addition, shall take into consideration
indications of long-term commitment, amongst applicants for
training funds, to addressing health care needs of the
priority populations.
``(c) Multidisciplinary Centers.--The Director may provide
financial assistance to assist in meeting the costs of
planning and establishing new centers, and operating existing
and new centers, for multidisciplinary health services
research, demonstration projects, evaluations, training, and
policy analysis with respect to the matters referred to in
subsection (a).
``(d) Relation to Certain Authorities Regarding Social
Security.--Activities authorized in this section shall be
appropriately coordinated with experiments, demonstration
projects, and other related activities authorized by the
Social Security Act and the Social Security Amendments of
1967. Activities under subsection (a)(2) of this section that
affect the programs under titles XVIII, XIX and XXI of the
Social Security Act shall be carried out consistent with
section 1142 of such Act.
``(e) Disclaimer.--The Agency shall not mandate national
standards of clinical practice or quality health care
standards. Recommendations resulting from projects funded and
published by the Agency shall include a corresponding
disclaimer.
``(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to imply that the Agency's role is to mandate a
national standard or specific approach to quality measurement
and reporting. In research and quality improvement
activities, the Agency shall consider a wide range of
choices, providers, health care delivery systems, and
individual preferences.
``(g) Annual Report.--Beginning with fiscal year 2003, the
Director shall annually submit to the Congress a report
regarding prevailing disparities in health care delivery as
it relates to racial factors and socioeconomic factors in
priority populations.
``PART B--HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH
``SEC. 911. HEALTH CARE OUTCOME IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH.
``(a) Evidence Rating Systems.--In collaboration with
experts from the public and private sector, the Agency shall
identify and disseminate methods or systems to assess health
care research results, particularly methods or systems to
rate the strength of the scientific evidence underlying
health care practice, recommendations in the research
literature, and technology assessments. The Agency shall make
methods or systems for evidence rating widely available.
Agency publications containing health care recommendations
shall indicate the level of substantiating evidence using
such methods or systems.
``(b) Health Care Improvement Research Centers and
Provider-Based Research Networks.--
``(1) In general.--In order to address the full continuum
of care and outcomes research, to link research to practice
improvement, and to speed the dissemination of research
findings to community practice settings, the Agency shall
employ research strategies and mechanisms that will link
research directly with clinical practice in geographically
diverse locations throughout the United States, including--
``(A) health care improvement research centers that combine
demonstrated multidisciplinary expertise in outcomes or
quality improvement research with linkages to relevant sites
of care;
``(B) provider-based research networks, including plan,
facility, or delivery system sites of care (especially
primary care), that can evaluate outcomes and evaluate and
promote quality improvement; and
``(C) other innovative mechanisms or strategies to link
research with clinical practice.
``(2) Requirements.--The Director is authorized to
establish the requirements for entities applying for grants
under this subsection.
``SEC. 912. PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS TO IMPROVE
ORGANIZATION AND DELIVERY.
``(a) Support for Efforts To Develop Information on
Quality.--
``(1) Scientific and technical support.--In its role as the
principal agency for health care research and quality, the
Agency may provide scientific and technical support for
private and public efforts to improve health care quality,
including the activities of accrediting organizations.
``(2) Role of the agency.--With respect to paragraph (1),
the role of the Agency shall include--
``(A) the identification and assessment of methods for the
evaluation of the health of--
``(i) enrollees in health plans by type of plan, provider,
and provider arrangements; and
``(ii) other populations, including those receiving long-
term care services;
``(B) the ongoing development, testing, and dissemination
of quality measures, including measures of health and
functional outcomes;
``(C) the compilation and dissemination of health care
quality measures developed in the private and public sector;
``(D) assistance in the development of improved health care
information systems;
``(E) the development of survey tools for the purpose of
measuring participant and beneficiary assessments of their
health care; and
``(F) identifying and disseminating information on
mechanisms for the integration of information on quality into
purchaser and consumer decision-making processes.
``(b) Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director and in consultation with the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, shall establish a program for the purpose of
making one or more grants for the establishment and operation
of one or more centers to carry out the activities specified
in paragraph (2).
``(2) Required activities.--The activities referred to in
this paragraph are the following:
``(A) The conduct of state-of-the-art research for the
following purposes:
``(i) To increase awareness of--
``(I) new uses of drugs, biological products, and devices;
``(II) ways to improve the effective use of drugs,
biological products, and devices; and
``(III) risks of new uses and risks of combinations of
drugs and biological products.
``(ii) To provide objective clinical information to the
following individuals and entities:
``(I) Health care practitioners and other providers of
health care goods or services.
``(II) Pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers and
purchasers.
``(III) Health maintenance organizations and other managed
health care organizations.
``(IV) Health care insurers and governmental agencies.
``(V) Patients and consumers.
``(iii) To improve the quality of health care while
reducing the cost of health care through--
``(I) an increase in the appropriate use of drugs,
biological products, or devices; and
``(II) the prevention of adverse effects of drugs,
biological products, and devices and the consequences of such
effects, such as unnecessary hospitalizations.
``(B) The conduct of research on the comparative
effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of drugs,
biological products, and devices.
``(C) Such other activities as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate, except that a grant may not be expended to
assist the Secretary in the review of new drugs, biological
products, and devices.
``(c) Reducing Errors in Medicine.--The Director shall
conduct and support research and build private-public
partnerships to--
``(1) identify the causes of preventable health care errors
and patient injury in health care delivery;
``(2) develop, demonstrate, and evaluate strategies for
reducing errors and improving patient safety; and
``(3) disseminate such effective strategies throughout the
health care industry.
``SEC. 913. INFORMATION ON QUALITY AND COST OF CARE.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall--
``(1) conduct a survey to collect data on a nationally
representative sample of the population on the cost, use and,
for fiscal year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years, quality of
health care, including the types of health care services
Americans use, their access to health care services,
frequency of use, how much is paid for the services used, the
source of those payments, the types and costs of private
health insurance, access, satisfaction, and quality of care
for the general population including rural residents and also
for populations identified in section 901(c); and
[[Page 30760]]
``(2) develop databases and tools that provide information
to States on the quality, access, and use of health care
services provided to their residents.
``(b) Quality and Outcomes Information.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the
Director shall ensure that the survey conducted under
subsection (a)(1) will--
``(A) identify determinants of health outcomes and
functional status, including the health care needs of
populations identified in section 901(c), provide data to
study the relationships between health care quality,
outcomes, access, use, and cost, measure changes over time,
and monitor the overall national impact of Federal and State
policy changes on health care;
``(B) provide information on the quality of care and
patient outcomes for frequently occurring clinical conditions
for a nationally representative sample of the population
including rural residents; and
``(C) provide reliable national estimates for children and
persons with special health care needs through the use of
supplements or periodic expansions of the survey.
In expanding the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, as in
existence on the date of the enactment of this title in
fiscal year 2001 to collect information on the quality of
care, the Director shall take into account any outcomes
measurements generally collected by private sector
accreditation organizations.
``(2) Annual report.--Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the
Secretary, acting through the Director, shall submit to
Congress an annual report on national trends in the quality
of health care provided to the American people.
``SEC. 914. INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT.
``(a) In General.--In order to foster a range of innovative
approaches to the management and communication of health
information, the Agency shall conduct and support research,
evaluations, and initiatives to advance--
``(1) the use of information systems for the study of
health care quality and outcomes, including the generation of
both individual provider and plan-level comparative
performance data;
``(2) training for health care practitioners and
researchers in the use of information systems;
``(3) the creation of effective linkages between various
sources of health information, including the development of
information networks;
``(4) the delivery and coordination of evidence-based
health care services, including the use of real-time health
care decision-support programs;
``(5) the utility and comparability of health information
data and medical vocabularies by addressing issues related to
the content, structure, definitions and coding of such
information and data in consultation with appropriate
Federal, State and private entities;
``(6) the use of computer-based health records in all
settings for the development of personal health records for
individual health assessment and maintenance, and for
monitoring public health and outcomes of care within
populations; and
``(7) the protection of individually identifiable
information in health services research and health care
quality improvement.
``(b) Demonstration.--The Agency shall support
demonstrations into the use of new information tools aimed at
improving shared decision-making between patients and their
care-givers.
``(c) Facilitating Public Access to Information.--The
Director shall work with appropriate public and private
sector entities to facilitate public access to information
regarding the quality of and consumer satisfaction with
health care.
``SEC. 915. RESEARCH SUPPORTING PRIMARY CARE AND ACCESS IN
UNDERSERVED AREAS.
``(a) Preventive Services Task Force.--
``(1) Establishment and purpose.--The Director may
periodically convene a Preventive Services Task Force to be
composed of individuals with appropriate expertise. Such a
task force shall review the scientific evidence related to
the effectiveness, appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness of
clinical preventive services for the purpose of developing
recommendations for the health care community, and updating
previous clinical preventive recommendations.
``(2) Role of agency.--The Agency shall provide ongoing
administrative, research, and technical support for the
operations of the Preventive Services Task Force, including
coordinating and supporting the dissemination of the
recommendations of the Task Force.
``(3) Operation.--In carrying out its responsibilities
under paragraph (1), the Task Force is not subject to the
provisions of Appendix 2 of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Primary Care Research.--
``(1) In general.--There is established within the Agency a
Center for Primary Care Research (referred to in this
subsection as the `Center') that shall serve as the principal
source of funding for primary care practice research in the
Department of Health and Human Services. For purposes of this
paragraph, primary care research focuses on the first contact
when illness or health concerns arise, the diagnosis,
treatment or referral to specialty care, preventive care, and
the relationship between the clinician and the patient in the
context of the family and community.
``(2) Research.--In carrying out this section, the Center
shall conduct and support research concerning--
``(A) the nature and characteristics of primary care
practice;
``(B) the management of commonly occurring clinical
problems;
``(C) the management of undifferentiated clinical problems;
and
``(D) the continuity and coordination of health services.
``SEC. 916. HEALTH CARE PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall promote innovation in
evidence-based health care practices and technologies by--
``(1) conducting and supporting research on the
development, diffusion, and use of health care technology;
``(2) developing, evaluating, and disseminating
methodologies for assessments of health care practices and
technologies;
``(3) conducting intramural and supporting extramural
assessments of existing and new health care practices and
technologies;
``(4) promoting education and training and providing
technical assistance in the use of health care practice and
technology assessment methodologies and results; and
``(5) working with the National Library of Medicine and the
public and private sector to develop an electronic
clearinghouse of currently available assessments and those in
progress.
``(b) Specification of Process.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the
Director shall develop and publish a description of the
methods used by the Agency and its contractors for health
care practice and technology assessment.
``(2) Consultations.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Director shall cooperate and consult with the Assistant
Secretary for Health, the Administrator of the Health Care
Financing Administration, the Director of the National
Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and
the heads of any other interested Federal department or
agency, and shall seek input, where appropriate, from
professional societies and other private and public entities.
``(3) Methodology.--The Director shall, in developing the
methods used under paragraph (1), consider--
``(A) safety, efficacy, and effectiveness;
``(B) legal, social, and ethical implications;
``(C) costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness;
``(D) comparisons to alternate health care practices and
technologies; and
``(E) requirements of Food and Drug Administration approval
to avoid duplication.
``(c) Specific Assessments.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall conduct or support
specific assessments of health care technologies and
practices.
``(2) Requests for assessments.--The Director is authorized
to conduct or support assessments, on a reimbursable basis,
for the Health Care Financing Administration, the Department
of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of
Personnel Management, and other public or private entities.
``(3) Grants and contracts.--In addition to conducting
assessments, the Director may make grants to, or enter into
cooperative agreements or contracts with, entities described
in paragraph (4) for the purpose of conducting assessments of
experimental, emerging, existing, or potentially outmoded
health care technologies, and for related activities.
``(4) Eligible entities.--An entity described in this
paragraph is an entity that is determined to be appropriate
by the Director, including academic medical centers, research
institutions and organizations, professional organizations,
third party payers, governmental agencies, minority
institutions of higher education (such as Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic institutions), and
consortia of appropriate research entities established for
the purpose of conducting technology assessments.
``(d) Medical Examination of Certain Victims.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall develop and
disseminate a report on evidence-based clinical practices
for--
``(A) the examination and treatment by health professionals
of individuals who are victims of sexual assault (including
child molestation) or attempted sexual assault; and
``(B) the training of health professionals, in consultation
with the Health Resources and Services Administration, on
performing medical evidentiary examinations of individuals
who are victims of child abuse or neglect, sexual assault,
elder abuse, or domestic violence.
``(2) Certain considerations.--In identifying the issues to
be addressed by the report, the Director shall, to the extent
practicable, take into consideration the expertise and
experience of Federal and State law enforcement officials
regarding the victims referred to in paragraph (1), and of
other appropriate public and private entities (including
medical societies, victim services organizations, sexual
assault prevention organizations, and social services
organizations).
[[Page 30761]]
``SEC. 917. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS.
``(a) Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--To avoid duplication and ensure that
Federal resources are used efficiently and effectively, the
Secretary, acting through the Director, shall coordinate all
research, evaluations, and demonstrations related to health
services research, quality measurement and quality
improvement activities undertaken and supported by the
Federal Government.
``(2) Specific activities.--The Director, in collaboration
with the appropriate Federal officials representing all
concerned executive agencies and departments, shall develop
and manage a process to--
``(A) improve interagency coordination, priority setting,
and the use and sharing of research findings and data
pertaining to Federal quality improvement programs,
technology assessment, and health services research;
``(B) strengthen the research information infrastructure,
including databases, pertaining to Federal health services
research and health care quality improvement initiatives;
``(C) set specific goals for participating agencies and
departments to further health services research and health
care quality improvement; and
``(D) strengthen the management of Federal health care
quality improvement programs.
``(b) Study by the Institute of Medicine.--
``(1) In general.--To provide Congress, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and other relevant departments
with an independent, external review of their quality
oversight, quality improvement and quality research programs,
the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute
of Medicine--
``(A) to describe and evaluate current quality improvement,
quality research and quality monitoring processes through--
``(i) an overview of pertinent health services research
activities and quality improvement efforts conducted by all
Federal programs, with particular attention paid to those
under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act;
and
``(ii) a summary of the partnerships that the Department of
Health and Human Services has pursued with private
accreditation, quality measurement and improvement
organizations; and
``(B) to identify options and make recommendations to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of quality
improvement programs through--
``(i) the improved coordination of activities across the
medicare, medicaid and child health insurance programs under
titles XVIII, XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act and
health services research programs;
``(ii) the strengthening of patient choice and
participation by incorporating state-of-the-art quality
monitoring tools and making information on quality available;
and
``(iii) the enhancement of the most effective programs,
consolidation as appropriate, and elimination of duplicative
activities within various federal agencies.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a
contract with the Institute of Medicine for the preparation--
``(i) not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this title, of a report providing an overview of
the quality improvement programs of the Department of Health
and Human Services for the medicare, medicaid, and CHIP
programs under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social
Security Act; and
``(ii) not later than 24 months after the date of the
enactment of this title, of a final report containing
recommendations.
``(B) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit the reports
described in subparagraph (A) to the Committee on Finance and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives.
``PART C--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``SEC. 921. ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND
QUALITY.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established an advisory
council to be known as the National Advisory Council for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
``(b) Duties.--
``(1) In general.--The Advisory Council shall advise the
Secretary and the Director with respect to activities
proposed or undertaken to carry out the mission of the Agency
under section 901(b).
``(2) Certain recommendations.--Activities of the Advisory
Council under paragraph (1) shall include making
recommendations to the Director regarding--
``(A) priorities regarding health care research, especially
studies related to quality, outcomes, cost and the
utilization of, and access to, health care services;
``(B) the field of health care research and related
disciplines, especially issues related to training needs, and
dissemination of information pertaining to health care
quality; and
``(C) the appropriate role of the Agency in each of these
areas in light of private sector activity and identification
of opportunities for public-private sector partnerships.
``(c) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The Advisory Council shall, in
accordance with this subsection, be composed of appointed
members and ex officio members. All members of the Advisory
Council shall be voting members other than the individuals
designated under paragraph (3)(B) as ex officio members.
``(2) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint to
the Advisory Council 21 appropriately qualified individuals.
At least 17 members of the Advisory Council shall be
representatives of the public who are not officers or
employees of the United States and at least 1 member who
shall be a specialist in the rural aspects of 1 or more of
the professions or fields described in subparagraphs (A)
through (G). The Secretary shall ensure that the appointed
members of the Council, as a group, are representative of
professions and entities concerned with, or affected by,
activities under this title and under section 1142 of the
Social Security Act. Of such members--
``(A) three shall be individuals distinguished in the
conduct of research, demonstration projects, and evaluations
with respect to health care;
``(B) three shall be individuals distinguished in the
fields of health care quality research or health care
improvement;
``(C) three shall be individuals distinguished in the
practice of medicine of which at least one shall be a primary
care practitioner;
``(D) three shall be individuals distinguished in the other
health professions;
``(E) three shall be individuals either representing the
private health care sector, including health plans,
providers, and purchasers or individuals distinguished as
administrators of health care delivery systems;
``(F) three shall be individuals distinguished in the
fields of health care economics, information systems, law,
ethics, business, or public policy; and
``(G) three shall be individuals representing the interests
of patients and consumers of health care.
``(3) Ex officio members.--The Secretary shall designate as
ex officio members of the Advisory Council--
``(A) the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Director of
the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Administrator
of the Health Care Financing Administration, the Commissioner
of the Food and Drug Administration, the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Health Affairs), and the Under Secretary for Health
of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
``(B) such other Federal officials as the Secretary may
consider appropriate.
``(d) Terms.--
``(1) In general.--Members of the Advisory Council
appointed under subsection (c)(2) shall serve for a term of 3
years.
``(2) Staggered terms.--To ensure the staggered rotation of
one-third of the members of the Advisory Council each year,
the Secretary is authorized to appoint the initial members of
the Advisory Council for terms of 1, 2, or 3 years.
``(3) Service beyond term.--A member of the Council
appointed under subsection (c)(2) may continue to serve after
the expiration of the term of the members until a successor
is appointed.
``(e) Vacancies.--If a member of the Advisory Council
appointed under subsection (c)(2) does not serve the full
term applicable under subsection (d), the individual
appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be appointed
for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of the
individual.
``(f) Chair.--The Director shall, from among the members of
the Advisory Council appointed under subsection (c)(2),
designate an individual to serve as the chair of the Advisory
Council.
``(g) Meetings.--The Advisory Council shall meet not less
than once during each discrete 4-month period and shall
otherwise meet at the call of the Director or the chair.
``(h) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--
``(1) Appointed members.--Members of the Advisory Council
appointed under subsection (c)(2) shall receive compensation
for each day (including travel time) engaged in carrying out
the duties of the Advisory Council unless declined by the
member. Such compensation may not be in an amount in excess
of the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day
during which such member is engaged in the performance of the
duties of the Advisory Council.
``(2) Ex officio members.--Officials designated under
subsection (c)(3) as ex officio members of the Advisory
Council may not receive compensation for service on the
Advisory Council in addition to the compensation otherwise
received for duties carried out as officers of the United
States.
``(i) Staff.--The Director shall provide to the Advisory
Council such staff, information, and other assistance as may
be necessary to carry out the duties of the Council.
``(j) Duration.--Notwithstanding section 14(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act,
[[Page 30762]]
the Advisory Council shall continue in existence until
otherwise provided by law.
``SEC. 922. PEER REVIEW WITH RESPECT TO GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
``(a) Requirement of Review.--
``(1) In general.--Appropriate technical and scientific
peer review shall be conducted with respect to each
application for a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract
under this title.
``(2) Reports to director.--Each peer review group to which
an application is submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
report its finding and recommendations respecting the
application to the Director in such form and in such manner
as the Director shall require.
``(b) Approval as Precondition of Awards.--The Director may
not approve an application described in subsection (a)(1)
unless the application is recommended for approval by a peer
review group established under subsection (c).
``(c) Establishment of Peer Review Groups.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall establish such
technical and scientific peer review groups as may be
necessary to carry out this section. Such groups shall be
established without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, that govern appointments in the
competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53, of such title
that relate to classification and pay rates under the General
Schedule.
``(2) Membership.--The members of any peer review group
established under this section shall be appointed from among
individuals who by virtue of their training or experience are
eminently qualified to carry out the duties of such peer
review group. Officers and employees of the United States may
not constitute more than 25 percent of the membership of any
such group. Such officers and employees may not receive
compensation for service on such groups in addition to the
compensation otherwise received for these duties carried out
as such officers and employees.
``(3) Duration.--Notwithstanding section 14(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, peer review groups
established under this section may continue in existence
until otherwise provided by law.
``(4) Qualifications.--Members of any peer-review group
shall, at a minimum, meet the following requirements:
``(A) Such members shall agree in writing to treat
information received, pursuant to their work for the group,
as confidential information, except that this subparagraph
shall not apply to public records and public information.
``(B) Such members shall agree in writing to recuse
themselves from participation in the peer-review of specific
applications which present a potential personal conflict of
interest or appearance of such conflict, including employment
in a directly affected organization, stock ownership, or any
financial or other arrangement that might introduce bias in
the process of peer-review.
``(d) Authority for Procedural Adjustments in Certain
Cases.--In the case of applications for financial assistance
whose direct costs will not exceed $100,000, the Director may
make appropriate adjustments in the procedures otherwise
established by the Director for the conduct of peer review
under this section. Such adjustments may be made for the
purpose of encouraging the entry of individuals into the
field of research, for the purpose of encouraging clinical
practice-oriented or provider-based research, and for such
other purposes as the Director may determine to be
appropriate.
``(e) Regulations.--The Director shall issue regulations
for the conduct of peer review under this section.
``SEC. 923. CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT,
COLLECTION, AND DISSEMINATION OF DATA.
``(a) Standards With Respect to Utility of Data.--
``(1) In general.--To ensure the utility, accuracy, and
sufficiency of data collected by or for the Agency for the
purpose described in section 901(b), the Director shall
establish standard methods for developing and collecting such
data, taking into consideration--
``(A) other Federal health data collection standards; and
``(B) the differences between types of health care plans,
delivery systems, health care providers, and provider
arrangements.
``(2) Relationship with other department programs.--In any
case where standards under paragraph (1) may affect the
administration of other programs carried out by the
Department of Health and Human Services, including the
programs under title XVIII, XIX or XXI of the Social Security
Act, or may affect health information that is subject to a
standard developed under part C of title XI of the Social
Security Act, they shall be in the form of recommendations to
the Secretary for such program.
``(b) Statistics and Analyses.--The Director shall--
``(1) take appropriate action to ensure that statistics and
analyses developed under this title are of high quality,
timely, and duly comprehensive, and that the statistics are
specific, standardized, and adequately analyzed and indexed;
and
``(2) publish, make available, and disseminate such
statistics and analyses on as wide a basis as is practicable.
``(c) Authority Regarding Certain Requests.--Upon request
of a public or private entity, the Director may conduct or
support research or analyses otherwise authorized by this
title pursuant to arrangements under which such entity will
pay the cost of the services provided. Amounts received by
the Director under such arrangements shall be available to
the Director for obligation until expended.
``SEC. 924. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall--
``(1) without regard to section 501 of title 44, United
States Code, promptly publish, make available, and otherwise
disseminate, in a form understandable and on as broad a basis
as practicable so as to maximize its use, the results of
research, demonstration projects, and evaluations conducted
or supported under this title;
``(2) ensure that information disseminated by the Agency is
science-based and objective and undertakes consultation as
necessary to assess the appropriateness and usefulness of the
presentation of information that is targeted to specific
audiences;
``(3) promptly make available to the public data developed
in such research, demonstration projects, and evaluations;
``(4) provide, in collaboration with the National Library
of Medicine where appropriate, indexing, abstracting,
translating, publishing, and other services leading to a more
effective and timely dissemination of information on
research, demonstration projects, and evaluations with
respect to health care to public and private entities and
individuals engaged in the improvement of health care
delivery and the general public, and undertake programs to
develop new or improved methods for making such information
available; and
``(5) as appropriate, provide technical assistance to State
and local government and health agencies and conduct liaison
activities to such agencies to foster dissemination.
``(b) Prohibition Against Restrictions.--Except as provided
in subsection (c), the Director may not restrict the
publication or dissemination of data from, or the results of,
projects conducted or supported under this title.
``(c) Limitation on Use of Certain Information.--No
information, if an establishment or person supplying the
information or described in it is identifiable, obtained in
the course of activities undertaken or supported under this
title may be used for any purpose other than the purpose for
which it was supplied unless such establishment or person has
consented (as determined under regulations of the Director)
to its use for such other purpose. Such information may not
be published or released in other form if the person who
supplied the information or who is described in it is
identifiable unless such person has consented (as determined
under regulations of the Director) to its publication or
release in other form.
``(d) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (c)
shall be subject to a civil monetary penalty of not more than
$10,000 for each such violation involved. Such penalty shall
be imposed and collected in the same manner as civil money
penalties under subsection (a) of section 1128A of the Social
Security Act are imposed and collected.
``SEC. 925. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO GRANTS AND
CONTRACTS.
``(a) Financial Conflicts of Interest.--With respect to
projects for which awards of grants, cooperative agreements,
or contracts are authorized to be made under this title, the
Director shall by regulation define--
``(1) the specific circumstances that constitute financial
interests in such projects that will, or may be reasonably
expected to, create a bias in favor of obtaining results in
the projects that are consistent with such interests; and
``(2) the actions that will be taken by the Director in
response to any such interests identified by the Director.
``(b) Requirement of Application.--The Director may not,
with respect to any program under this title authorizing the
provision of grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts,
provide any such financial assistance unless an application
for the assistance is submitted to the Secretary and the
application is in such form, is made in such manner, and
contains such agreements, assurances, and information as the
Director determines to be necessary to carry out the program
involved.
``(c) Provision of Supplies and Services in Lieu of
Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Upon the request of an entity receiving
a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract under this title,
the Secretary may, subject to paragraph (2), provide
supplies, equipment, and services for the purpose of aiding
the entity in carrying out the project involved and, for such
purpose, may detail to the entity any officer or employee of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
``(2) Corresponding reduction in funds.--With respect to a
request described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
reduce the amount of the financial assistance involved by an
amount equal to the costs of detailing
[[Page 30763]]
personnel and the fair market value of any supplies,
equipment, or services provided by the Director. The
Secretary shall, for the payment of expenses incurred in
complying with such request, expend the amounts withheld.
``(d) Applicability of Certain Provisions With Respect to
Contracts.--Contracts may be entered into under this part
without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised
Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529 and 41 U.S.C. 5).
``SEC. 926. CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.
``(a) Deputy Director and Other Officers and Employees.--
``(1) Deputy director.--The Director may appoint a deputy
director for the Agency.
``(2) Other officers and employees.--The Director may
appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and
employees as may be necessary to carry out this title. Except
as otherwise provided by law, such officers and employees
shall be appointed in accordance with the civil service laws
and their compensation fixed in accordance with title 5,
United States Code.
``(b) Facilities.--The Secretary, in carrying out this
title--
``(1) may acquire, without regard to the Act of March 3,
1877 (40 U.S.C. 34), by lease or otherwise through the
Administrator of General Services, buildings or portions of
buildings in the District of Columbia or communities located
adjacent to the District of Columbia for use for a period not
to exceed 10 years; and
``(2) may acquire, construct, improve, repair, operate, and
maintain laboratory, research, and other necessary facilities
and equipment, and such other real or personal property
(including patents) as the Secretary deems necessary.
``(c) Provision of Financial Assistance.--The Director, in
carrying out this title, may make grants to public and
nonprofit entities and individuals, and may enter into
cooperative agreements or contracts with public and private
entities and individuals.
``(d) Utilization of Certain Personnel and Resources.--
``(1) Department of health and human services.--The
Director, in carrying out this title, may utilize personnel
and equipment, facilities, and other physical resources of
the Department of Health and Human Services, permit
appropriate (as determined by the Secretary) entities and
individuals to utilize the physical resources of such
Department, and provide technical assistance and advice.
``(2) Other agencies.--The Director, in carrying out this
title, may use, with their consent, the services, equipment,
personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal,
State, or local public agencies, or of any foreign
government, with or without reimbursement of such agencies.
``(e) Consultants.--The Secretary, in carrying out this
title, may secure, from time to time and for such periods as
the Director deems advisable but in accordance with section
3109 of title 5, United States Code, the assistance and
advice of consultants from the United States or abroad.
``(f) Experts.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, in carrying out this
title, obtain the services of not more than 50 experts or
consultants who have appropriate scientific or professional
qualifications. Such experts or consultants shall be obtained
in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code, except that the limitation in such section on the
duration of service shall not apply.
``(2) Travel expenses.--
``(A) In general.--Experts and consultants whose services
are obtained under paragraph (1) shall be paid or reimbursed
for their expenses associated with traveling to and from
their assignment location in accordance with sections 5724,
5724a(a), 5724a(c), and 5726(c) of title 5, United States
Code.
``(B) Limitation.--Expenses specified in subparagraph (A)
may not be allowed in connection with the assignment of an
expert or consultant whose services are obtained under
paragraph (1) unless and until the expert agrees in writing
to complete the entire period of assignment, or 1 year,
whichever is shorter, unless separated or reassigned for
reasons that are beyond the control of the expert or
consultant and that are acceptable to the Secretary. If the
expert or consultant violates the agreement, the money spent
by the United States for the expenses specified in
subparagraph (A) is recoverable from the expert or consultant
as a statutory obligation owed to the United States. The
Secretary may waive in whole or in part a right of recovery
under this subparagraph.
``(g) Voluntary and Uncompensated Services.--The Director,
in carrying out this title, may accept voluntary and
uncompensated services.
``SEC. 927. FUNDING.
``(a) Intent.--To ensure that the United States investment
in biomedical research is rapidly translated into
improvements in the quality of patient care, there must be a
corresponding investment in research on the most effective
clinical and organizational strategies for use of these
findings in daily practice. The authorization levels in
subsections (b) and (c) provide for a proportionate increase
in health care research as the United States investment in
biomedical research increases.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this title, there are authorized to be
appropriated $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through
2005.
``(c) Evaluations.--In addition to amounts available
pursuant to subsection (b) for carrying out this title, there
shall be made available for such purpose, from the amounts
made available pursuant to section 241 (relating to
evaluations), an amount equal to 40 percent of the maximum
amount authorized in such section 241 to be made available
for a fiscal year.
``SEC. 928. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Advisory council.--The term `Advisory Council' means
the National Advisory Council on Healthcare Research and
Quality established under section 921.
``(2) Agency.--The term `Agency' means the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
``(3) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.''.
(b) Rules of Construction.--
(1) In general.--Section 901(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (as added by subsection (a) of this section)
applies as a redesignation of the agency that carried out
title IX of such Act on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act, and not as the termination of such
agency and the establishment of a different agency. The
amendment made by subsection (a) of this section does not
affect appointments of the personnel of such agency who were
employed at the agency on the day before such date, including
the appointments of members of advisory councils or study
sections of the agency who were serving on the day before
such date of enactment.
(2) References.--Any reference in law to the Agency for
Health Care Policy and Research is deemed to be a reference
to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and any
reference in law to the Administrator for Health Care Policy
and Research is deemed to be a reference to the Director of
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
SEC. 3. GRANTS REGARDING UTILIZATION OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH
SERVICES.
Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following section:
``SEC. 330D. CENTERS FOR STRATEGIES ON FACILITATING
UTILIZATION OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES AMONG
VARIOUS POPULATIONS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
appropriate agencies of the Public Health Service, shall make
grants to public or nonprofit private entities for the
establishment and operation of regional centers whose purpose
is to develop, evaluate, and disseminate effective
strategies, which utilize quality management measures, to
assist public and private health care programs and providers
in the appropriate utilization of preventive health care
services by specific populations.
``(b) Research and Training.--The activities carried out by
a center under subsection (a) may include establishing
programs of research and training with respect to the purpose
described in such subsection, including the development of
curricula for training individuals in implementing the
strategies developed under such subsection.
``(c) Priority Regarding Infants and Children.--In carrying
out the purpose described in subsection (a), the Secretary
shall give priority to various populations of infants, young
children, and their mothers.
``(d) 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 of the
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.''.
SEC. 4. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS THAT
OPERATE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following subpart:
``Subpart IX--Support of Graduate Medical Education Programs in
Children's Hospitals
``SEC. 340E. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS THAT
OPERATE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
``(a) Payments.--The Secretary shall make two payments
under this section to each children's hospital for each of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001, one for the direct expenses and
the other for indirect expenses associated with operating
approved graduate medical residency training programs.
``(b) Amount of Payments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amounts
payable under this section to a children's hospital for an
approved graduate medical residency training program for a
fiscal year are each of the following amounts:
``(A) Direct expense amount.--The amount determined under
subsection (c) for direct expenses associated with operating
approved graduate medical residency training programs.
``(B) Indirect expense amount.--The amount determined under
subsection (d) for
[[Page 30764]]
indirect expenses associated with the treatment of more
severely ill patients and the additional costs relating to
teaching residents in such programs.
``(2) Capped amount.--
``(A) In general.--The total of the payments made to
children's hospitals under paragraph (1)(A) or paragraph
(1)(B) in a fiscal year shall not exceed the funds
appropriated under paragraph (1) or (2), respectively, of
subsection (f) for such payments for that fiscal year.
``(B) Pro rata reductions of payments for direct
expenses.--If the Secretary determines that the amount of
funds appropriated under subsection (f)(1) for a fiscal year
is insufficient to provide the total amount of payments
otherwise due for such periods under paragraph (1)(A), the
Secretary shall reduce the amounts so payable on a pro rata
basis to reflect such shortfall.
``(c) Amount of Payment for Direct Graduate Medical
Education.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined under this
subsection for payments to a children's hospital for direct
graduate expenses relating to approved graduate medical
residency training programs for a fiscal year is equal to the
product of--
``(A) the updated per resident amount for direct graduate
medical education, as determined under paragraph (2); and
``(B) the average number of full-time equivalent residents
in the hospital's graduate approved medical residency
training programs (as determined under section 1886(h)(4) of
the Social Security Act during the fiscal year.
``(2) Updated per resident amount for direct graduate
medical education.--The updated per resident amount for
direct graduate medical education for a hospital for a fiscal
year is an amount determined as follows:
``(A) Determination of hospital single per resident
amount.--The Secretary shall compute for each hospital
operating an approved graduate medical education program
(regardless of whether or not it is a children's hospital) a
single per resident amount equal to the average (weighted by
number of full-time equivalent residents) of the primary care
per resident amount and the non-primary care per resident
amount computed under section 1886(h)(2) of the Social
Security Act for cost reporting periods ending during fiscal
year 1997.
``(B) Determination of wage and non-wage-related proportion
of the single per resident amount.--The Secretary shall
estimate the average proportion of the single per resident
amounts computed under subparagraph (A) that is attributable
to wages and wage-related costs.
``(C) Standardizing per resident amounts.--The Secretary
shall establish a standardized per resident amount for each
such hospital--
``(i) by dividing the single per resident amount computed
under subparagraph (A) into a wage-related portion and a non-
wage-related portion by applying the proportion determined
under subparagraph (B);
``(ii) by dividing the wage-related portion by the factor
applied under section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Social Security
Act for discharges occurring during fiscal year 1999 for the
hospital's area; and
``(iii) by adding the non-wage-related portion to the
amount computed under clause (ii).
``(D) Determination of national average.--The Secretary
shall compute a national average per resident amount equal to
the average of the standardized per resident amounts computed
under subparagraph (C) for such hospitals, with the amount
for each hospital weighted by the average number of full-time
equivalent residents at such hospital.
``(E) Application to individual hospitals.--The Secretary
shall compute for each such hospital that is a children's
hospital a per resident amount--
``(i) by dividing the national average per resident amount
computed under subparagraph (D) into a wage-related portion
and a non-wage-related portion by applying the proportion
determined under subparagraph (B);
``(ii) by multiplying the wage-related portion by the
factor described in subparagraph (C)(ii) for the hospital's
area; and
``(iii) by adding the non-wage-related portion to the
amount computed under clause (ii).
``(F) Updating rate.--The Secretary shall update such per
resident amount for each such children's hospital by the
estimated percentage increase in the consumer price index for
all urban consumers during the period beginning October 1997
and ending with the midpoint of the hospital's cost reporting
period that begins during fiscal year 2000.
``(d) Amount of Payment for Indirect Medical Education.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined under this
subsection for payments to a children's hospital for indirect
expenses associated with the treatment of more severely ill
patients and the additional costs related to the teaching of
residents for a fiscal year is equal to an amount determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
``(2) Factors.--In determining the amount under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) take into account variations in case mix among
children's hospitals and the number of full-time equivalent
residents in the hospitals' approved graduate medical
residency training programs; and
``(B) assure that the aggregate of the payments for
indirect expenses associated with the treatment of more
severely ill patients and the additional costs related to the
teaching of residents under this section in a fiscal year are
equal to the amount appropriated for such expenses for the
fiscal year involved under subsection (f)(2).
``(e) Making of Payments.--
``(1) Interim payments.--The Secretary shall determine,
before the beginning of each fiscal year involved for which
payments may be made for a hospital under this section, the
amounts of the payments for direct graduate medical education
and indirect medical education for such fiscal year and shall
(subject to paragraph (2)) make the payments of such amounts
in 26 equal interim installments during such period.
``(2) Withholding.--The Secretary shall withhold up to 25
percent from each interim installment for direct graduate
medical education paid under paragraph (1).
``(3) Reconciliation.--At the end of each fiscal year for
which payments may be made under this section, the hospital
shall submit to the Secretary such information as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to determine the percent
(if any) of the total amount withheld under paragraph (2)
that is due under this section for the hospital for the
fiscal year. Based on such determination, the Secretary shall
recoup any overpayments made, or pay any balance due. The
amount so determined shall be considered a final intermediary
determination for purposes of applying section 1878 of the
Social Security Act and shall be subject to review under that
section in the same manner as the amount of payment under
section 1886(d) of such Act is subject to review under such
section.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Direct graduate medical education.--
``(A) In general.--There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for payments under subsection (b)(1)(A)--
``(i) for fiscal year 2000, $90,000,000; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 2001, $95,000,000.
``(B) Carryover of excess.--The amounts appropriated under
subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 2000 shall remain available
for obligation through the end of fiscal year 2001.
``(2) Indirect medical education.--There are hereby
authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for payments under
subsection (b)(1)(A)--
``(A) for fiscal year 2000, $190,000,000; and
``(B) for fiscal year 2001, $190,000,000.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Approved graduate medical residency training
program.--The term `approved graduate medical residency
training program' has the meaning given the term `approved
medical residency training program' in section 1886(h)(5)(A)
of the Social Security Act.
``(2) Children's hospital.--The term `children's hospital'
means a hospital described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iii) of
the Social Security Act.
``(3) Direct graduate medical education costs.--The term
`direct graduate medical education costs' has the meaning
given such term in section 1886(h)(5)(C) of the Social
Security Act.''.
SEC. 5. STUDY REGARDING SHORTAGES OF LICENSED PHARMACISTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting
through the appropriate agencies of the Public Health
Service, shall conduct a study to determine whether and to
what extent there is a shortage of licensed pharmacists. In
carrying out the study, the Secretary shall seek the comments
of appropriate public and private entities regarding any such
shortage.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
complete the study under subsection (a) and submit to the
Congress a report that describes the findings made through
the study and that contains a summary of the comments
received by the Secretary pursuant to such subsection.
SEC. 6. REPORT ON TELEMEDICINE.
Not later than January 10, 2001, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall submit to the Congress a report
that--
(1) identifies any factors that inhibit the expansion and
accessibility of telemedicine services, including factors
relating to telemedicine networks;
(2) identifies any factors that, in addition to
geographical isolation, should be used to determine which
patients need or require access to telemedicine care;
(3) determines the extent to which--
(A) patients receiving telemedicine service have benefited
from the services, and are satisfied with the treatment
received pursuant to the services; and
(B) the medical outcomes for such patients would have
differed if telemedicine services had not been available to
the patients;
(4) determines the extent to which physicians involved with
telemedicine services
[[Page 30765]]
have been satisfied with the medical aspects of the services;
(5) determines the extent to which primary care physicians
are enhancing their medical knowledge and experience through
the interaction with specialists provided by telemedicine
consultations; and
(6) identifies legal and medical issues relating to State
licensing of health professionals that are presented by
telemedicine services, and provides any recommendations of
the Secretary for responding to such issues.
SEC. 7. CERTAIN TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES REGARDING SURVIVAL
RATES FOR CARDIAC ARREST.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, in
consultation with the Administrator of the General Services
Administration and other appropriate public and private
entities, develop recommendations regarding the placement of
automatic external defibrillators in Federal buildings as a
means of improving the survival rates of individuals who
experience cardiac arrest in such buildings, including
recommendations on training, maintenance, and medical
oversight, and on coordinating with the system for emergency
medical services.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the Senate bill, S. 580, and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
____________________
WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS SUSTAINABILITY ACT OF 1999
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 791) to amend the Small Business
Act with respect to the women's business center program, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object,
I do not intend to object, but I rise in strong support of Senate bill
S. 791, the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. This
is the Senate version of H.R. 491, which the House recently passed
under suspension. With the passage of this bill, we will ensure that
the women's business centers keep their doors open, and that the
program will continue to grow with new centers in previously
underserved areas.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly) for all her hard work and leadership on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly) to explain her unanimous consent request.
{time} 1945
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 791 is to allow for
currently funded Women's Business Centers and graduated Business
Women's Centers to recompete for Federal funding. S. 791 addresses the
funding constraints that make it increasingly difficult for Women's
Business Centers to sustain the level of services they provide and, in
some instances, to remain open after they graduate from the Women's
Business Centers Program and no longer receive Federal matching funds.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Bill 791,
``The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999.''
Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of small
business in America today. In fact, women entrepreneurs are starting
new firms at twice the rate of all other business and own nearly 40
percent of all firms in the U.S.
These strong numbers show the success that women entrepreneurs enjoy,
but anyone who has ever started a new business, knows that the road is
not always smooth. Women's Business Centers play a major role in making
that road to success a little less bumpy. Women's Business Centers,
like the public-private partnership of the St. Louis Women's Business
Center in my District, play a major role in assisting women
entrepreneurs establish strong business plans through courses,
workshops, mentor services and provide access to financing for building
businesses.
H.R. 1497 builds upon the legislation we passed earlier this year to
help grow the number of Women's Business Centers across the nation. But
as with anything, we must continue to take a well-balanced approach
that allows successful centers to continue to compete for funding as
they make the transition to the private sector. The Women's Business
Center Sustainability Act makes it possible for Centers like the St.
Louis Women's Business Center to have a sort of safety net as they make
that transition at the end of their 5-year grant cycle.
Mr. Speaker, Women's Business Centers contribute to the success of
thousands of women entrepreneurs by offering the critical community
support necessary for them to succeed in today's business world. As
more and more women decide to be their own boss, Women's Business
Centers will provide them with the resources and training they need. I
commend the spirit and innovation of all those whose entrepreneurial
spirit has made America great and I urge my colleagues to support
passage of the Women's Business Center Sustainability Act.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 791 the
Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act. Women entrepreneurs are an
increasingly significant part of the U.S. economy. Women own more than
8 million businesses and account for approximately one-third of all
U.S. businesses and are starting businesses at twice the rate of men.
Shrouded by these stirring statistics, is the fact that women encounter
numerous obstacles trying to start, maintain or expand a business--
obstacles which must be eliminated if we are ever to realize the full
potential of this dynamic sector of our economy.
In my particular District, there exists several entities that help
women's small businesses expand, in some instances, get started. I am
very proud of these organizations for their dedication and hard work.
In a very orderly and organized way, without a lot of overhead, women's
business centers, by various names, are helping women who have an idea
about a small business, providing them with technical assistance, in
some instances to provide micro loans, and in all instances to provide
the knowledge and wherewithal and planning that is necessary so that
they start off on the right foot. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge all
members to vote for this mindfall, well thought out bill and support
our Nation's women's businesses.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 791
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 ``Women's Business Centers
Sustainability Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) the term `private nonprofit organization' means an
entity that is described in section 501(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of such Code;''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``nonprofit'' after
``private''.
SEC. 3. INCREASED MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF WOMEN'S
BUSINESS CENTERS.
Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) Program Examination.--
``(1) In general.--The Administration shall--
``(A) develop and implement an annual programmatic and
financial examination of each women's business center
established pursuant to this section, pursuant to which each
such center shall provide to the Administration--
``(i) an itemized cost breakdown of actual expenditures for
costs incurred during the preceding year; and
``(ii) documentation regarding the amount of matching
assistance from non-Federal sources obtained and expended by
the center during the preceding year in order to meet the
requirements of subsection (c) and, with
[[Page 30766]]
respect to any in-kind contributions described in subsection
(c)(2) that were used to satisfy the requirements of
subsection (c), verification of the existence and valuation
of those contributions; and
``(B) analyze the results of each such examination and,
based on that analysis, make a determination regarding the
programmatic and financial viability of each women's business
center.
``(2) Conditions for continued funding.--In determining
whether to award a contract (as a sustainability grant) under
subsection (l) or to renew a contract (either as a grant or
cooperative agreement) under this section with a women's
business center, the Administration--
``(A) shall consider the results of the most recent
examination of the center under paragraph (1); and
``(B) may withhold such award or renewal, if the
Administration determines that--
``(i) the center has failed to provide any information
required to be provided under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph
(1)(A), or the information provided by the center is
inadequate; or
``(ii) the center has failed to provide any information
required to be provided by the center for purposes of the
report of the Administration under subsection (j), or the
information provided by the center is inadequate.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the following:
``(j) Management Report.--
``(1) In general.--The Administration shall prepare and
submit to the Committees on Small Business of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report on the effectiveness
of all projects conducted under this section.
``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include information concerning, with respect to each
women's business center established pursuant to this
section--
``(A) the number of individuals receiving assistance;
``(B) the number of startup business concerns formed;
``(C) the gross receipts of assisted concerns;
``(D) the employment increases or decreases of assisted
concerns;
``(E) to the maximum extent practicable, increases or
decreases in profits of assisted concerns; and
``(F) the most recent analysis, as required under
subsection (h)(1)(B), and the subsequent determination made
by the Administration under that subsection.''.
SEC. 4. WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS SUSTAINABILITY PILOT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Sustainability Pilot Program.--
``(1) In general.--There is established a 4-year pilot
program under which the Administration is authorized to award
grants (referred to in this section as `sustainability
grants') on a competitive basis for an additional 5-year
project under this section to any private nonprofit
organization (or a division thereof)--
``(A) that has received financial assistance under this
section pursuant to a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement; and
``(B) that--
``(i) is in the final year of a 5-year project; or
``(ii) has completed a project financed under this section
(or any predecessor to this section) and continues to provide
assistance to women entrepreneurs.
``(2) Conditions for participation.--In order to receive a
sustainability grant, an organization described in paragraph
(1) shall submit to the Administration an application, which
shall include--
``(A) a certification that the applicant--
``(i) is a private nonprofit organization;
``(ii) employs a full-time executive director or program
manager to manage the center; and
``(iii) as a condition of receiving a sustainability grant,
agrees--
``(I) to a site visit as part of the final selection
process and to an annual programmatic and financial
examination; and
``(II) to the maximum extent practicable, to remedy any
problems identified pursuant to that site visit or
examination;
``(B) information demonstrating that the applicant has the
ability and resources to meet the needs of the market to be
served by the women's business center site for which a
sustainability grant is sought, including the ability to
fundraise;
``(C) information relating to assistance provided by the
women's business center site for which a sustainability grant
is sought in the area in which the site is located,
including--
``(i) the number of individuals assisted;
``(ii) the number of hours of counseling, training, and
workshops provided; and
``(iii) the number of startup business concerns formed;
``(D) information demonstrating the effective experience of
the applicant in--
``(i) conducting financial, management, and marketing
assistance programs, as described in paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) of subsection (b), designed to impart or upgrade the
business skills of women business owners or potential owners;
``(ii) providing training and services to a representative
number of women who are both socially and economically
disadvantaged;
``(iii) using resource partners of the Administration and
other entities, such as universities;
``(iv) complying with the cooperative agreement of the
applicant; and
``(v) the prudent management of finances and staffing,
including the manner in which the performance of the
applicant compared to the business plan of the applicant and
the manner in which grant funds awarded under subsection (b)
were used by the applicant; and
``(E) a 5-year plan that projects the ability of the
women's business center site for which a sustainability grant
is sought--
``(i) to serve women business owners or potential owners in
the future by improving fundraising and training activities;
and
``(ii) to provide training and services to a representative
number of women who are both socially and economically
disadvantaged.
``(3) Review of applications.--
``(A) In general.--The Administration shall--
``(i) review each application submitted under paragraph (2)
based on the information provided under in subparagraphs (D)
and (E) of that paragraph, and the criteria set forth in
subsection (f);
``(ii) as part of the final selection process, conduct a
site visit at each women's business center for which a
sustainability grant is sought; and
``(iii) approve or disapprove applications for
sustainability grants simultaneously with applications for
grants under subsection (b).
``(B) Data collection.--Consistent with the annual report
to Congress under subsection (j), each women's business
center site that is awarded a sustainability grant shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, collect information relating
to--
``(i) the number of individuals assisted;
``(ii) the number of hours of counseling and training
provided and workshops conducted;
``(iii) the number of startup business concerns formed;
``(iv) any available gross receipts of assisted concerns;
and
``(v) the number of jobs created, maintained, or lost at
assisted concerns.
``(C) Record retention.--The Administration shall maintain
a copy of each application submitted under this subsection
for not less than 10 years.
``(4) Non-federal contribution.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, as a condition of receiving a sustainability
grant, an organization described in paragraph (1) shall agree
to obtain, after its application has been approved under
paragraph (3) and notice of award has been issued, cash and
in-kind contributions from non-Federal sources for each year
of additional program participation in an amount equal to 1
non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar.
``(B) Form of non-federal contributions.--Not more than 50
percent of the non-Federal assistance obtained for purposes
of subparagraph (A) may be in the form of in-kind
contributions that are budget line items only, including
office equipment and office space.
``(5) Timing of requests for proposals.--In carrying out
this subsection, the Administration shall issue requests for
proposals for women's business centers applying for the pilot
program under this subsection simultaneously with requests
for proposals for grants under subsection (b).''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 29(k) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated,
to remain available until the expiration of the pilot program
under subsection (l)--
``(A) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $12,800,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(C) $13,700,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(D) $14,500,000 for fiscal year 2003.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Amounts made'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
amounts made''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Exceptions.--Of the amount made available under this
subsection for a fiscal year, the following amounts shall be
available for selection panel costs, post-award conference
costs, and costs related to monitoring and oversight:
``(i) For fiscal year 2000, 2 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2001, 1.9 percent.
``(iii) For fiscal year 2002, 1.9 percent.
``(iv) For fiscal year 2003, 1.6 percent.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Reservation of funds for sustainability pilot
program.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), of the
total amount made available under this subsection for a
fiscal year, the following amounts shall be reserved for
sustainability grants under subsection (l):
``(i) For fiscal year 2000, 17 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2001, 18.8 percent.
[[Page 30767]]
``(iii) For fiscal year 2002, 30.2 percent.
``(iv) For fiscal year 2003, 30.2 percent.
``(B) Use of unawarded funds for sustainability pilot
program grants.--If the amount reserved under subparagraph
(A) for any fiscal year is not fully awarded to private
nonprofit organizations described in subsection (l)(1)(B),
the Administration is authorized to use the unawarded amount
to fund additional women's business center sites or to
increase funding of existing women's business center sites
under subsection (b).''.
(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall issue guidelines to implement
the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
ACCESS FOR WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) women-owned small businesses are a powerful force in
the economy;
(2) between 1987 and 1996--
(A) the number of women-owned small businesses in the
United States increased by 78 percent, almost twice the rate
of increase of all businesses in the United States;
(B) the number of women-owned small businesses increased in
every State;
(C) total sales by women-owned small businesses in the
United States increased by 236 percent;
(D) employment provided by women-owned small businesses in
the United States increased by 183 percent; and
(E) the rates of growth for women-owned small businesses in
the United States for the fastest growing industries were--
(i) 171 percent in construction;
(ii) 157 percent in wholesale trade;
(iii) 140 percent in transportation and communications;
(iv) 130 percent in agriculture; and
(v) 112 percent in manufacturing;
(3) approximately 8,000,000 women-owned small businesses in
the United States provide jobs for 15,500,000 individuals and
generate almost $1,400,000,000,000 in sales each year;
(4) the participation of women-owned small businesses in
the United States in the procurement market of the Federal
Government is limited;
(5) the Federal Government is the largest purchaser of
goods and services in the United States, spending more than
$200,000,000,000 each year;
(6) the majority of Federal Government purchases are for
items that cost $25,000 or less; and
(7) the rate of Federal procurement for women-owned small
businesses is 2.2 percent.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States
should--
(1) conduct an audit of the Federal procurement system
regarding Federal contracting involving women-owned small
businesses for the 3 preceding fiscal years;
(2) solicit from Federal employees involved in the Federal
procurement system any suggestions regarding how to increase
the number of Federal contracts awarded to women-owned small
businesses; and
(3) submit to Congress a report on the results of that
audit, which report shall include--
(A) an analysis of any identified trends in Federal
contracting with respect to women-owned small businesses;
(B) any recommended means to increase the number of Federal
contracts awarded to women-owned small businesses that the
Comptroller General considers to be appropriate, after taking
into consideration any suggestions received pursuant to a
solicitation described in paragraph (2), including any such
means that incorporate the concepts of teaming or partnering;
and
(C) a discussion of any barriers to the receipt of Federal
contracts by women-owned small businesses and other small
businesses that are created by legal or regulatory
procurement requirements or practices.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on October 1, 1999.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
CORRECTING ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 1180, TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 236) to correct
the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1180, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 236
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1180),
to amend the Social Security Act to expand the availability
of health care coverage for working individuals with
disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program in the Social Security Administration to
provide such individuals with meaningful opportunities to
work, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall make the following correction: Strike
section 408 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``climate database modernization
``Sec. 408. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall
initiative a new competitive contract procurement for its
multi-year program for key entry of valuable climate records,
archive services, and database development in accordance with
existing federal procurement laws and regulations.''
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further
consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1595) to designate the United
States courthouse at 401 West Washington Street in Phoenix, Arizona, as
the ``Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse'', and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object, but I will ask the gentleman from Louisiana for an
explanation of the bill.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1595 designates the United States courthouse in
Phoenix, Arizona, as the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse.
This legislation was introduced by Senator Kyl and passed the Senate on
October 8.
Sandra Day O'Connor grew up on a ranch founded by her grandfather in
southeastern Arizona. The ranch house was a simple four bedroom adobe
that did not have running water or electricity until she was 7. Justice
O'Connor stayed with her grandmother and attended school in El Paso,
Texas, until she graduated at the age of 16. She then entered Stanford
University and in 1950 earned a degree in economics, graduating magna
cum laude. Upon graduation, she entered Stanford Law School and
graduated third in her class in 1952.
Justice O'Connor accepted a position as deputy county attorney in San
Mateo, California. On her experience in San Mateo, Justice O'Connor was
quoted as saying the job ``influenced the balance of my life because it
demonstrated how much I did enjoy public service.'' She then spent 3
years in Frankfurt, Germany, as a civilian lawyer for the Quartermaster
Corps while her husband was serving in the United States Army Judge
Advocate General Corps.
In 1957, Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband returned to the United
States and settled in Maricopa County, Arizona. While maintaining a
partnership in her law firm and raising her three children, O'Connor
wrote questions for the Arizona bar exam, helped start the State's
lawyer referral service, sat on the zoning commission, served on the
County Board of Adjustments and Appeals, served on the Governor's
Committee on Marriage and Family, worked as an administrative assistant
on the Arizona State Hospital, was an adviser to the Salvation Army,
and volunteered in schools for African American and Hispanic children.
[[Page 30768]]
In 1965, Justice O'Connor became an assistant State attorney general
and continued her volunteer work. In 1969, she was appointed to fill a
vacated seat in the State senate. She won reelection in two successive
terms and served as majority leader in 1972. In 1974, O'Connor was
elected to a State judgeship on the Maricopa County Superior Court
before being appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In 1981, while serving in the Court of Appeals, Ronald Reagan
fulfilled his campaign pledge of nominating a female justice to sit on
the Supreme Court and nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor
was confirmed 99 to 0 by the Senate as the Supreme Court's first female
justice.
Justice O'Connor has had a major impact on the court and has
distinguished herself as a justice, a public servant, volunteer and
mother. This naming is a fitting honor to a person who has dedicated
her life in so many ways to public service. I support the bill and urge
my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
simply want to add a few remarks for the record.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the ranking member of
the committee, and all those involved in this effort. S. 1595 is a
fitting tribute to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a native of Arizona and
a woman who has distinguished herself.
As my colleagues know, we have constructed a new United States
courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, and many of us active on this issue
have been most anxious to designate this courthouse and to name it
after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As my colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), has just recited, her career has been a
distinguished one.
For a moment I would like to brag about the fact that Arizona has
many women leaders. Five of the top elected officials in Arizona today
are women, including our governor, our secretary of State, our attorney
general, our superintendent of public instruction, and our State
treasurer. But before they were elected as distinguished women leaders
of Arizona, Justice O'Connor was a distinguished member of the Arizona
bar, and my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), has
read off a litany of her accomplishments.
I simply want to say that as a young man growing up in Phoenix and
taking the Arizona bar and some of the questions that Justice O'Connor
wrote, she went on to distinguish herself and to set an example which I
believe all people should follow, and to distinguish herself in the
legal field. I am thrilled that Ronald Reagan appointed her to the
United States Supreme Court as the first woman Justice on that court, I
am thrilled that she continues to do Arizona well and to demonstrate
the leadership of the women of Arizona and the women of this Nation,
and I simply wanted to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to
both the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for allowing
this legislation to proceed through this evening.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
join with delight in supporting this legislation to honor the first
woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, who has indeed
distinguished herself. I have had the delight and privilege of meeting
and visiting with her on several occasions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which designates
the courthouse at 401 West Washington Street in Phoenix, Arizona, as
the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse.
Justice O'Connor is the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court.
She was nominated by President Reagan and was confirmed by a unanimous
vote of the U.S. Senate in September of 1981. Ever since, she has
served as a distinguished jurist on our Nation's highest court.
In addition to her outstanding legal career and dedication to
judicial excellence, Justice O'Connor also devotes many hours as a
volunteer for various charitable organizations, and she has a long
history of participation in numerous civic and legal organizations.
Justice O'Connor has spent her career serving the public trust. She
began her public career in legislative positions, including serving in
the Arizona State Senate from 1969 until 1975, during which time she
served as majority leader and a member of the Arizona Advisory Council
on Intergovernmental Relations. Earlier in her career, from 1952 to
1953, Justice O'Connor served the public in California as the Deputy
County Attorney in San Mateo County, and as Assistant Attorney General
in Arizona from 1965 until 1969.
Her civic activities are numerous and reflect her broad interests and
public services. She is a member of the National Board of the
Smithsonian; she is President of the Board of Trustees of the Heard
Museum; and she serves on the Advisory Board of the Salvation Army.
Justice O'Connor has been Vice President of the National Conference of
Christians and Jews, and a member of the Board of Trustees of her alma
matter, Stanford. She has worked with the Arizona Academy, Arizona
Junior Achievement, and Phoenix Historical Society.
Justice O'Connor has been active in the training and education
committees for the judicial conference, and holds memberships in the
America Bar Association and several state associations.
Amid all these accomplishments, Justice O'Connor has also been a
devoted wife and mother. She and her husband, John, have been married
almost 50 years and have three sons.
Her life has been filled with challenge, hard work, and promise. It
is with great pleasure that I support S. 1595 in honor of Justice
O'Connor, and urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to further add to the comments of the
gentleman from Arizona who listed a number of women who serve in public
office. The State of Arizona is very privileged to have my cousin, Rose
Oberstar, serve as its governor.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1595
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR UNITED STATES
COURTHOUSE.
The United States courthouse at 401 West Washington Street
in Phoenix, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the
``Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the United States
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a
reference to the ``Sandra Day O'Connor United States
Courthouse''.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 67) to designate the headquarters
building of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in
Washington, District of Columbia, as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal
Building'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object, but take this reservation for the purpose of an explanation
of the bill.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, S. 67 designates the headquarters building of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, D.C. as the
Robert C. Weaver Federal Building.
Robert C. Weaver was born on December 23, 1907 in Washington, D.C. He
[[Page 30769]]
attended Harvard University and earned three degrees, including a
doctorate in economics. In the 1930s and 1940s, Dr. Weaver was involved
in many government agencies, where he advocated racial equality.
In the early 1960s, President Kennedy appointed Dr. Weaver
administrator of the Housing and Home Financing Agency, the predecessor
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. President Johnson
designated HUD a Cabinet-level agency. Following service in the Federal
Government, Mr. Weaver became a professor of numerous colleges.
Dr. Weaver passed away in July of 1997. This is a fitting
designation. I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
too rise in support of S. 67 to designate the HUD headquarters as the
Robert C. Weaver Federal Building.
I have had the privilege, as a member of the staff of my predecessor,
to meet Bob Weaver; and I have only the highest respect for his
professional accomplishments and for Dr. Weaver as a very decent, warm,
caring, energetic, hard working, and visionary human being.
Dr. Robert Clifton Weaver has been one of the most instrumental and
influential Americans in directing and administering federal housing
policies. Dr. Weaver was a native Washingtonian, a graduate of Dunbar
High School, and Harvard University in 1929. In 1931 he received his
Masters degree, and in 1934 his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.
He entered government in 1933, as one of the young professionals who
were drawn to Washington because of the ``New Deal'' programs of
President Roosevelt.
He quickly became a leader in promoting opportunities and efforts to
increase minority participation in government projects and policy
development. During the 1940's and 1950's, Dr. Weaver held a variety of
prestigious positions, including Director of the Opportunity Fellowship
Program of the John Hay Whitney Foundation, consultant to the Ford
Foundation, State of New York Rent Administrator, and in 1960 he became
the Vice Chairman of the New York City Housing and Redevelopment Board.
In 1961, President Kennedy named Dr. Weaver as the Administrator of
the Housing and Home Finance Agency, then a loose collection of
agencies including the mortgage-insuring Federal Housing
Administration.
Dr. Weaver worked tirelessly to mold the agency into a single
organization with a unified goal. In 1966, when the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was formed by President Johnson,
Dr. Weaver was designated its first Secretary, the first African-
American to hold a cabinet-level position.
After his service at HUD, Dr. Weaver returned to academic life and
served as the President of Baruch College in New York City.
Dr. Weaver was the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including
the NAACP's Springarn Medal, the Albert Einstein Commemorative Award,
the New York City Urban League Frederick Douglass Award, and New York
University's Robert F. Wagner Public Service Award.
Dr. Weaver led a rich, full life marked by professional
accomplishments and excellence. His legacy in public service is a model
for all of us. It is fitting and proper to honor Dr. Weaver with this
designation and I join with the Gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel,
the sponsor of the House's companion bill, in supporting S. 67.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 67
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING.
In honor of the first Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, the headquarters building of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development located at 451 Seventh Street,
SW., in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known and
designated as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the building referred
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the
``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1595 and S. 67, the
measures just considered by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3419) to amend title 49, United States
Code, to establish the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask
the chairman of the committee for an explanation of the bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
This bill creates a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
within the Department of Transportation and makes significant safety
improvements. It is a good bipartisan bill that will improve safety on
our Nation's highways.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will make our roads safer for everyone. We owe
it to the driving public to ensure that the trucks with which they
share the road are safe.
Without hampering honest operators, this bill will ensure that the
authorities will have the resources they need to keep unsafe buses and
trucks off the road. It closes loopholes and imposes tough penalties on
repeat offenders.
This bill doubles the number of State truck inspectors and puts more
inspectors on the Mexican border to ensure that income Mexican trucks
meet all U.S. safety standards.
This is a time-sensitive bill because trucking safety currently does
not have an organizational home at the Department of Transportation.
It is temporarily housed in the Office of the Secretary.
This bill will create a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration effective January 1, 2000.
If Congress does not enact this bill, truck safety will remain in
limbo at the Department.
This is truly a comprehensive bill that reforms Federal motor carrier
safety efforts.
This new agency will be dedicated to truck and bus safety. In the
past, motor carrier safety oversight was housed in the Federal Highway
Administration, where it had to compete with large Federal
infrastructure programs for attention.
The complexity and growth of the trucking industry justifies the
creation of an agency with a clear, preeminent safety mission focused
on truck and bus safety. Truck safety will now have the same status
within the Department as aviation safety, automobile safety, pipeline
safety, and maritime safety.
When this bill passed last month, some in the media said the bill
would overturn NAFTA. Amazingly enough, they were wrong. This bill
gives the Secretary the power to shut down unsafe Mexican trucks coming
into the U.S.--that is it. To ensure this bill has no effect on NAFTA,
we have included language that states that nothing in today's bill will
over-ride NAFTA.
This is the most significant motor carrier safety legislation since
1986.
This bill was developed between the House and the Senate.
It is very similar to the truck safety bill passed earlier this year
by the House of Representatives by the overwhelming margin of 415 to 5.
It is my hope that if the House passes this bill today that the
Senate will pass it before the Congress adjourns.
[[Page 30770]]
This bill is a pro-safety bill that will improve highway safety for
all Americans.
I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
am very pleased with this bill. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement
Act of 1999 is a good bill. It preserves all the strong provisions of
the bill that passed the House and adds provisions from the Senate bill
that will further enhance safety. A strong House bill has been made
even stronger.
I just want to express my great appreciation to my chairman, my
partner, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), but especially to our chairman for championing
this legislation. This is good legislation. It will only add to the
gentleman's distinguished record of achievement in this House,
especially one in the safety arena where he has been so strong an
advocate.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I am
also submitting an explanatory statement of the bill to be printed in
the Record. This document has been worked out by the Members on the
House and Senate sides, by myself, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as Senators McCain and Hollings.
I would particularly like to emphasize that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) certainly played a key role in serving as a
catalyst to bring this legislation to our attention, and I certainly
want to commend him for that.
I also would like to report to the House, as we close this session of
the Congress, that of the 104 bills signed into law by the President
thus far, 19 came from our committee. So approximately 20 percent of
the bills which made their way through to law have come from the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additionally, another
50 bills, in fact this one will be 51 bills, will make their way
through the House, and we look forward to many of them becoming law in
the next session.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, under my reservation, Mr. Speaker,
I thank the gentleman and concur in that observation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield once again, I
would be derelict in not noting the tremendous contribution of our
staff, Jack Schenendorf, Mike Strachn, Roger Nober, Chris Bertram,
Patti Doersch, Jess Sharp; and on the gentleman's side, Clyde Woodle,
Rosalyn Millman, who is now acting administrator of NHTSA.
Everyone worked so hard to bring this bill to where it is today, and
I want to commend the gentleman and thank him once again for the
tremendous bipartisan support which we have had on our committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of
objection, I thank the gentleman and am certainly glad he cited the
staff, because they certainly have worked hard and cooperatively all
the way through this legislation.
The gentleman's statement underscores the success of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. In a Congress that has been getting
a bad rap for gridlock, this committee has worked together and achieved
an extraordinary record of accomplishment. Just before the August
break, it was 26 percent of all the bills that have passed the House
enacted into law were bills from this committee.
{time} 2000
Our percentage has dropped only because other committees have
awakened and have risen to the challenge and the examples set by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But again, it is due to
the partnership and the cooperation we have achieved, I think, at the
level of the chairman and ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999. We originally passed this bill on October 14,
but the Other Body has not completed work on its version of the bill.
In order to make it possible to send a bill to the President before we
adjourn, we have worked with the Senate Commerce Committee on a
bipartisan basis to develop a bill that combines the best features of
our bill and the companion motor carrier safety bill introduced in the
Other Body. Our aim is to pass this compromise legislation in both
Houses prior to adjournment and to send it to the President for his
signature.
I am very pleased with the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999. This is a good bill. It preserves all the strong safety
provisions in the House bill, and adds provisions from the Senate bill
that will further enhance safety. A strong House bill has been made
even stronger.
I want to commend our Committee Chairman, Mr. Shuster, Chairman Petri
of the Ground Transportation Subcommittee, and Subcommittee Ranking
Member Rahall for their diligent efforts in developing this bill. This
important legislation will give federal government the direction, the
incentives, and the resources needed to improve the safety of large
trucks on our highways. Every year, crashes involving large trucks kill
more than 5,300 people and injure about 130,000 people. On average,
there are 14 deaths and 350 injuries every day of the year. Unless the
federal safety program is significantly improved, there will be more
deaths and injuries as the number of miles traveled by large trucks
increases. This is not acceptable.
The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, the
General Accounting Office, and Norm Mineta, a former Chairman of our
Surface Transportation Subcommittee and Full Committee, have concluded
that the federal government's program to ensure the safety of motor
carriers has major deficiencies. Their studies found that DOT has not
been conduction enough commercial vehicle and driver inspections; and
that the penalties imposed for violations are too low to deter future
violations.
The studies also found that DOT rarely completes needed safety
regulations on time. More than 20 motor carrier safety rulemakings have
been in process for between three and nine years. These rulemakings
involve important safety issues such as hours-of-service limits, motor
carrier permits for carrying hazardous materials, and training
standards for entry-level drivers.
DOT's databases are incomplete and unreliable; DOT lacks adequate
personnel and facilities at our borders; and perceived conflicts of
interest have undermined the credibility of DOT's research program.
Since these troubling reports by the IG and others were issued, the
Secretary of Transportation, to his credit, has taken important steps
to enhance the effectiveness of the motor carrier safety program. We
support the Secretary's efforts. The legislation we have written will
enhance these efforts and give DOT the resources needed to carry out
the job.
There are four principles, I believe, that any good motor carrier
safety bill should include--safety as the primary mission; sound
credible research as the foundation for policy; vigorous oversight and
enforcement; and adequate resources. This bill addresses each of these
principles.
The bill creates a new Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, without DOT. The bill gives the new
Administration the direction, the incentives, and the resources it will
need to improve motor carrier safety. The new Administration will also
include a regulatory ombudsman, with authority to expedite rulemaking
by assigning the necessary staff and resolving disagreements within the
new agency.
The bill follows the model of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which
established the Federal Aviation Administration to improve aviation
safety. The bill directs the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as
the highest priority, recognizing the clear intent, encouragement, and
dedication of Congress to the furtherance of the highest degree of
safety in motor carrier transportation.
The bill requires the Secretary to develop a long-term strategy for
improving motor carrier safety. Specific, measurable goals must be
established to carry out the strategy, and estimates of funds and staff
resources needed to accomplish the goals must be submitted to Congress
annually.
The three top officials of the new Administration (the Administrator,
Deputy Administrator, Chief Safety Officer) and the Administration's
regulatory ombudsman are each required to sign a performance agreement
with specific measurable goals to carry out this strategy, including
increasing the number of inspections and compliance reviews,
eliminating the backlog in rulemaking and enforcement cases, improving
the quality and effectiveness of databases, and increasing inspection
resources at the border. An official's
[[Page 30771]]
progress toward meeting the goals is to be given substantial weight
when bonuses and other achievement awards are dispersed within the
Department.
The bill will give the Administration the resources it will need to
do a better job. The bill provides a significant increase in guaranteed
and authorized funding for motor carrier safety programs. Funding for
personnel and resources of the new Administration will be 70 percent
higher (an average of $38 million per year) than current staffing for
the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. The additional funding will enable
the Motor Carrier Administration to hire more federal inspectors, and
more attorneys to complete rulemakings. The bill also provides an
additional $55 million per year of guaranteed funding for motor carrier
safety grants. In addition, the bill authorizes $75 million per year,
subject to appropriation, for motor carrier safety grants above the
guaranteed level.
The bill makes numerous programmatic changes to improve safety by
keeping dangerous drivers off the roads and enhancing oversight. The
bill improves the consistency of Commercial Driver's Licenses by
closing loopholes in record keeping, establishing tougher penalties for
crashes that cause fatalities, and authorizing DOT to decertify the CDL
programs of States that do not comply with national requirements.
Trucks entering the United States will face more comprehensive
oversight when DOT implements new staffing standards for inspectors at
our international borders. Violators of safety laws and regulations
will face penalties high enough to promote future compliance. Maximum
fines will be assessed for repeat offenders as well as a pattern of
violations of our safety laws and regulations.
A comprehensive study of crash causation along with an enhanced data
collection effort will help DOT and the States target their education,
oversight, and enforcement activities to address the most serious
contributors to crashes.
I want to again commend Chairmen Shuster and Petri, and Ranking
Democratic Member Rahall, for their efforts to develop this strong
motor carrier safety bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following statement from
Secretary Slater supporting the committee's action and supporting this
bill:
Statement of U.S. Transportation Secretary Slater Supporting the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Bill
I am gratified that the Congress is moving swiftly to pass
the ``Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999'' (H.R.
3419). This bill would give the U.S. Department of
Transportation and states additional tools to significantly
improve commercial motor carrier safety across the country
and at our borders. President Clinton has made clear that
safety is the highest priority for the Department of
Transportation. The Administration strongly supports passage
of H.R. 3419.
The leadership of House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim
Oberstar, and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain
and Ranking Member Ernest Hollings was critical to this
agreement.
This legislation is truly a broad-based, bipartisan effort
and, if enacted, will reduce motor carrier crashes and save
lives. It incorporates initiatives from Senate and House
proposals; the Administration's proposal; a safety audit by
the Department's Inspector General, Kenneth M. Mead; a review
conducted for the Department by former House Public Works and
Transportation Committee Chairman Norman Y. Mineta; and
recommendations from labor, safety groups, industry, and
state and local governments.
The bill would create a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration focused on safety as its highest priority. I
support that safety emphasis wholeheartedly and applaud other
provisions to increase resources and regulatory and
enforcement tools. Among the significant provisions are:
Commercial Driver's License Program. Comprehensive
improvements would be made to the Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) program. These would allow the Department and its state
partners to more effectively identify problem drivers, take
appropriate remedial action, and get high-risk drivers off
the road.
New Entrants. A ``new entrants'' program would permit the
Department and states to ensure the safety fitness of newly-
formed motor carrier companies. New applicants for authority
would demonstrate their knowledge of safety regulations, and
the Department would be challenged to review the safety of
new carriers within the first 18 months of operation.
Foreign Carriers. The Department would gain strong new
sanctions to prevent foreign carriers from operating
illegally in the United States. The Department would deny
entry to carriers that are not properly registered and impose
stiff fines on violators. If carriers operate outside the
scope of their registration authority, their trucks would be
placed out-of-service at the roadside.
Data Collection to Target Problems. New data and analysis
tools would help the Department determine why truck and bus
crashes happen and identify the best prevention measures.
H.R. 3419 would fund a major crash causation study and put
into place a new system for collecting crash data nationally.
The bill would also require motor carriers to update their
records with the Department, helping us to focus enforcement
resources on carriers that present the greatest safety risk.
Increased Resources. With passage of this bill, states
would receive a major boost in resources to conduct more
inspections of vehicles, drivers, and carriers. They would be
able to implement innovative new safety countermeasures, keep
more complete records on driver violations, and greatly
strengthen enforcement programs.
I urge the Congress to act expeditiously to approve the
``Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.'' I believe
we have a singular opportunity now to make major strides
toward improving motor carrier safety and achieving the
Administration's 50 percent fatality reduction goal. We at
the Department look forward to working with all our partners
in continuing these critical efforts to save lives and make
our nation's highways safer.
Mr. Speaker, I concur with the statement of the chairman of the
committee on the remarks and the document that he will include in the
Record that serve as a joint statement of managers for this
legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
am submitting for the Record the joint explanatory materials I referred
to above:
Introductory Note to Joint Explanatory Materials
We are pleased to submit the accompanying Joint Explanatory
Statement of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. These
materials explain the provisions of the bill in detail. On
September 24, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure filed its report (H. Rept. 106-333) on H.R.
2679, its Motor Carrier Safety Act, to establish a separate
motor carrier administration at the Department of
Transportation and to make reforms to the commercial driver's
license program and related motor carrier safety programs.
The House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2679 on October 14. The
Senate introduced S. 1501, the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act, in August but took no further action on the
bill.
To expedite enactment of the significant motor carrier
safety reforms included in this bill, the leadership of the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has worked
with the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee in developing the bill. This Joint Explanatory
Statement therefore represents the views of the Chairmen and
Ranking members of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee and the Ground Transportation Subcommittee, along
with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce
Committee.
This Joint Explanatory Statement will provide legislative
history for interpreting this important safety legislation.
Joint Explanatory Statement of The Honorable Bud Shuster, The Honorable
James Oberstar, The Honorable Thomas Petri, The Honorable Nick Rahall,
The Honorable John McCain and The Honorable Ernest Hollings on H.R.
3419: Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
Section 1. Short Title; Table of contents
The provision provides that this Act may be cited as the
``Motor Carrier Safety improvement Act of 1999.'' The section
also includes a table of contents for the bill.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined
The provision defines the term ``Secretary'' to mean the
Secretary of Transportation.
Sec. 3. Findings
The provision makes eight findings on motor carrier safety.
Among other findings, Congress finds that the current rate,
number, and severity of crashes involving motor carriers are
unacceptable; the number of Federal and State motor carrier
compliance reviews and commercial motor vehicle and operator
inspections is insufficient; civil penalties for violators
must be utilized to deter future violations; and meaningful
measures to improve safety must be implemented expeditiously
to prevent increases in motor carrier crashes, injuries, and
fatalities. Congress further finds that proper use of Federal
resources is essential to the Department of Transportation's
ability to improve its research, rulemaking, oversight, and
enforcement activities.
Sec. 4. Purposes
The provision lists the purposes of this Act as improving
the administration of the Federal motor carrier safety
program by establishing a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration in the Department of Transportation and by
enacting measures to reduce the number and severity of large
truck-involved crashes through increased inspections
[[Page 30772]]
and compliance reviews, stronger enforcement measures,
expedited rulemakings, scientifically sound research, and
improvements to the commercial driver's license program.
title i--federal motor carrier safety administration
Sec. 101. Establishment of Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
Subsection 101(a) adds a new section 113 to title 49,
United States Code, to establish, as a separate
administration within the Department of transportation, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The
managers note that Section 101 provides that ``in carrying
out its duties, the Administrator shall consider the
assignment and maintenance of safety as the highest
priority.'' This subsection is modeled on provisions which
govern the activities of the Federal Aviation Administration
and the Secretary of Transportation's responsibilities for
the regulation of air transportation. See 49 U.S.C.
40101(a)(1) & (d) and 49 U.S.C. 47101(a)(1). The Managers
intend that new section 101 be interpreted and implemented in
the same manner as the above-listed provisions in the laws
governing aviation.
The Administration is headed by a Presidentially appointed,
Senate-confirmed Administrator with professional experience
in motor carrier safety; a Deputy Administrator appointed by
the Secretary with the approval of the President, and a Chief
Safety Officer appointed in the competitive service. In
addition to any duties and powers prescribed by the
Secretary, the Administrator shall carry out the duties and
powers related to motor carriers and motor carrier safety set
forth in chapters 5, 51, 55, 57, 59, 133 through 149, 311,
313, 315, and 317 of title 49, United States Code, and 42
U.S.C. 4917.
Subsection (b) provides dedicated funding for the
administrative and research expenses of the FMCSA. This
subsection increases funding 70 percent (an average of $38
million per year) above the level currently provided within
the Federal Highway Administration, to improve the motor
carrier safety research, rulemaking, oversight, and
enforcement activities transferred to the FMCSA.
Subsections (c) and (d) make conforming amendments to
titles 5 and 49, United States Code.
Subsection (e) caps the employment level currently at the
Office of Motor Carrier Safety at its headquarters location
in fiscal year 2000, except for staff transferred to the
Office from the Federal Highway Administration, for fiscal
year 2000. The cap includes Office of Motor Carrier Safety
staff and FHWA transferred employees (FTEs) who were already
dedicated to motor carrier safety matters when the Office of
Motor Carrier Safety was established in October 1999. It does
not preclude further transfers from the FHWA to the FMCSA
during fiscal year 2000.
The Congress has provided additional motor carrier safety
funding and expects those resources to be dedicated toward
increased motor carrier safety enforcement and inspection
activities and to expedite rulemakings. The cost of
unnecessary headquarters administrative or overhead
positions, including public affairs officers, congressional
liaison representatives and other nonsafety-related
positions, is not a proper use of the additional authorized
funding. These headquarters' officials are not involved in
carrying out safety responsibilities such as developing
policies and regulations to enforce motor carrier safety
laws.
Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to report to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on
the specific FMSCA personnel requested for each of fiscal
years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Secretary's justifications
for any additional FMSCA headquarters' administrative or
overhead positions shall include detailed descriptions of the
specific needs to be addressed by the additional personnel.
Such justifications must be submitted to allow sufficient
time for the Committees to review the Secretary's request.
Subsection (f) provides that the authority to promulgate
safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment
subsequent to initial manufacture is vested in the Secretary
of Transportation and may be delegated.
Subsection (g) requires the Secretary to comply with the
requirements of a discretionary departmental regulation, at
48 C.F.R. 1252.209-70, concerning the disclosure of conflicts
of interest in research contracts, and to include the text of
such regulation in each such contract. This requirement is
Department wide. This subsection also calls for a study to
determine the effectiveness of this requirement. Eliminating
or mitigating conflicts of interest will increase the
likelihood that the research results will be more widely
accepted and therefore be a more acceptable basis for policy
decisions.
The managers note the bill does not establish any specific
offices of the FMCSA because the Secretary is best positioned
to determine the specific organizational structure of the
Administration. The Congress intends for the Secretary to
organize the new agency in a manner and structure that
adequately reflects the unique demands of passenger vehicle
safety, international affairs, and consumer affairs.
Sec. 102. Revenue aligned budget authority
Subsection 102(a) amends section 110 of title 23, United
States Code, concerning revenue aligned budget authority, to
include the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP)
in the group of programs for which funding is annually
adjusted to correspond to Highway Trust Fund receipts.
Subsection (b) makes a number of technical and conforming
amendments, including the relocation of a second section 110,
concerning uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway
funds, to a section 126 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 103. Additional funding for Motor Carrier Safety Grant
Program
Subsection 103(a) authorizes an additional $75 million from
the Highway Trust Fund for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2003 for the motor carrier safety assistance program.
Subsection (b) amends section 4003 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) to increase the
amount of guaranteed funding provided in TEA 21 for the motor
carrier safety assistance program by the following amounts:
$65 million for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003. This
subsection also amends section 1102 of TEA 21 to reduce the
obligation ceiling for federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs by $65 million for each of
fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
Subsection (c) establishes a maintenance of effort
requirement for States receiving MCSAP funds under this
section. Each State must maintain its spending for MCSAP-
eligible activities at a level equal to the average annual
level of expenditures for MCSAP activities for fiscal years
1997, 1998, and 1999.
Subsection (d) permits the Secretary to provide emergency
grants of up to $1 million to a State that is having
difficulties in meeting the requirements associated with the
commercial driver's license program and is in danger of
having its program suspended due to noncompliance.
Subsection (e) provides that if a State is not in
substantial compliance with each requirement of 49 U.S.C.
31311, concerning commercial driver's licensing, the
Secretary shall withhold any allocation of MCSAP funds
authorized under this section. This subsection also provides
that it, before June 30 of the fiscal year in which it was
found in noncompliance, a State is found by the Secretary to
be in substantial compliance with each requirement of section
31311 of such title, the Secretary shall allocate to the
State the funds withheld under this subsection.
Sec. 104. Motor carrier safety strategy
Subsection 104(a) requires the Secretary of Transportation,
as part of the Department's existing federally required
strategic planning efforts required under GPRA, to develop
and implement a long-term strategy, including an annual plan
and schedule for improving commercial motor vehicle,
operator, and carrier safety, and sets forth four goals to be
included in the strategy. The goals are: (1) reducing the
number and rates of crashes, injuries, and fatalities
involving commercial motor vehicles, (2) improving
enforcement and compliance programs, (3) identifying and
targeting enforcement at a high-risk carriers, vehicles, and
drivers, and (4) improving research.
Subsection (b) requires that goals be established that are
designed to accomplish the safety strategy and that estimates
be developed concerning the funding and staffing resources
needed to accomplish the goals. By working toward the
measurable goals, the Administration will also be progressing
toward the strategic goals.
Subsection (c) requires the submission of the strategy and
annual plan with the President's annual budget submission,
starting with fiscal year 2001.
Subsection (d) establishes that for each of the fiscal
years 2001 through 2003, the following officials shall enter
into annual performance agreements between: (1) the Secretary
and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator; (2) the
Administrator and the Deputy Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administrator; (3) the Administrator and the Chief Safety
Officer of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
and (4) the Administrator and the regulatory ombudsman
designated by the Administrator. Each of these officials
shall enter into a performance agreement that contains the
appropriate numeric or measurable goals of the
Administration's motor carrier safety strategy.
The provision requires that the Secretary assess the
progress of the officials toward achieving their respective
goals, and that the Secretary convey the assessments to the
officials, identifying possible future performance
improvements. An official's progress toward meeting the goals
of a performance agreement is to be given substantial weight
by the Secretary when bonuses or other achievement awards are
dispersed consistent with the Department's established
performance appraisal system.
Subsection (e) requires that the Secretary and the
Administrator of the FMCSA assess the progress of the
Administration toward achieving the goals set out in
subsection (a) no less frequently than semiannually. The
assessment should be conveyed to the employees of the FMCSA,
and deficiencies identified. The Secretary is required to
report to
[[Page 30773]]
the Congress the results of the individual and Administration
progress assessment annually.
Subsection (f) requires the Administrator of the FMCSA to
designate a regulatory ombudsman to expedite rulemakings in
order to meet statutory and internal departmental deadlines.
Sec. 105. Commercial motor vehicle safety advisory committee
The provision permits the establishment of a commercial
motor vehicle safety advisory committee to provide advice and
recommendations on a range of commercial motor vehicle safety
issues. Members are appointed by the Secretary and include
representatives of industry, drivers, safety advocates,
manufacturers, safety enforcement officials, representatives
of law enforcement agencies from border States, and other
individuals affected by rulemakings. No one interest may
constitute a majority. If the Secretary establishes the
advisory committee, it should provide advice to the Secretary
on commercial motor vehicle safety regulations and other
matters relating to activities and functions of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The committee will
remain in effect until September 30, 2003.
Sec. 106. Savings provision
The savings provision is intended to provide for the
orderly transfer of personnel and property from the Office of
Motor Carrier Safety to the FMCSA. The provision is also
intended to ensure that legal documents and requirements that
had been in effect on the date of the transfer, and
proceedings in effect, will continue as if the Act had not
been enacted. The savings provision also provides that
lawsuits commenced against the Office of Motor Carrier Safety
or its employees, in their official function, continue as if
this Act had not been enacted. Further the provision assures
the authority of officials of the FMCSA to continue the
functions and performances that had been previously performed
by officials of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety, and deems
any reference to the Office of Motor Carrier Safety, or its
predecessors, to apply to the FMCSA.
Sec. 107. Effective date
Subsection 107(a) provides that this Act shall take effect
on the date of its enactment; except that the amendments made
by section 101 which establish the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, shall take effect on January 1, 2000.
Subsection (b) requires that the President's budget
submission for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year
thereafter reflect the establishment of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration in accordance with this Act.
title ii--commercial motor vehicle and driver safety
Sec. 201. Disqualifications
Subsection 201(a) amends section 31310 of title 49, United
States Code, to make a single violation of driving a
commercial motor vehicle with a revoked, suspended, or
canceled commercial driver's license, or driving while
disqualified, a one-year disqualifying offense, and to make a
conviction for causing a fatality through the negligent or
criminal operation of a commercial motor vehicle a one-year
disqualifying offense. This subsection also makes the
commission of more than one violation of driving a commercial
motor vehicle with a revoked, suspended, or canceled
commercial driver's license, or driving while disqualified, a
lifetime disqualifying offense, and to make a conviction of
more than one offense of causing a fatality through the
negligent or criminal operation of a commercial motor vehicle
a lifetime disqualifying offense.
Subsection (b) amends section 31310 to give the Secretary
emergency disqualification authority to revoke the commercial
driving privileges of an individual upon a determination by
the Secretary that allowing the individual to continue to
operate a commercial motor vehicle would create an imminent
hazard. The Secretary can disqualify an individual under this
provision for no more than 30 days without providing notice
and an opportunity for a hearing.
Subsection (b) also amends section 31310 to require the
Secretary to issue regulations establishing criteria for
disqualifying from operating a commercial motor vehicle an
individual who holds a commercial driver's license and who
has been convicted of a serious offense involving a vehicle
other than a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) resulting in the
revocation, cancellation, or suspension of the individual's
license, or has been convicted of a drug or alcohol-related
offense involving a motor vehicle other than a commercial
motor vehicle. The behavior of a CDL holder in operating
vehicles other than CMV's is relevant to the CDL holder's
fitness to operate a commercial motor vehicle; therefore the
Secretary is directed to conduct a rulemaking to determine
the appropriate minimum time periods for which a CDL holder
should be disqualified, but in no case shall the time periods
for which CDL holders are disqualified for such offenses be
more stringent than the disqualification periods for offenses
involving a commercial motor vehicle.
Subsection (c) amends section 31301 of title 49, United
States Code, to add three offenses to the list of serious
traffic violations for which a CDL holder can be disqualified
under subsection 31310(e). The new offenses are: driving a
CMV without obtaining a CDL; driving a CMV without a CDL in
your possession; and driving without a required endorsement.
But it shall not be a serious traffic violation if a driver
cited for operating a CMV without a license in his or her
possession can produce proof, before the time to appear or
pay the fine for such citation, that he or she did have a
valid CDL at the time of the citation.
Subsection (d) makes clarifying amendments to section
31305(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code.
Sec. 202. Requirements for State participation
Subsection 202(a) amends section 31311(a)(6) of title 49,
United States Code, to require a State to request, before
renewing an individual's CDL, all information about the
driving record of such individual from any other State that
has issued a driver's license to the individual.
Subsection (b) amends section 31311(a)(8) of such title to
require a State, when notifying the Secretary, the operator
of CDLIS, and the issuing State of the disqualification,
revocation, suspension, or cancellation of a CDL holder's
commercial driver's license, to also notify such entities of
the underlying violation that resulted in such
disqualification, revocation, suspension, or cancellation.
Subsection (c) revises 31311(a)(9) of such title to require
a State to notify a CDL holder's home State of any violation
of traffic laws committed by the CDL holder, not just
violations involving a commercial motor vehicle. The
subsection also requires a State to notify any State that has
issued a driver's license (non-CDL) to an individual of any
violation committed while the individual is operating a CMV.
Subsection (d) amends section 31311(a)(10) of such title to
provide that a State may not issue any form of special
license or permit, including a provisional or temporary
license, to a CDL holder that would permit the CDL holder to
drive a CMV during a period in which the CDL holder's license
is revoked, suspended, or canceled, or the CDL holder is
disqualified from operating a CMV.
Subsection (e) revises 31311(a)(13) of title 49 to provide
that a State may establish penalties, with the Secretary's
approval, that are consistent with chapter 313, for
violations committed by an individual operating a commercial
motor vehicle.
Subsection (f) adds a new paragraph 31311(a)(18) to title
49 to require the State to maintain, as part of its driver
information system, a record of each violation of motor
vehicle traffic control laws committed by a CDL holder, and
to make to such record available upon request to the
individual driver, the Secretary, employers, prospective
employers. State licensing and law enforcement agencies, and
their authorized agents.
Subsection (g) adds a new paragraph 31311(a)(19) to title
49 to prohibit both conviction masking and deferral programs
by requiring every State to keep a complete driving record of
all violations of traffic control laws (including CMV and
non-CMV violations) by any individual to whom it has issued a
CDL, and to make each such complete driving record available
to all authorized persons and governmental entities having
access to such record. This provision provides that a State
may not allow information regarding such violations to be
masked or withheld in any way from the record of a CDL
holder.
Subsection (g) also adds a new paragraph 31311(a)(20) to
title 49 to require each State to comply with the
requirements of the regulation issued under 31310(g) of such
title.
Sec. 203. State noncompliance
Section 203 clarifies the Secretary's authority to shut
down a State's CDL program if a State is not substantially
complying with Federal CDL requirements. The section permits
a CDL holder or applicant to go to another State for
licensing or renewal if his/her home state program has been
shut down for noncompliance. This provision does not
invalidate or otherwise affect commercial driver's licenses
issued by a State before the State's CDL program was found to
be non-compliant and shut down.
Sec. 204. Checks before issuance of driver's licenses
Section 204 amends section 30304 of title 49, United States
Code, to require a State, before issuing or renewing any
motor vehicle operator's license to an individual, to query
both the National Driver Register (NDR) and the commercial
driver's license information system (CDLIS). The intent of
this provision is to close a loophole in the CDL program
identified in the Department of Transportation's CDL
Effectiveness Study, whereby a driver currently holding a
valid CDL applies for a non-CDL without revealing or
surrendering the CDL. Without a check of both NDR and CDLIS,
the fact that the driver already holds a CDL at the time of
application for a non-CDL can go undetected, thus defeating
the fundamental ``one driver, one license'' principle behind
the CDL program that prevents drivers from spreading multiple
convictions over multiple licenses. The provision also amends
section 31311(a)(6) to require that before issuing or
renewing a commercial driver's license, the State shall
request from any other State that has issued
[[Page 30774]]
a driver's license to the individual all information about
the driving record of the individual.
Sec. 205. Registration enforcement
The provision adds new subsection 13902(e) to authorize the
Secretary to put a carrier out of service upon finding that
the carrier is operating without authority or beyond the
scope of its authority. Foreign motor carriers who operate
vehicles in the U.S. are not permitted to operate in
interstate commerce without evidence of registration in each
motor vehicle.
SEC. 206. Delinquent payment of penalties
Subsection (a) amends section 13905(c) of title 49, United
States Code, to provide that registration of a carrier,
broker, or freight forwarder may be suspended, amended, or
revoked for failure to pay civil penalty, or arrange and
abide by a payment plan, within 90 days of the time specified
by order of the Secretary for the payment of such penalty.
This provision does not apply to a person unable to pay
assessed penalties because a person is a debtor in a case
under chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code.
Subsection (b) amends section 521(b) of title 49, United
States Code, to provide that an owner or operator of a
commercial motor vehicle who fails to pay an assessed civil
penalty or fails to arrange and abide by an acceptable
payment plan for such civil penalty, within 90 days of the
time specified by order of the Secretary for the payment of
such penalty, may not operate in interstate commerce. This
provision does not apply to a person unable to pay assessed
penalties because the person is a debtor in a case under
chapter 11 of title 11, United States. Code.
Sec. 207. State cooperation in registration enforcement
The provision amends section 31102(b) of title 49, United
States Code, to clarify that State motor carrier plans shall
ensure State cooperation in enforcement of registration and
financial responsibility requirements in sections 13902,
13906, 31138 and 31139 of such title.
Sec. 208. Imminent hazard
The provision revises the definition of imminent hazard in
section 521(b)(5)(B) of title 49, United States Code, to
refer to a condition that ``substantially increases the
likelihood of'' serious injury or death.
Sec. 209. Household goods amendments
Subsection 209(a) is a technical amendment to the
definition of household goods in section 13102(10)(A) of
title 49, United States Code, regarding certain property
moving from a store or factory.
Subsection (b) increases the limit for mandatory
arbitration under section 14708(b)(6) of such title from
$1,000 to $5,000.
Subsection (c) requires a General Accounting Office study
on the effectiveness of DOT enforcement of household goods
consumer protection rules and other potential methods of
enforcement, including State enforcement.
Sec. 210. New motor carrier entrant requirements
This provision requires the Secretary to initiate a
rulemaking to establish minimum requirements for new motor
carriers to ensure applicant carriers are knowledgeable about
applicable Federal motor carrier safety standards. It
requires motor carrier owners and operators who ware granted
new operating authority to be reviewed by a safety inspector
within eighteen months of commencing operations. The
provision requires the Secretary, in establishing the
elements of the safety review, to consider the impact on
small businesses and to consider establishing alternative
locations for conducting such reviews. It also allows the new
entrant review requirements to be phased in over time to take
into account the availability of certified motor carrier
safety auditors and provides for designating new motor
carriers as ``new entrants'' until the required review is
completed.
Sec. 211. Certification of safety auditors
The provision requires the Secretary to complete a
rulemaking within one year of enactment to improve training
and provide for the certification of motor carrier safety
auditors, including private contractors, to conduct safety
inspection audits. The provision prohibits private
contractors from issuing safety ratings or operating
authority, and authorizes the Secretary to decertify any
motor carrier safety auditors.
Sec. 212. Commercial van rulemaking
This provision requires the Secretary to complete in one
year an on-going rulemaking, Docket No. FHWA-99-5710, to
determine which small passenger vans should be covered by
Federal motor carrier safety regulations. At a minimum, the
rulemaking shall apply safety regulations to commercial vans
referred to as ``camionetas''--carriers providing
international transportation between points in Mexico and
points in the United States--and to commercial vans operating
in interstate commerce outside commercial zones that have
been determined to pose serious safety risks. In no case
should the rulemaking be concluded to exempt all small
commercial passenger carrying vans.
The managers note there have been a number of fatal
accidents involving small passenger vans known as camionetas
particularly in the Southern border States. In an effort to
address this safety problem, the Congress has acted on two
separate occasions directing the Secretary to apply Federal
motor carrier safety regulations to these passenger vans.
First, the definition of passenger vans was amended as part
of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 with the intent of
applying safety regulations to these carriers. However, the
Department took no action based on this statutory
requirement. Due to the lack of action by the Department to
regulate these vehicles, the Congress again directed the
Department to apply certain motor carrier safety regulations
to those vans in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA 21). The TEA 21 provision required that all
commercial vans carrying more than 8 passengers to be covered
by most Federal motor carrier safety rules by June 1999,
except to the extent DOT exempted operations as it determined
appropriate through rulemaking. The Department took no action
to even initiate the statutory rulemaking by the June
deadline. On September 3, 1999, the Department finally issued
a rule but it actually exempted the entire class of vehicles
from regulation until further notice. The managers find the
Department's blatant misinterpretation of the statute
unacceptable. Therefore, a provision has been included in
this bill directing the Secretary to finally address this
identified safety problems.
Sec. 213. 24-hour staffing of telephone hotline
The provision amends section 4017 of TEA 21 to require that
the Department's toll-free telephone hotline for reporting
safety violations be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
by individuals knowledgeable about Federal motor carrier
safety regulations and procedures. This section also
increases the funding authorization for the hotline to the
level of the Department of Transportation's estimate of the
cost of 24-hour coverage.
Sec. 214. CDL school bus endorsement
The provision requires the Secretary to conduct a
rulemaking to establish a special CDL endorsement for drivers
of school buses. The section requires, at a minimum, that the
endorsement (1) include a driving skills test in a school
bus, and (2) address proper safety procedures for loading and
unloading children, using emergency exits, and traversing
highway grade crossings.
Sec. 215. Medical certificate
The provision requires the Secretary to initiate a
rulemaking to provide for the Federal medical qualification
certificate to be made part of the commercial drivers'
license.
Sec. 216. Implementation of inspector general recommendations
The provision requires the Secretary to implement all the
DOT Inspector General's motor carrier safety improvement
recommendations contained in the IG's April 1999 report
assessing the effectiveness of DOT's motor carrier safety
program, except to the extent to which such recommendations
are specifically addressed in sections 206, 208, 217, and 222
of this Act. These recommendations, found on pages 17, 18,
26, and 27 of the IG report, are as follows:
Recommendations to Improve the Effectiveness of Motor
Carrier Safety Enforcement:
1. Strengthen its enforcement policy by establishing
written policy and operating procedures to take strong action
against motor carriers with repeat violations of the same
acute or critical regulation. Strong enforcement actions
would include assessing fines at the statutory maximum
amount, the issuance of compliance orders, not negotiating
reduced assessments, and when necessary, placing motor
carriers out of service.
2. Remove all administrative restrictions on fines placed
in the Uniform Fine Assessment program and increase the
maximum fines to the level authorized by TEA-21.
3. Establish stiffer fines that cannot be considered a cost
of doing business and, if necessary, seek appropriate
legislation raising statutory penalty ceilings.
4. Implement a procedure that removes the operating
authority from motor carriers that fail to pay civil
penalties within 90 days after final orders are issued or
settlement agreements are completed.
5. Establish criteria for determining when a motor carrier
poses an imminent hazard.
6. Require follow-up visit and monitoring of those motor
carriers with a less-than-satisfactory safety rating, at
varying intervals, to ensure that safety improvements are
sustained, or if safety has deteriorated that appropriate
sanctions are invoked.
7. Establish a control mechanism that requires written
justification by the OMC State Director when compliance
reviews of high-risk carriers are not performed.
8. Establish a written policy and operating procedures that
identify criteria and time frames for closing enforcement
cases, including the current backlog.
Recommendations for Data Enhancement:
1. Require applicants requesting operating authority to
provide the number of commercial vehicles they operate and
the number of drivers they employ and require all motor
carriers to periodically update this information.
2. Revise the grant formula and provide incentives through
MSCAP grants for states to provide accurate, complete and
timely commercial vehicle crash reports, vehicle and
[[Page 30775]]
driver inspection reports and traffic violation data.
3. Withhold funds from MCSAP grants for those States that
continue to report inaccurate incomplete and untimely
commercial vehicle crash data, vehicle and driver inspection
data and traffic violation data within a reasonable
notification period such as one year.
4. Initiate a program to train local enforcement agencies
for reporting of crash, roadside inspection data including
associated traffic violations.
5. Standardize OMC and NHTSA crash data requirements, crash
data collection procedures, and reports.
6. Obtain and analyze crash causes and fault data as a
result of comprehensive crash evaluations to identify safety
improvements.
The provision requires that every 90 days, beginning 90
days after enactment, the Secretary provide status reports on
the implementation of recommendations. The IG would also be
directed to provide the Committees with assessments of the
Secretary's progress. The IG report shall include an analysis
of the number of violations cited by safety inspectors, the
level of fines assessed and collected for such violations,
the number of cases in which there are findings of
extraordinary circumstances under section 222(c) of this Act,
and the circumstances in which such findings are made.
Sec. 217. Periodic refiling of motor carrier, identification
reports
The provision requires periodic updating, but not more
frequently than once every two years, of the Motor Carrier
Identification Report, Form MCS-150, filed by each motor
carrier conducting operations in interstate or foreign
commerce. An initial updating of the information is required
within 12 months from enactment of the Act.
Sec. 218. Border staffing standards
Subsection 218(a) requires the Secretary to develop and
implement appropriate staffing standards for Federal and
State motor carrier safety inspectors in international border
areas.
Subsection (b) lists the factors to be considered in
developing the staffing standards. These include the volume
of traffic, hours of operation of the border facilities,
types of commercial motor vehicles (including passenger
vehicles) and cargo in the border areas, and the
responsibilities of Federal and State inspectors.
Subsection (c) prohibits the United States and any State
from reducing its respective level of motor carrier safety
inspectors in an international border area below the level of
such inspectors in fiscal year 2000.
Subsection (d) provides that if, by October 1, 2001, and
each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary has not ensured
that appropriate levels of staffing consistent with the
staffing standards are deployed in international border
areas, the Secretary should allocate five percent of motor
carrier safety assistance program funds for border commercial
motor vehicle and safety enforcement programs.
Sec. 219. Foreign motor carrier penalties and
disqualifications
Subsection 219(a) provides for civil penalties and
disqualifications for foreign motor carriers that operate,
before implementation of the land transportation provisions
of NAFTA, without authority outside of a commercial zone.
Subsection (b) provides that the civil penalty for an
intentional violation shall not be more than $10,000 and may
include disqualification from operating in U.S. for not more
than 6 months.
Subsection (c) provides that the civil penalty for a
pattern of intentional violations shall not be more than
$25,000; the carrier shall be disqualified from operating in
the U.S., and that such disqualification may be permanent.
Subsection (d) prohibits any foreign motor carrier from
leasing its motor vehicles to any other carrier to transport
property in the U.S. during any period in which a suspension,
condition, restriction, or limitation imposed under 49 U.S.C.
13902(c) applies to the foreign carrier.
Subsection (e) provides that no provision may be enforced
if inconsistent with international agreements.
Subsection (f) provides that acts committed without
knowledge of the carrier or committed unintentionally are not
grounds for penalty or disqualification.
Sec. 220. Traffic law initiative
The provision permits the Secretary to carry out a program
with one or more States to develop innovative methods of
improving motor carrier traffic law compliance, including the
use of photography and other imaging technologies.
Sec. 221. State-to-Sate notification of violations data
The provision requires the Secretary to develop a uniform
system to support the electronic transmission of data State-
to-State on violations of all motor vehicle traffic control
laws by individuals possessing a commercial driver's license.
Sec. 222. Minimum and maximum assessments
Subsection 222(a) directs the Secretary to ensure that
motor carriers operate safely by imposing civil penalties at
a level calculated to ensure prompt and sustained compliance
with Federal motor carrier safety and commercial driver's
license (CDL) laws.
Subsection (b) recommends the Secretary establish and
assess minimum civil penalties for Federal motor carrier
safety and CDL violations and requires the Secretary to
assess the maximum civil penalty for repeat offenders or a
pattern of violations.
Subsection (c) recognizes that extraordinary circumstances
do arise that merit the assessment of civil penalties at a
level lower than any level established under subsection (b)
of this section. If the Secretary assesses such lower
penalties, the Secretary must document the justification for
them.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to conduct and submit
to Congress a study of the effectiveness of revised civil
penalties established in TEA 21 and this Act in ensuring
compliance with Federal motor carrier safety and commercial
driver's license laws.
Sec. 223. Motor carrier safety progress report
The provision directs the Secretary to submit a status
report on the Department's progress in achieving its goal of
reducing motor carrier fatalities by 50 percent by 2009.
Sec. 224. Study of commercial motor vehicle crash causation
Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to conduct a
comprehensive study to determine the causes of, and
contributing factors to, crashes involving commercial motor
vehicles, including vehicles defined in section 31132(1)(B)
of title 49, United States Code, and to identify the data
requirements needed to improve the Department's and the
States' ability to evaluate crashes and crash trends,
identify crash causes and contributing factors, and develop
safety measures to reduce such crashes.
Subsection (b) addresses the design of the study, requiring
that it yield information to help the Department and the
States identify activities likely to lead to significant
reductions in commercial motor vehicle-involved crashes
including crashes by commercial vans.
Subsection (c) lists the areas of expertise of the people
with whom the Secretary is required to consult in conducting
the study.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to provide for public
comment on various aspects of the study.
Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to submit the results
of the study to Congress, review the study at least once
every five years, and update the study and report as
necessary.
Subsection (f) provides $5 million in contract authority to
carry out this section.
Sec. 225. Data collection and analysis
This provision directs the Secretary to carry out a program
to improve the collection and analysis of data on commercial
motor vehicle crashes, including crash causation. NHTSA, in
cooperation with the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, is required to administer the program. It
requires NHTSA to integrate driver citation and conviction
information and provides $5 million from the FMCSA's
administrative takedown to fund this program. This section
also provides $5 million in contract authority for
information systems under 49 U.S.C. 31106.
Sec. 226. Drug test results study
Subsection 226(a) directs the Secretary to conduct a study
on the feasibility and merits of having medical review
officers or employers report positive drug tests of CDL
holders to the State that issued the CDL and requiring all
prospective employers, before hiring any driver, to query the
State that issued the driver's CDL on whether the State has
on record any verified positive controlled substances test on
such driver.
Subsection (b) lists factor to be considered in the study.
They are: safeguarding confidentiality of test results;
costs, benefits and safety impacts; and whether a process
should be established to allow drivers to correct errors and
expunge information from their records after a reasonable
time.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to issue a report to
Congress on the study within two years.
Sec. 227. Approval of agreements
Section 227 amends section 13703 of title 49, United States
Code, by adding a new requirement to require the Surface
Transportation Board to review every five years any agreement
for any activities approved under section 13703. The
provision also provides for the continuation of any pending
cases before the Board, but prohibits certain nationwide
agreements.
Sec. 228. DOT authority
This section clarifies Congressional intent with respect to
the criminal investigative authority of the Department of
Transportation Inspector General (IG).
When the Office of Motor Carrier Safety finds evidence of
egregious criminal violations of motor carrier safety
regulations through their regulatory compliance efforts, it
refers these cases to the IG's Office of Investigations.
Recently, a U.S. District Court concluded that an
investigation undertaken by the IG exceeded its jurisdiction,
see In the Matter of the Search of Northland Trucking Inc.
(D.C. Arizona), finding that the motor carrier involved was
not a grantee or contractor of the Department, nor was there
evidence of collusion with DOT employees.
[[Page 30776]]
This narrow construction of the IG's authority is not well
grounded in law, and the managers are concerned about the
adverse impacts the Order could have on IG operations. This
provision, therefore, clarifies Congressional intent with
respect to the authority of the IG, reaffirming the IG's
ability and authority to continue to conduct criminal
investigations of parties subject to DOT laws or regulations,
whether or not such parties receive Federal funds from the
Department.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3419,
which incorporates H.R. 2679, the Motor Carrier Safety Act. I am
specially pleased to see that this bill includes provisions for Foreign
Motor Carrier penalties and disqualifications.
Mexican-domiciled trucks are operating improperly in the United
States and violate U.S. statutes by either not obtaining operating
authority or operating beyond the scope of their authority. About 98%
of these trucks are limited to operating within the commercial zones
along the four southern border states, but Mexican trucks have been
found as far away as Washington, New York and my home state of
Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, in FY98, there were almost 24,000 safety inspections
performed on drivers and/or vehicles of Mexico domiciled trucks. Forty
one percent of these trucks failed to meet U.S. safety requirements,
and were placed out of service for safety violations. Clearly, it is
imperative that we keep these unsafe trucks off our highways.
Current law provides for only a $500 fine for those trucks operating
where they are not suppose to. This bill will increase penalties for
those trucks that operate without authority, raising the fines to a
$10,000 fine and six month suspension maximum for the first offense and
a $25,000 fine and possibly permanent suspension for subsequent
offenses, a measure I strongly support.
I believe that this will minimize the number of unsafe trucks on our
highways, ensuring safer roads for everybody. By moving the Office of
Motor Carriers from the Federal Highway Administration, it is my hope
that the Office will have the power to enforce compliance to this
legislation.
I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
of 1999 forms a new motor carrier safety administration that is charged
with improving motor carrier safety from its current deplorable state.
This bill also includes a number of needed changes to the commercial
drivers license program and motor carrier operations along our southern
border. This is a good beginning.
For the past year, the House Appropriations Committee, and the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, have been reviewing a
variety of truck safety issues. What we found was appalling. The Office
of Motor Carriers, which until recently has been housed within the
Federal Highway Administration, has allowed motor carrier safety to
decline dramatically. Last year 5,374 people died in truck related
accidents. The year before that, 5,398 people died--a decade high.
During this same period, safety reviews on trucking companies dropped
from 5 per month to one per month, and civil penalties declined to
$1,600. Because of this, and other problems, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General, the chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board, trucking representatives, the law
enforcement community, and safety advocates all agree that the Office
of Motor Carriers has been ineffective in reducing trucking accidents
and fatalities.
The bill before you will address many of the problems found by
Congress and these groups. It will strengthen truck safety activities
both at the federal and at the state levels. As noted, it creates a new
safety administration, which as its name implies, will be focused on
safety. It is critical Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary appoint a good
and decent person to the position of administrator, who will focus on
safety first, making it their daily goal to reduce the number of truck
related fatalities on our nation's highways. This person should not
only be knowledgeable in the area of truck safety but be free of any
conflicts of interest.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express my appreciation, and that
of the nation, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for moving this bill.
Because of his efforts, along with those of the gentlemen from
Wisconsin, Minnesota and West Virginia, thousands of families across
the country will be spared that terrible phone call informing them that
a relative has been involved in an accident. I want the world to know
Mr. Speaker, that because of Mr. Shuster's leadership on this issue,
America's highways will be safer. He deserves our thanks.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes our roads for drivers,
passengers, and pedestrians. For too long, the Department of
Transportation has neglected commercial passenger van safety. When the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century passed, I thought the
DOT would address this issue because that was the intent of Section
4008 in the bill. Unfortunately, the DOT did not meet this intent since
they chose to delay the application of Federal Motor Carrier Safety
regulations to for-profit commercial passenger vans.
I am pleased that this bill forces the Department of Transportation
to complete its rulemaking and not exempt all for-profit commercial
passenger van operators from the final rule when it is issued.
Another problem we have and that the bill addresses is the lack of
data and information on the causes of and contributing factors to
crashes involving commercial motor vehicles, specifically for-profit
commercial passenger vans, regardless of where they originate. We have
provided the DOT with the resources and guidance to complete a
comprehensive study on this issue. It is my hope that this national
study will give special attention to metropolitan areas like northern
New Jersey.
I want to thank the Chairman, Mr. Shuster, and the Ranking Member,
Mr. Oberstar, on these two important provisions which will lead to
safer travel for all those who use our roads.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3419--the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999--is a comprehensive bill that will improve
truck and bus safety by strengthening Federal and State safety
programs.
The bill creates a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on January 1, 2000;
increases funding from the Highway Trust Fund for Federal and State
safety efforts; and, closes loopholes in the Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) program.
For example, the bill gives the Secretary emergency authority to
revoke the license of a truck or bus driver found to constitute an
imminent hazard.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is given increased
funding for safety to allow for growth in the number of safety
inspectors and in safety research.
The bill guarantees $195 million over the next three years from the
Highway Trust Fund for motor carrier safety grants. These grants fund
State safety enforcement efforts. The bill also contains a number of
programmatic reforms, including the closing of loopholes in the
Commercial Driver's License, setting standards for fines, and improving
border safety efforts.
I am submitting a Joint Explanatory Statement on the bill that
explains the provisions of the bill in more detail.
It is critical that Congress enact this legislation before the end of
the session since trucking safety functions of the Department are
temporarily housed in the Office of the Secretary.
If we don't pass this legislation, I am afraid that this
organizational limbo will continue.
The bill is very similar to the bill that passed the House earlier
this year by a vote of 415 to 5, which had bipartisan support in
Committee.
This is an important bill, that truly will improve highway safety. I
urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the House bill, as follows:
H.R. 3419
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 ``Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Purposes.
TITLE I--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 101. Establishment of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Sec. 102. Revenue aligned budget authority.
Sec. 103. Additional funding for motor carrier safety grant program.
Sec. 104. Motor carrier safety strategy.
Sec. 105. Commercial motor vehicle safety advisory committee.
Sec. 106. Saving provisions.
Sec. 107. Effective date.
TITLE II--COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER SAFETY
Sec. 201. Disqualifications.
Sec. 202. Requirements for State participation.
[[Page 30777]]
Sec. 203. State noncompliance.
Sec. 204. Checks before issuance of driver's licenses.
Sec. 205. Registration enforcement.
Sec. 206. Delinquent payment of penalties.
Sec. 207. State cooperation in registration enforcement.
Sec. 208. Imminent hazard.
Sec. 209. Household goods amendments.
Sec. 210. New motor carrier entrant requirements.
Sec. 211. Certification of safety auditors.
Sec. 212. Commercial van rulemaking.
Sec. 213. 24-hour staffing of telephone hotline.
Sec. 214. CDL school bus endorsement.
Sec. 215. Medical certificate.
Sec. 216. Implementation of Inspector General recommendations.
Sec. 217. Periodic refiling of motor carrier identification reports.
Sec. 218. Border staffing standards.
Sec. 219. Foreign motor carrier penalties and disqualifications.
Sec. 220. Traffic law initiative.
Sec. 221. State-to-State notification of violations data.
Sec. 222. Minimum and maximum assessments.
Sec. 223. Motor carrier safety progress report.
Sec. 224. Study of commercial motor vehicle crash causation.
Sec. 225. Data collection and analysis.
Sec. 226. Drug test results study.
Sec. 227. Approval of agreements.
Sec. 228. DOT authority.
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Transportation.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The current rate, number, and severity of crashes
involving motor carriers in the United States are
unacceptable.
(2) The number of Federal and State commercial motor
vehicle and operator inspections is insufficient and civil
penalties for violators must be utilized to deter future
violations.
(3) The Department of Transportation is failing to meet
statutorily mandated deadlines for completing rulemaking
proceedings on motor carrier safety and, in some significant
safety rulemaking proceedings, including driver hours-of-
service regulations, extensive periods have elapsed without
progress toward resolution or implementation.
(4) Too few motor carriers undergo compliance reviews and
the Department's data bases and information systems require
substantial improvement to enhance the Department's ability
to target inspection and enforcement resources toward the
most serious safety problems and to improve States' ability
to keep dangerous drivers off the roads.
(5) Additional safety inspectors and inspection facilities
are needed in international border areas to ensure that
commercial motor vehicles, drivers, and carriers comply with
United States safety standards.
(6) The Department should rigorously avoid conflicts of
interest in Federally funded research.
(7) Meaningful measures to improve safety must be
implemented expeditiously to prevent increases in motor
carrier crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
(8) Proper use of Federal resources is essential to the
Department's ability to improve its research, rulemaking,
oversight, and enforcement activities related to commercial
motor vehicles, operators, and carriers.
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to improve the administration of the Federal motor
carrier safety program and to establish a Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration in the Department of
Transportation; and
(2) to reduce the number and severity of large-truck
involved crashes through more commercial motor vehicle and
operator inspections and motor carrier compliance reviews,
stronger enforcement measures against violators, expedited
completion of rulemaking proceedings, scientifically sound
research, and effective commercial driver's license testing,
recordkeeping and sanctions.
TITLE I--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 113. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
``(a) In General.--The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration shall be an administration of the Department
of Transportation.
``(b) Safety as Highest Priority.--In carrying out its
duties, the Administration shall consider the assignment and
maintenance of safety as the highest priority, recognizing
the clear intent, encouragement, and dedication of Congress
to the furtherance of the highest degree of safety in motor
carrier transportation.
``(c) Administrator.--The head of the Administration shall
be the Administrator who shall be appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall
be an individual with professional experience in motor
carrier safety. The Administrator shall report directly to
the Secretary of Transportation.
``(d) Deputy Administrator.--The Administration shall have
a Deputy Administrator appointed by the Secretary, with the
approval of the President. The Deputy Administrator shall
carry out duties and powers prescribed by the Administrator.
``(e) Chief Safety Officer.--The Administration shall have
an Assistant Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator
appointed in the competitive service by the Secretary, with
the approval of the President. The Assistant Administrator
shall be the Chief Safety Officer of the Administration. The
Assistant Administrator shall carry out the duties and powers
prescribed by the Administrator.
``(f) Powers and Duties.--The Administrator shall carry
out--
``(1) duties and powers related to motor carriers or motor
carrier safety vested in the Secretary by chapters 5, 51, 55,
57, 59, 133 through 149, 311, 313, 315, and 317 and by
section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4917;
86 Stat. 1249-1250); except as otherwise delegated by the
Secretary to any agency of the Department of Transportation
other than the Federal Highway Administration, as of October
8, 1999; and
``(2) additional duties and powers prescribed by the
Secretary.
``(g) Limitation on Transfer of Powers and Duties.--A duty
or power specified in subsection (f)(1) may only be
transferred to another part of the Department when
specifically provided by law.
``(h) Effect of Certain Decisions.--A decision of the
Administrator involving a duty or power specified in
subsection (f)(1) and involving notice and hearing required
by law is administratively final.
``(i) Consultation.--The Administrator shall consult with
the Federal Highway Administrator and with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator on matters related to
highway and motor carrier safety.''.
(b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 104(a)(1) of title
23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and
(B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and by moving the
text of such clauses 2 ems to the right;
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``exceed 1\1/2\ percent of
all sums so made available, as the Secretary determines
necessary--'' and inserting ``exceed--
``(A) 1\1/6\ percent of all sums so made available, as the
Secretary determines necessary--'';
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) (as redesignated by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection) and inserting ``; and'' and the following:
``(B) \1/3\ of 1 percent of all sums so made available, as
the Secretary determines necessary, to administer the
provisions of law to be financed from appropriations for
motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety
research.''; and--
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Limitation on transferability.--Unless expressly
authorized by law, the Secretary may not transfer any sums
deducted under paragraph (1) to a Federal agency or entity
other than the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 1 of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``113. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.''.
(2) Federal highway administration.--Section 104 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (1)
and inserting ``; and'';
(ii) by striking paragraph (2); and
(iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(B) by striking subsection (d); and
(C) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
(d) Positions in Executive Service.--
(1) Administrator.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after
``Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.''
the following:
``Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.''.
(2) Deputy and assistant administrators.--Section 5316 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
``Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.''
the following:
``Deputy Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
``Assistant Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator.''.
(e) Personnel Levels.--The number of personnel positions at
the Office of Motor Carrier Safety (and, beginning on January
1, 2000, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) at
its headquarters location in fiscal year 2000 shall not be
increased above the level transferred from the Federal
Highway Administration to the Office of Motor
[[Page 30778]]
Carrier Safety. The Secretary shall provide detailed
justifications to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives for the personnel requested for fiscal years
2001, 2002, and 2003 for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration when the President submits his budget,
including a justification for increasing personnel at
headquarters above the levels so transferred.
(f) Authority to Promulgate Safety Standards for
Retrofitting.--The authority under title 49, United States
Code, to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor
vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture is
vested in the Secretary and may be delegated.
(g) Conflicts of Interest.--
(1) Compliance with regulation.--In awarding any contract
for research, the Secretary shall comply with section
1252.209-70 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on the date of enactment of this section. The
Secretary shall require that the text of such section be
included in any request for proposal and contract for
research made by the Secretary.
(2) Study.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine whether or not compliance with the section referred
to in paragraph (1) is sufficient to avoid conflicts of
interest in contracts for research awarded by the Secretary
and to evaluate whether or not compliance with such section
unreasonably delays or burdens the awarding of such
contracts.
(B) Consultation.--In conducting the study under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall consult, as appropriate, with
the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation,
the Comptroller General, the heads of other Federal agencies,
research organizations, industry representatives, employee
organizations, safety organizations, and other entities.
(C) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a report on the results of
the study conducted under this paragraph.
SEC. 102. REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by redesignating the first section 110, relating to
uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway funds, as
section 126 and moving and inserting such section after
section 125 of such chapter; and
(2) in the remaining section 110, relating to revenue
aligned budget authority--
(A) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``and the motor
carrier safety grant program'' after ``relief)''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
(i) by inserting ``and the motor carrier safety grant
program'' after ``program)'';
(ii) by striking ``title and'' and inserting ``title,'';
and
(iii) by inserting ``, and subchapter I of chapter 311 of
title 49'' after ``21st Century''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended--
(1) by striking
``110. Uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway funds.'';
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 125 the
following:
``126. Uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway funds.'';
and
(3) in the item relating to section 163 by striking
``Sec.''.
SEC. 103. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) for the Secretary of Transportation to carry out
section 31102 of title 49, United States Code, $75,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
(b) Increased Authorizations for Motor Carrier Safety
Grants.--
(1) In general.--Section 4003 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 395-398) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Increased Authorizations for Motor Carrier Safety
Grants.--The amount made available to incur obligations to
carry out section 31102 of title 49, United States Code, by
section 31104(a) of such title for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2003 shall be increased by $65,000,000.''.
(2) Corresponding reduction to obligation ceiling.--Section
1102 of such Act (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 112 Stat. 1115-1118) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Reduction in Obligation Ceiling.--The limitation on
obligations imposed by subsection (a) for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2003 shall be reduced by $65,000,000.''.
(c) Maintenance of Effort.--The Secretary may not make,
from funds made available by or under this section (including
any amendment made by this section), a grant to a State
unless the State first enters into a binding agreement with
the Secretary that provides that the total expenditures of
amounts of the State and its political subdivisions (not
including amounts of the United States) for the development
or implementation of programs for improving motor carrier
safety and enforcement of regulations, standards, and orders
of the United States on commercial motor vehicle safety,
hazardous materials transportation safety, and compatible
State regulations, standards, and orders will be maintained
at a level at least equal to the average level of such
expenditures for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
(d) Emergency CDL Grants.--Section 31107 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Emergency CDL Grants.--From amounts made available by
subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary of
Transportation may make a grant of up to $1,000,000 to a
State whose commercial driver's license program may fail to
meet the compliance requirements of section 31311(a).''.
(e) State Compliance With CDL Requirements.--
(1) Withholding of allocation for noncompliance.--If a
State is not in substantial compliance with each requirement
of section 31311 of title 49, United States Code, the
Secretary shall withhold all amounts that would be allocated,
but for this paragraph, to the State from funds made
available by or under this section (including any amendment
made by this section).
(2) Period of availability of withheld funds.--Any funds
withheld under paragraph (1) from any State shall remain
available until June 30 of the fiscal year for which the
funds are authorized to be appropriated.
(3) Allocation of withheld funds after compliance.--If,
before the last day of the period for which funds are
withheld under paragraph (1) from allocation are to remain
available for allocation to a State under paragraph (2), the
Secretary determines that the State is in substantial
compliance with each requirement of section 31311 of title
49, United States Code, the Secretary shall allocate to the
State the withheld funds.
(4) Period of availability of subsequently allocated
funds.--Any funds allocated pursuant to paragraph (3) shall
remain available for expenditure until the last day of the
first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
funds are so allocated. Sums not expended at the end of such
period are released to the Secretary for reallocation.
(5) Effect of noncompliance.--If, on June 30 of the fiscal
year in which funds are withheld from allocation under
paragraph (1), the State is not substantially complying with
each requirement of section 31311 of title 49, United States
Code, the funds are released to the Secretary for
reallocation.
SEC. 104. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY STRATEGY.
(a) Safety Goals.--In conjunction with existing federally
required strategic planning efforts, the Secretary shall
develop a long-term strategy for improving commercial motor
vehicle, operator, and carrier safety. The strategy shall
include an annual plan and schedule for achieving, at a
minimum, the following goals:
(1) Reducing the number and rates of crashes, injuries, and
fatalities involving commercial motor vehicles.
(2) Improving the consistency and effectiveness of
commercial motor vehicle, operator, and carrier enforcement
and compliance programs.
(3) Identifying and targeting enforcement efforts at high-
risk commercial motor vehicles, operators, and carriers.
(4) Improving research efforts to enhance and promote
commercial motor vehicle, operator, and carrier safety and
performance.
(b) Contents of Strategy.--
(1) Measurable goals.--The strategy and annual plans under
subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, specific numeric
or measurable goals designed to achieve the strategic goals
of subsection (a). The purposes of the numeric or measurable
goals are as follows:
(A) To increase the number of inspections and compliance
reviews to ensure that all high-risk commercial motor
vehicles, operators, and carriers are examined.
(B) To eliminate, with meaningful safety measures, the
backlog of rulemakings.
(C) To improve the quality and effectiveness of data bases
by ensuring that all States and inspectors accurately and
promptly report complete safety information.
(D) To eliminate, with meaningful civil and criminal
penalties for violations, the backlog of enforcement cases.
(E) To provide for a sufficient number of Federal and State
safety inspectors, and provide adequate facilities and
equipment, at international border areas.
(2) Resource needs.--In addition, the strategy and annual
plans shall include estimates of the funds and staff
resources needed to accomplish each activity. Such estimates
shall also include the staff skills and training needed for
timely and effective accomplishment of each goal.
(3) Savings clause.--In developing and assessing progress
toward meeting the measurable goals set forth in this
subsection, the Secretary and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administrator shall not take any action that would
impinge on the due process rights of motor carriers and
drivers.
(c) Submission With the President's Budget.--Beginning with
fiscal year 2001 and
[[Page 30779]]
each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress the strategy and annual plan at the same time as the
President's budget submission.
(d) Annual Performance.--
(1) Annual performance agreement.--For each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003, the following officials shall enter into
annual performance agreements:
(A) The Secretary and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administrator.
(B) The Administrator and the Deputy Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administrator.
(C) The Administrator and the Chief Safety Officer of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
(D) The Administrator and the regulatory ombudsman of the
Administration designated by the Administrator under
subsection (f).
(2) Goals.--Each annual performance agreement entered into
under paragraph (1) shall include the appropriate numeric or
measurable goals of subsection (b).
(3) Progress assessment.--Consistent with the current
performance appraisal system of the Department of
Transportation, the Secretary shall assess the progress of
each official (other than the Secretary) referred to in
paragraph (1) toward achieving the goals in his or her
performance agreement. The Secretary shall convey the
assessment to such official, including identification of any
deficiencies that should be remediated before the next
progress assessment.
(4) Administration.--In deciding whether or not to award a
bonus or other achievement award to an official of the
Administration who is a party to a performance agreement
required by this subsection, the Secretary shall give
substantial weight to whether the official has made
satisfactory progress toward meeting the goals of his or her
performance agreement.
(e) Achievement of Goals.--
(1) Progress assessment.--No less frequently than
semiannually, the Secretary and the Administrator shall
assess the progress of the Administration toward achieving
the strategic goals of subsection (a). The Secretary and the
Administrator shall convey their assessment to the employees
of the Administration and shall identify any deficiencies
that should be remediated before the next progress
assessment.
(2) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall report
annually to Congress the contents of each performance
agreement entered into under subsection (d) and the
official's performance relative to the goals of the
performance agreement. In addition, the Secretary shall
report to Congress on the performance of the Administration
relative to the goals of the motor carrier safety strategy
and annual plan under subsection (a).
(f) Expediting Regulatory Proceedings.--The Administrator
shall designate a regulatory ombudsman to expedite rulemaking
proceedings. The Secretary and the Administrator shall each
delegate to the ombudsman such authority as may be necessary
for the ombudsman to expedite rulemaking proceedings of the
Administration to comply with statutory and internal
departmental deadlines, including authority to--
(1) make decisions to resolve disagreements between
officials in the Administration who are participating in a
rulemaking process; and
(2) ensure that sufficient staff are assigned to rulemaking
projects to meet all deadlines.
SEC. 105. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish a
commercial motor vehicle safety advisory committee to provide
advice and recommendations on a range of motor carrier safety
issues.
(b) Composition.--The members of the advisory committee
shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall include
representatives of the motor carrier industry, drivers,
safety advocates, manufacturers, safety enforcement
officials, law enforcement agencies of border States, and
other individuals affected by rulemakings under consideration
by the Department of Transportation. Representatives of a
single interest group may not constitute a majority of the
members of the advisory committee.
(c) Function.--The advisory committee shall provide advice
to the Secretary on commercial motor vehicle safety
regulations and other matters relating to activities and
functions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
(d) Termination Date.--The advisory committee shall remain
in effect until September 30, 2003.
SEC. 106. SAVINGS PROVISION.
(a) Transfer of Assets and Personnel.--Except as otherwise
provided in this Act and the amendments made by this Act,
those personnel, property, and records employed, used, held,
available, or to be made available in connection with a
function transferred to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration by this Act shall be transferred to the
Administration for use in connection with the functions
transferred, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
allocations, and other funds of the Office of Motor Carrier
Safety (including any predecessor entity) shall also be
transferred to the Administration.
(b) Legal Documents.--All orders, determinations, rules,
regulations, permits, grants, loans, contracts, settlements,
agreements, certificates, licenses, and privileges--
(1) that have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to
become effective by the Office, any officer or employee of
the Office, or any other Government official, or by a court
of competent jurisdiction, in the performance of any function
that is transferred by this Act or the amendments made by
this Act; and
(2) that are in effect on the effective date of such
transfer (or become effective after such date pursuant to
their terms as in effect on such effective date),
shall continue in effect according to their terms until
modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in
accordance with law by the Administration, any other
authorized official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or
operation of law.
(c) Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of this Act shall not
affect any proceedings or any application for any license
pending before the Office at the time this Act takes effect,
insofar as those functions are transferred by this Act; but
such proceedings and applications, to the extent that they
relate to functions so transferred, shall be continued.
Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be
taken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such
orders, as if this Act had not been enacted; and orders
issued in any such proceedings shall continue in effect until
modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by a duly
authorized official, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or
by operation of law.
(2) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be deemed to prohibit the discontinuance or
modification of any proceeding described in paragraph (1)
under the same terms and conditions and to the same extent
that such proceeding could have been discontinued or modified
if this Act had not been enacted.
(3) Orderly transfer.--The Secretary is authorized to
provide for the orderly transfer of pending proceedings from
the Office.
(d) Suits.--
(1) In general.--This Act shall not affect suits commenced
before the date of the enactment of this Act, except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3). In all such suits,
proceeding shall be had, appeals taken, and judgments
rendered in the same manner and with the same effect as if
this Act had not been enacted.
(2) Suits by or against omcs.--Any suit by or against the
Office begun before January 1, 2000, shall be continued,
insofar as it involves a function retained and transferred
under this Act, with the Administration (to the extent the
suit involves functions transferred to the Administration
under this Act) substituted for the Office.
(3) Remanded cases.--If the court in a suit described in
paragraph (1) remands a case to the Administration,
subsequent proceedings related to such case shall proceed in
accordance with applicable law and regulations as in effect
at the time of such subsequent proceedings.
(e) Continuance of Actions Against Officers.--No suit,
action, or other proceeding commenced by or against any
officer in his official capacity as an officer of the Office
shall abate by reason of the enactment of this Act. No cause
of action by or against the Office, or by or against any
officer thereof in his official capacity, shall abate by
reason of enactment of this Act.
(f) Exercise of Authorities.--Except as otherwise provided
by law, an officer or employee of the Administration may, for
purposes of performing a function transferred by this Act or
the amendments made by this Act, exercise all authorities
under any other provision of law that were available with
respect to the performance of that function to the official
responsible for the performance of the function immediately
before the effective date of the transfer of the function
under this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
(g) References.--Any reference to the Office in any Federal
law, Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or pertaining to the Office or
an officer or employee of the Office is deemed to refer to
the Administration or a member or employee of the
Administration, as appropriate.
SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This Act shall take effect on the date of
enactment of this Act; except that the amendments made by
section 101 shall take effect on January 1, 2000.
(b) Budget Submissions.--The President's budget submission
for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter shall
reflect the establishment of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration in accordance with this Act.
TITLE II--COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER SAFETY
SEC. 201. DISQUALIFICATIONS.
(a) Driving While Disqualified and Causing a Fatality.--
(1) First violation.--Section 31310(b)(1) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting a semicolon; and
[[Page 30780]]
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) committing a first violation of driving a commercial
motor vehicle when the individual's commercial driver's
license is revoked, suspended, or canceled based on the
individual's operation of a commercial motor vehicle or when
the individual is disqualified from operating a commercial
motor vehicle based on the individual's operation of a
commercial motor vehicle; or
``(E) convicted of causing a fatality through negligent or
criminal operation of a commercial motor vehicle.''.
(2) Second and multiple violations.--Section 31310(c)(1) of
such title is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F);
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) committing more than one violation of driving a
commercial motor vehicle when the individual's commercial
driver's license is revoked, suspended, or canceled based on
the individual's operation of a commercial motor vehicle or
when the individual is disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle based on the individual's operation
of a commercial motor vehicle;
``(E) convicted of more than one offense of causing a
fatality through negligent or criminal operation of a
commercial motor vehicle; or''; and
(D) in subparagraph (F) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph) by striking ``clauses (A)-(C) of this
paragraph'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through (E)''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 31301(12)(C) of such
title is amended by inserting ``, other than a violation to
which section 31310(b)(1)(E) or 31310(c)(1)(E) applies''
after ``a fatality''.
(b) Emergency Disqualification; Noncommercial Motor Vehicle
Convictions.--Section 31310 of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (h), (i), and (j), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Emergency Disqualification.--
``(1) Limited duration.--The Secretary shall disqualify an
individual from operating a commercial motor vehicle for not
to exceed 30 days if the Secretary determines that allowing
the individual to continue to operate a commercial motor
vehicle would create an imminent hazard (as such term is
defined in section 5102).
``(2) After notice and hearing.--The Secretary shall
disqualify an individual from operating a commercial motor
vehicle for more than 30 days if the Secretary determines,
after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that allowing
the individual to continue to operate a commercial motor
vehicle would create an imminent hazard (as such term is
defined in section 5102).
``(g) Noncommercial Motor Vehicle Convictions.--
``(1) Issuance of regulations.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue
regulations providing for the disqualification by the
Secretary from operating a commercial motor vehicle of an
individual who holds a commercial driver's license and who
has been convicted of--
``(A) a serious offense involving a motor vehicle (other
than a commercial motor vehicle) that has resulted in the
revocation, cancellation, or suspension of the individual's
license; or
``(B) a drug or alcohol related offense involving a motor
vehicle (other than a commercial motor vehicle).
``(2) Requirements for regulations.--Regulations issued
under under paragraph (1) shall establish the minimum periods
for which the disqualifications shall be in effect, but in no
case shall the time periods for disqualification for
noncommercial motor vehicle violations be more stringent than
those for offenses or violations involving a commercial motor
vehicle. The Secretary shall determine such periods based on
the seriousness of the offenses on which the convictions are
based.''; and
(3) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this subsection) by striking ``(b)-(e)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(b) through (g)''.
(c) Serious Traffic Violations.--Section 31301(12) of such
title is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (G);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) driving a commercial motor vehicle when the
individual has not obtained a commercial driver's license;
``(E) driving a commercial motor vehicle when the
individual does not have in his or her possession a
commercial driver's license unless the individual provides,
by the date that the individual must appear in court or pay
any fine with respect to the citation, to the enforcement
authority that issued the citation proof that the individual
held a valid commercial driver's license on the date of the
citation;
``(F) driving a commercial motor vehicle when the
individual has not met the minimum testing standards--
``(i) under section 31305(a)(3) for the specific class of
vehicle the individual is operating; or
``(ii) under section 31305(a)(5) for the type of cargo the
vehicle is carrying; and''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 31305(b)(1) of such
title is amended--
(1) by striking ``to operate the vehicle''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end ``to operate
the vehicle and has a commercial driver's license to operate
the vehicle''.
SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE PARTICIPATION.
(a) Requests for Driving Record Information.--Section
31311(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or renewing such a license'' before the
comma; and
(2) by striking ``commercial'' the second place it appears.
(b) Recording of Violations.--Section 31311(a)(8) of such
title is amended by inserting before the period at the end
the following: ``, and the violation that resulted in the
disqualification, revocation, suspension, or cancellation
shall be recorded''.
(c) Notification of State Officials.--Section 31311(a)(9)
of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(9) If an individual violates a State or local law on
motor vehicle traffic control (except a parking violation)
and the individual--
``(A) has a commercial driver's license issued by another
State; or
``(B) is operating a commercial vehicle without a
commercial driver's license and has a driver's license issued
by another State;
the State in which the violation occurred shall notify a
State official designated by the issuing State of the
violations not later than 10 days after the date the
individual is found to have committed the violation.''.
(d) Provisional Licenses.--Section 31311(a)(10) of such
title is amended--
(1) by striking ``(10)'' and inserting ``(10)(A); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The State may not issue a special license or permit
(including a provisional or temporary license) to an
individual who holds a commercial driver's license that
permits the individual to drive a commercial motor vehicle
during a period in which--
``(i) the individual is disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle; or
``(ii) the individual's driver's license is revoked,
suspended, or canceled.''.
(e) Penalties.--Section 31311(a)(13) of such title is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``consistent with this chapter that''
after ``penalties''; and
(2) by striking ``vehicle'' the first place it appears and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``vehicle.''.
(f) Records of Violations.--Section 31311(a) of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(18) The State shall maintain, as part of its driver
information system, a record of each violation of a State or
local motor vehicle traffic control law while operating a
motor vehicle (except a parking violation) for each
individual who holds a commercial driver's license. The
record shall be available upon request to the individual, the
Secretary, employers, prospective employers, State licensing
and law enforcement agencies, and their authorized agents.''.
(g) Masking.--Section 31311(a) of such title is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(19) The State shall--
``(A) record in the driving record of an individual who has
a commercial driver's license issued by the State; and
``(B) make available to all authorized persons and
governmental entities having access to such record,
all information the State receives under paragraph (9) with
respect to the individual and every violation by the
individual involving a motor vehicle (including a commercial
motor vehicle) of a State or local law on traffic control
(except a parking violation), not later than 10 days after
the date of receipt of such information or the date of such
violation, as the case may be. The State may not allow
information regarding such violations to be withheld or
masked in any way from the record of an individual possessing
a commercial driver's license.''.
(h) Noncommercial Motor Vehicle Convictions.--Section
31311(a) of such title is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(20) The State shall revoke, suspend, or cancel the
commercial driver's license of an individual in accordance
with regulations issued by the Secretary to carry out section
31310(g).''.
SEC. 203. STATE NONCOMPLIANCE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 313 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 31311 the
following:
``Sec. 31312. Decertification authority
``(a) In General.--If the Secretary of Transportation
determines that a State is in substantial noncompliance with
this chapter, the Secretary shall issue an order to--
``(1) prohibit that State from carrying out licensing
procedures under this chapter; and
``(2) prohibit that State from issuing any commercial
driver's licenses until such time
[[Page 30781]]
the Secretary determines such State is in substantial
compliance with this chapter.
``(b) Effect on Other States.--A State (other than a State
subject to an order under subsection (a)) may issue a non-
resident commercial driver's license to an individual
domiciled in a State that is prohibited from such activities
under subsection (a) if that individual meets all
requirements of this chapter and the nonresident licensing
requirements of the issuing State.
``(c) Previously Issued Licenses.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as invalidating or otherwise affecting
commercial driver's licenses issued by a State before the
date of issuance of an order under subsection (a) with
respect to the State.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
313 of such title is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 31311 the following:
``31312. Decertification authority.''.
SEC. 204. CHECKS BEFORE ISSUANCE OF DRIVER'S LICENSES.
Section 30304 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Driver Record Inquiry.--Before issuing a motor
vehicle operator's license to an individual or renewing such
a license, a State shall request from the Secretary
information from the National Driver Register under section
30302 and the commercial driver's license information system
under section 31309 on the individual's driving record.''.
SEC. 205. REGISTRATION ENFORCEMENT.
Section 13902 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Penalties for Failure To Comply With Registration
Requirements.--In addition to other penalties available under
law, motor carriers that fail to register their operations as
required by this section or that operate beyond the scope of
their registrations may be subject to the following
penalties:
``(1) Out-of-service orders.--If, upon inspection or
investigation, the Secretary determines that a motor vehicle
providing transportation requiring registration under this
section is operating without a registration or beyond the
scope of its registration, the Secretary may order the
vehicle out-of-service. Subsequent to the issuance of the
out-of-service order, the Secretary shall provide an
opportunity for review in accordance with section 554 of
title 5; except that such review shall occur not later than
10 days after issuance of such order.
``(2) Permission for operations.--A person domiciled in a
country contiguous to the United States with respect to which
an action under subsection (c)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(B) is in
effect and providing transportation for which registration is
required under this section shall maintain evidence of such
registration in the motor vehicle when the person is
providing the transportation. The Secretary shall not permit
the operation in interstate commerce in the United States of
any motor vehicle in which there is not a copy of the
registration issued pursuant to this section.''.
SEC. 206. DELINQUENT PAYMENT OF PENALTIES.
(a) Revocation of Registration.--Section 13905(c) of title
49, United States Code is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``On
application'';
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``suspend'';
(3) by striking the period at the end of the second
sentence and inserting ``; and (B) suspend, amend, or revoke
any part of the registration of a motor carrier, broker, or
freight forwarder (i) for failure to pay a civil penalty
imposed under chapter 5, 51, 149, or 311 of this title, or
(ii) for failure to arrange and abide by an acceptable
payment plan for such civil penalty, within 90 days of the
time specified by order of the Secretary for the payment of
such penalty. Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any person
who is unable to pay a civil penalty because such person is a
debtor in a case under chapter 11 of title 11.
``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, after
notice and opportunity for public comment, shall issue
regulations to provide for the suspension, amendment, or
revocation of a registration under this part for failure to
pay a civil penalty as provided in paragraph (1)(B).''; and
(4) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph
(1) of this section) and aligning such paragraph with
paragraph (2) of such section (as added by paragraph (3) of
this section).
(b) Prohibited Transportation by Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators.--Section 521(b) of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (13) as
paragraphs (9) through (14), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) Prohibition on operation in interstate commerce after
nonpayment of penalties.--
``(A) In general.--An owner or operator of a commercial
motor vehicle against whom a civil penalty is assessed under
this chapter or chapter 51, 149, or 311 of this title and who
does not pay such penalty or fails to arrange and abide by an
acceptable payment plan for such civil penalty may not
operate in interstate commerce beginning on the 91st day
after the date specified by order of the Secretary for
payment of such penalty. This paragraph shall not apply to
any person who is unable to pay a civil penalty because such
person is a debtor in a case under chapter 11 of title 11.
``(B) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, after notice
and an opportunity for public comment, shall issue
regulations setting forth procedures for ordering commercial
motor vehicle owners and operators delinquent in paying civil
penalties to cease operations until payment has been made.''.
SEC. 207. STATE COOPERATION IN REGISTRATION ENFORCEMENT.
Section 31102(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by aligning subparagraph (A) with subparagraph (B) of
such section; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (R) and inserting the
following:
``(R) ensures that the State will cooperate in the
enforcement of registration requirements under section 13902
and financial responsibility requirements under sections
13906, 31138, and 31139 and regulations issued thereunder;''.
SEC. 208. IMMINENT HAZARD.
Section 521(b)(5)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``is likely to result in'' and inserting
``substantially increases the likelihood of''.
SEC. 209. HOUSEHOLD GOODS AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definition of Household Goods.--Section 13102(10)(A) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``,
including'' and all that follows through ``dwelling,'' and
inserting ``, except such term does not include property
moving from a factory or store, other than property that the
householder has purchased with the intent to use in his or
her dwelling and is transported at the request of, and the
transportation charges are paid to the carrier by, the
householder;''.
(b) Arbitration Requirements.--Section 14708(b)(6) of such
title is amended by striking ``$1,000'' each place it appears
and inserting ``$5,000''.
(c) Study of Enforcement of Consumer Protection Rules in
the Household Goods Moving Industry.--The Comptroller General
shall conduct a study of the effectiveness of the Department
of Transportation's enforcement of household goods consumer
protection rules under title 49, United States Code. The
study shall also include a review of other potential methods
of enforcing such rules, including allowing States to enforce
such rules.
SEC. 210. NEW MOTOR CARRIER ENTRANT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Safety Reviews.--Section 31144 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Safety Reviews of New Operators.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall require, by
regulation, each owner and each operator granted new
operating authority, after the date on which section 31148(b)
is first implemented, to undergo a safety review within the
first 18 months after the owner or operator, as the case may
be, begins operations under such authority.
``(2) Elements.--In the regulations issued pursuant to
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall establish the elements of
the safety review, including basic safety management
controls. In establishing such elements, the Secretary shall
consider their effects on small businesses and shall consider
establishing alternate locations where such reviews may be
conducted for the convenience of small businesses.
``(3) Phase-in of requirement.--The Secretary shall phase
in the requirements of paragraph (1) in a manner that takes
into account the availability of certified motor carrier
safety auditors.
``(4) New entrant authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, any new operating authority granted
after the date on which section 31148(b) is first implemented
shall be designated as new entrant authority until the safety
review required by paragraph (1) is completed.''.
(b) Minimum Requirements.--The Secretary shall initiate a
rulemaking to establish minimum requirements for applicant
motor carriers, including foreign motor carriers, seeking
Federal interstate operating authority to ensure applicant
carriers are knowledgeable about applicable Federal motor
carrier safety standards. As part of that rulemaking, the
Secretary shall consider the establishment of a proficiency
examination for applicant motor carriers as well as other
requirements to ensure such applicants understand applicable
safety regulations before being granted operating authority.
SEC. 211. CERTIFICATION OF SAFETY AUDITORS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 311 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 31148. Certified motor carrier safety auditors
``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section,
[[Page 30782]]
the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking
to improve training and provide for the certification of
motor carrier safety auditors, including private contractors,
to conduct safety inspection audits and reviews described in
subsection (b).
``(b) Certified Inspection Audit Requirement.--Not later
than 1 year after completion of the rulemaking required by
subsection (a), any safety inspection audit or review
required by, or based on the authority of, this chapter or
chapter 5, 313, or 315 of this title and performed after
December 31, 2002, shall be conducted by--
``(1) a motor carrier safety auditor certified under
subsection (a); or
``(2) a Federal or State employee who, on the date of
enactment of this section, was qualified to perform such an
audit or review.
``(c) Extension.--If the Secretary determines that
subsection (b) cannot be implemented within the 1-year period
established by that subsection and notifies the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives of the determination and the reasons
therefor, the Secretary may extend the deadline for
compliance with subsection (b) by not more than 12 months.
``(d) Application With Other Authority.--The Secretary may
not delegate the Secretary's authority to private contractors
to issue ratings or operating authority, and nothing in this
section authorizes any private contractor to issue ratings or
operating authority.
``(e) Oversight Responsibility.--The Secretary shall have
authority over any motor carrier safety auditor certified
under subsection (a), including the authority to decertify a
motor carrier safety auditor.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter
311 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``31148. Certified motor carrier safety auditors.''.
SEC. 212. COMMERCIAL VAN RULEMAKING.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall complete Department of
Transportation's rulemaking, Docket No. FHWA-99-5710, to
amend Federal motor carrier safety regulations to determine
which motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles
designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers
(including the driver) for compensation shall be covered. At
a minimum, the rulemaking shall apply such regulations to--
(1) commercial vans commonly referred to as ``camionetas'';
and
(2) those commercial vans operating in interstate commerce
outside commercial zones that have been determined to pose
serious safety risks.
In no case should the rulemaking exempt from such regulations
all motor carriers operating commercial vehicles designed or
used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the
driver) for compensation.
SEC. 213. 24-HOUR STAFFING OF TELEPHONE HOTLINE.
Section 4017 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (49 U.S.C. 31143 note; 112 Stat. 413) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Staffing.--The toll-free telephone system shall be
staffed 24 hours a day 7 days a week by individuals
knowledgeable about Federal motor carrier safety regulations
and procedures.''; and
(3) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this section)--
(A) by striking ``104(a)'' and inserting ``104(a)(1)(B)'';
and
(B) by striking ``for each of fiscal years 1999'' and
inserting ``for fiscal year 1999 and $375,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000''.
SEC. 214. CDL SCHOOL BUS ENDORSEMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking to establish a
special commercial driver's license endorsement for drivers
of school buses. The endorsement shall, at a minimum--
(1) include a driving skills test in a school bus; and
(2) address proper safety procedures for--
(A) loading and unloading children;
(B) using emergency exits; and
(C) traversing highway rail grade crossings.
SEC. 215. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE.
The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to provide for a
Federal medical qualification certificate to be made a part
of commercial driver's licenses.
SEC. 216. IMPLEMENTATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall implement the safety
improvement recommendations provided for in the Department of
Transportation Inspector General's Report TR-1999-091, except
to the extent that such recommendations are specifically
addressed in sections 206, 208, 217, and 222 of this Act,
including any amendments made by such sections.
(b) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Reports by the secretary.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days
thereafter until each of the recommendations referred to in
subsection (a) has been implemented, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the specific actions taken to
implement such recommendations.
(2) Reports by the inspector general.--The Inspector
General shall periodically transmit to the Committees
referred to in paragraph (1) a report assessing the
Secretary's progress in implementing the recommendations
referred to in subsection (a) and analyzing the number of
violations cited by safety inspectors and the level of fines
assessed and collected for such violations, and of the number
of cases in which there are findings of extraordinary
circumstances under section 222(c) of this Act and the
circumstances in which these findings are made.
SEC. 217. PERIODIC REFILING OF MOTOR CARRIER IDENTIFICATION
REPORTS.
The Secretary shall amend section 385.21 of the Department
of Transportation's regulations (49 C.F.R. 385.21) to require
periodic updating, not more frequently than once every 2
years, of the motor carrier identification report, form MCS-
150, filed by each motor carrier conducting operations in
interstate or foreign commerce. The initial update shall
occur not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 218. BORDER STAFFING STANDARDS.
(a) Development and Implementation.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
develop and implement appropriate staffing standards for
Federal and State motor carrier safety inspectors in
international border areas.
(b) Factors To Be Considered.--In developing standards
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider volume of
traffic, hours of operation of the border facility, types of
commercial motor vehicles, types of cargo, delineation of
responsibility between Federal and State inspectors, and such
other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
(c) Maintenance of Effort.--The standards developed and
implemented under subsection (a) shall ensure that the United
States and each State will not reduce its respective level of
staffing of motor carrier safety inspectors in international
border areas from its average level staffing for fiscal year
2000.
(d) Border Commercial Motor Vehicle and Safety Enforcement
Programs.--
(1) Enforcement.--If, on October 1, 2001, and October 1 of
each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary has not ensured
that the levels of staffing required by the standards
developed under subsection (a) are deployed, the Secretary
should designate the amount made available for allocation
under section 31104(f)(2)(B) of title 49, United States Code,
for such fiscal year for States, local governments, and other
persons for carrying out border commercial motor vehicle
safety programs and enforcement activities and projects.
(2) Allocation.--If the Secretary makes a designation of an
amount under paragraph (1), such amount shall be allocated by
the Secretary to State agencies, local governments, and other
persons that use and train qualified officers and employees
in coordination with State motor vehicle safety agencies.
(3) Limitation.--If the Secretary makes a designation
pursuant to paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary
may not make a designation under section 31104(f)(2)(B) of
title 49, United States Code, for such fiscal year.
SEC. 219. FOREIGN MOTOR CARRIER PENALTIES AND
DISQUALIFICATIONS.
(a) General Rule.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), a
foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier (as
such terms are defined under section 13102 of title 49,
United States Code) that operates without authority, before
the implementation of the land transportation provisions of
the North American Free Trade Agreement, outside the
boundaries of a commercial zone along the United States-
Mexico border shall be liable to the United States for a
civil penalty and shall be disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle anywhere within the United States as
provided in subsections (b) and (c).
(b) Penalty for Intentional Violation.--The civil penalty
for an intentional violation of subsection (a) by a carrier
shall not be more than $10,000 and may include a
disqualification from operating a commercial motor vehicle
anywhere within the United States for a period of not more
than 6 months.
(c) Penalty for Pattern of Intentional Violations.--The
civil penalty for a pattern of intentional violations of
subsection (a) by a carrier shall not be more than $25,000
and the carrier shall be disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle anywhere within the United States
and the disqualification may be permanent.
(d) Leasing.--Before the implementation of the land
transportation provisions of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, during any period in which a suspension,
condition, restriction, or limitation imposed
[[Page 30783]]
under section 13902(c) of title 49, United States Code,
applies to a motor carrier (as defined in section 13902(e) of
such title), that motor carrier may not lease a commercial
motor vehicle to another motor carrier or a motor private
carrier to transport property in the United States.
(e) Savings Clause.--No provision of this section may be
enforced if it is inconsistent with any international
agreement of the United States.
(f) Acts of Employees.--The actions of any employee driver
of a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier
committed without the knowledge of the carrier or committed
unintentionally shall not be grounds for penalty or
disqualification under this section.
SEC. 220. TRAFFIC LAW INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--In cooperation with one or more States,
the Secretary may carry out a program to develop innovative
methods of improving motor carrier compliance with traffic
laws. Such methods may include the use of photography and
other imaging technologies.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
report on the results of any program conducted under this
section, together with any recommendations as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
SEC. 221. STATE-TO-STATE NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATIONS DATA.
(a) Development.--In cooperation with the States, the
Secretary shall develop a uniform system to support the
electronic transmission of data State-to-State on convictions
for all motor vehicle traffic control law violations by
individuals possessing a commercial drivers' licenses as
required by paragraphs (9) and (19) of section 31311(a) of
title 49, United States Code.
(b) Status Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a report on the status of the
implementation of this section.
SEC. 222. MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation should
ensure that motor carriers operate safely by imposing civil
penalties at a level calculated to ensure prompt and
sustained compliance with Federal motor carrier safety and
commercial driver's license laws.
(b) Establishment.--The Secretary--
(1) should establish and assess minimum civil penalties for
each violation of a law referred to in subsection (a); and
(2) shall assess the maximum civil penalty for each
violation of a law referred to in subsection (a) by any
person who is found to have committed a pattern of violations
of critical or acute regulations issued to carry out such a
law or to have previously committed the same or a related
violation of critical or acute regulations issued to carry
out such a law.
(c) Extraordinary Circumstances.--If the Secretary
determines and documents that extraordinary circumstances
exist which merit the assessment of any civil penalty lower
than any level established under subsection (b), the
Secretary may assess such lower penalty. In cases where a
person has been found to have previously committed the same
or a related violation of critical or acute regulations
issued to carry out a law referred to in subsection (a),
extraordinary circumstances may be found to exist when the
Secretary determines that repetition of such violation does
not demonstrate a failure to take appropriate remedial
action.
(d) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
effectiveness of the revised civil penalties established in
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and this
Act in ensuring prompt and sustained compliance with Federal
motor carrier safety and commercial driver's license laws.
(2) Submission to congress.--The Secretary shall transmit
the results of such study and any recommendations to Congress
by September 30, 2002.
SEC. 223. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRESS REPORT.
Not later than May 25, 2000, the Secretary shall transmit
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a status
report on the Department of Transportation's quantitative
progress toward reducing motor carrier fatalities by 50
percent by the year 2009.
SEC. 224. STUDY OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH CAUSATION.
(a) Objectives.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study to determine the causes of, and
contributing factors to, crashes that involve commercial
motor vehicles. The study shall also identify data
requirements and collection procedures, reports, and other
measures that will improve the Department of Transportation's
and States' ability to--
(1) evaluate future crashes involving commercial motor
vehicles;
(2) monitor crash trends and identify causes and
contributing factors; and
(3) develop effective safety improvement policies and
programs.
(b) Design.--The study shall be designed to yield
information that will help the Department and the States
identify activities and other measures likely to lead to
significant reductions in the frequency, severity, and rate
per mile traveled of crashes involving commercial motor
vehicles, including vehicles described in section 31132(1)(B)
of title 49, United States Code. As practicable, the study
shall rank such activities and measures by the reductions
each would likely achieve, if implemented.
(c) Consultation.--In designing and conducting the study,
the Secretary shall consult with persons with expertise on--
(1) crash causation and prevention;
(2) commercial motor vehicles, drivers, and carriers,
including passenger carriers;
(3) highways and noncommercial motor vehicles and drivers;
(4) Federal and State highway and motor carrier safety
programs;
(5) research methods and statistical analysis; and
(6) other relevant topics.
(d) Public Comment.--The Secretary shall make available for
public comment information about the objectives, methodology,
implementation, findings, and other aspects of the study.
(e) Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promptly transmit to
Congress the results of the study, together with any
legislative recommendations.
(2) Review and update.--The Secretary shall review the
study at least once every 5 years and update the study and
report as necessary.
(f) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 under section 4003(i) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
395-398), as added by section 103(b)(1) of this Act,
$5,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available only to carry
out this section.
SEC. 225. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.
(a) In General.--In cooperation with the States, the
Secretary shall carry out a program to improve the collection
and analysis of data on crashes, including crash causation,
involving commercial motor vehicles.
(b) Program Administration.--The Secretary shall administer
the program through the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in cooperation with the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shall--
(1) enter into agreements with the States to collect data
and report the data by electronic means to a central data
repository; and
(2) train State employees and motor carrier safety
enforcement officials to assure the quality and uniformity of
the data.
(c) Use of Data.--The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shall--
(1) integrate the data, including driver citation and
conviction information; and
(2) make the data base available electronically to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the States,
motor carriers, and other interested parties for problem
identification, program evaluation, planning, and other
safety-related activities.
(d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
the improved data program begins, the Secretary shall
transmit a report to Congress on the program, together with
any recommendations the Secretary finds appropriate.
(e) Funding.--Of the amounts deducted under section
104(a)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, for each of
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 $5,000,000 per fiscal year
shall be available only to carry out this section.
(f) Additional Funding for Information Systems.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 under section 4003(i) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
395-398), as added by section 103(b)(1) of this Act,
$5,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available only to carry
out section 31106 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) Amounts as additional.--The amounts made available by
paragraph (1) shall be in addition to amounts made available
under section 31107 of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 226. DRUG TEST RESULTS STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
feasibility and merits of--
(1) requiring medical review officers or employers to
report all verified positive controlled substances test
results on any driver subject to controlled substances
testing under part 382 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, including the identity of each person tested and
each controlled substance found, to the State that issued the
driver's commercial driver's license; and
(2) requiring all prospective employers, before hiring any
driver, to query the State that issued the driver's
commercial driver's license on whether the State has on
record any verified positive controlled substances test on
such driver.
(b) Study Factors.--In carrying out the study under this
section, the Secretary shall assess--
(1) methods for safeguarding the confidentiality of
verified positive controlled substances test results;
[[Page 30784]]
(2) the costs, benefits, and safety impacts of requiring
States to maintain records of verified positive controlled
substances test results; and
(3) whether a process should be established to allow
drivers--
(A) to correct errors in their records; and
(B) to expunge information from their records after a
reasonable period of time.
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the study carried out under this section,
together with such recommendations as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
SEC. 227. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS.
(a) Review.--Section 13703(c) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as
subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively;
(2) by striking ``The Board'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Board'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Periodic review of approvals.--Subject to this
section, in the 5-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this paragraph and in each 5-year period
thereafter, the Board shall initiate a proceeding to review
any agreement approved pursuant to this section. Any such
agreement shall be continued unless the Board determines
otherwise.''; and
(4) by moving the remainder of the text of paragraph (1)
(as designated by paragraph (2) of this subsection),
including subparagraphs (A) through (D) (as designated by
paragraph (1) of this subsection), 2 ems to the right.
(b) Limitation.--Section 13703(d) of such title is amended
to read as follows:
``(d) Limitation.--The Board shall not take any action that
would permit the establishment of nationwide collective
ratemaking authority.''.
(c) Existing Agreements.--Section 13703(e) of such title is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Agreements'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Agreements existing as of december 31, 1995.--
Agreements'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Cases pending as of date of enactment.--Nothing in
section 227 (other than subsection (b)) of the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999, including the amendments made
by such section, shall be construed to affect any case
brought under this section that is pending before the Board
as of the date of enactment of this paragraph.''; and
(3) by aligning the left margin of paragraph (1) (as
designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with
paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection).
SEC. 228. DOT AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--The statutory authority of the Inspector
General of the Department of Transportation includes
authority to conduct, pursuant to Federal criminal statutes,
investigations of allegations that a person or entity has
engaged in fraudulent or other criminal activity relating to
the programs and operations of the Department or its
operating administrations.
(b) Regulated Entities.--The authority to conduct
investigations referred to in subsection (a) extends to any
person or entity subject to the laws and regulations of the
Department or its operating administrations, whether or not
they are recipients of funds from the Department or its
operating administrations.
The House bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
CONTINUING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2519 OF TITLE 18, U.S.C.,
BEYOND DECEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1769) to continue the reporting
requirements of section 2519 of title 18, United States Code, beyond
December 21, 1999, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the
subcommittee, for a brief explanation of the bill.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995
provided that all periodic reports provided to Congress will sunset on
December 21, 1999, unless reauthorized by the Congress. The intent of
the Act was to spur Congress to reexamine all the periodic reports it
receives and eliminate the obsolete ones.
After careful review, the Committee on the Judiciary determined that
about 40 reports out of the thousands of reports subject to sunset are
required for the committee to perform its legislative and oversight
duties.
Examples include the United States Department of Justice's annual
report on crime statistics and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's annual statistical report.
The bill passed the House on the suspension calendar. The companion
Senate bill adds two more reports which the Senate has asked to be
continued. The motion which I will make will continue all the reports
contained in the House bill and the two additional reports contained in
the Senate bill into one bill and send it back to the Senate for
passage and presentment to the President.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve the right to object,
I would like to note that the Sunset Act itself forces Congress to
reexamine the usefulness of the reports. But, as the chairman has
pointed out, there are some of these reports that are very important.
And I am pleased to report that there has been a bipartisan effort to
identify the very same reports the chairman has mentioned today.
We believe, on a bipartisan basis, that the reports identified and
preserved under this Act will continue to provide information important
to legislative and to oversight processes and, in particular, that it
will allow the Congress to make sure that privacy is protected. And for
that reason, if no other, we do need to act today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add finally a note of thanks to the
Committee on the Judiciary's staff that worked on this measure, my own
special counsel John Flannery; Cassandra Butts in the office of the
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt); and
finally, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) himself, who really
was very passionate in making sure that the privacy issues that will be
protected by this bill were brought to the forefront so that we could
be here today on this bipartisan basis to make sure that this is
enacted.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I
think she commented about staff. I want to add the name of Jim Wilon.
Jim did great work on this matter, as well.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1769
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 ``Continued Reporting of
Intercepted Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 2519(3) of title 18, United States Code,
requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts to transmit to Congress a full and
complete annual report concerning the number of applications
for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire,
oral, or electronic communications. This report is required
to include information specified in section 2519(3).
(2) The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995
provides for the termination of certain laws requiring
submittal to Congress of annual, semiannual, and regular
periodic reports as of December 21, 1999, 4 years from the
effective date of that Act.
(3) Due to the Federal Reports Elimination Act and Sunset
Act of 1995, the Administrative Office of United States
Courts is not required to submit the annual report described
in section 2519(3) of title 18, United States Code, as of
December 21, 1999.
SEC. 3. CONTINUED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Continued Reporting Requirements.--Section 2519 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(4) The reports required to be filed by subsection (3)
are exempted from the termination provisions of section
3003(a) of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-66).''.
(b) Exemption.--Section 3003(d) of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66) is
amended--
[[Page 30785]]
(1) in paragraph (31), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (32), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(33) section 2519(3) of title 18, United States Code.''.
SEC. 4. ENCRYPTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 2519(1)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and (iv)'' and inserting ``(iv) the
number of orders in which encryption was encountered and
whether such encryption prevented law enforcement from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted
pursuant to such order, and (v)''.
SEC. 5. REPORTS CONCERNING PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE
DEVICES.
Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking the period and inserting ``, which report shall
include information concerning--
``(1) the period of interceptions authorized by the order,
and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
``(2) the offense specified in the order or application, or
extension of an order;
``(3) the number of investigations involved;
``(4) the number and nature of the facilities affected; and
``(5) the identity, including district, of the applying
investigative or law enforcement agency making the
application and the person authorizing the order.''.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Coble
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. COBLE:
``Strike out all after the enacting clause of the Senate
bill and insert:
SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN REPORTS FROM AUTOMATIC
ELIMINATION AND SUNSET.
Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) does not apply to
any report required to be submitted under any of the
following provisions of law:
(1) The following sections of title 18, United States Code:
sections 2519(3), 2709(e), 3126, and 3525(b).
(2) The following sections of title 28, United States Code:
sections 522, 524(c)(6), 529, 589a(d), and 594.
(3) Section 3718(c) of title 31, United States Code.
(4) Section 9 of the Child Protection Act of 1984 (28
U.S.C. 522 note).
(5) Section 8 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997f).
(6) The following provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968: sections 102(b) (42 U.S.C.
3712(b)), 520 (42 U.S.C. 3766), 522 (42 U.S.C. 3766b), and
810 (42 U.S.C. 3789e).
(7) The following provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act: sections 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103), 207(c)(3) (8
U.S.C. 1157(c)(3)), 412(b) (8 U.S.C. 1522(b)), and 413 (8
U.S.C. 1523), and subsections (h), (l), (o), (q), and (r) of
section 286 (8 U.S.C. 1356).
(8) Section 3 of the International Claims Settlement Act of
1949 (22 U.S.C. 1622).
(9) Section 9 of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App.
2008).
(10) Section 13(c) of the Act of September 11, 1957 (8
U.S.C. 1255b(c)).
(11) Section 203(b) of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands
Restitution Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1989c-2(b)).
(12) Section 801(e) of the Immigration Act of 1990 (29
U.S.C. 2920(e)).
(13) Section 401 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1364).
(14) Section 707 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15
U.S.C. 1691f).
(15) Section 201(b) of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. 2000aa-11(b)).
(16) Section 609U of the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10509).
(17) Section 13(a) of the Classified Information Procedures
Act (18 U.S.C. App.).
(18) Section 1004 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C.
2000g-3).
(19) Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of
1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414).
(20) Section 11 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938 (22 U.S.C. 621).
(21) The following provisions of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978: sections 107 (50 U.S.C. 1807) and
108 (50 U.S.C. 1808).
(22) Section 102(b)(5) of the Department of Justice and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (28 U.S.C. 533
note).
SEC. 2. ENCRYPTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Section 2519(2)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and (iv)'' and inserting ``(iv) the
number of orders in which encryption was encountered and
whether such encryption prevented law enforcement from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted
pursuant to such order, and (v)''.
(b) The encryption reporting requirement in subsection (a)
shall be effective for the report transmitted by the Director
of the Administrative Office of the Courts for calendar year
2000 and in subsequent reports.
SEC. 3. REPORTS CONCERNING PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE
DEVICES.
Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking the period and inserting ``, which report shall
include information concerning--
``(1) the period of interceptions authorized by the order,
and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
``(2) the offense specified in the order or application, or
extension of an order;
``(3) the number of investigations involved;
``(4) the number and nature of the facilities affected; and
``(5) the identity, including district, of the applying
investigative or law enforcement agency making the
application and the person authorizing the order.''.
Mr. COBLE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed.
The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read:
``A bill to exempt certain reports from automatic
elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DIGITAL THEFT DETERRENCE AND COPYRIGHT DAMAGES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3456) to amend statutory damages provisions of title 17, U.S.
Code, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the
subcommittee, to just describe the legislation.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3456 is very similar to H.R. 1761, which was
considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to by voice vote on
August 2, 1999.
It makes significant improvements in the ability of the Copyright Act
to deter copyright infringement by amending it to increase the
statutory penalties for infringement. Copyright piracy, Mr. Speaker, is
flourishing in the world. With the advanced technologies available and
the fact that many computer users are either ignorant of the copyright
laws or simply believe that they will not be caught or punished, the
piracy trend will continue.
One way to combat this problem is to increase the statutory penalties
for copyright infringement so that they will be an effective deterrent
to this conduct.
Another significant aspect of H.R. 3456 addresses a problem on
regarding the difficulty of prosecuting crimes against intellectual
property. It instructs that within 120 days on enactment of this act or
within 120 days after there is a sufficient number of voting members to
constitute a quorum, the United States Sentencing Commission shall
promulgate emergency guideline amendments to implement the sentencing
mandate in the No Electronic Theft, popularly known as the NET Act,
which became law in the 105th Congress.
It is vital that the United States recognizes intellectual property
rights and provides strong protection and enforcement against violation
of those rights.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes significant and necessary
improvements to the Copyright Act. The Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual
[[Page 30786]]
Property and the Committee on the Judiciary support H.R. 3456 in a
bipartisan manner, and I urge its adoption today.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, at this time I have one more bill and possibly
two more bills that are very brief, but I would be remiss as we
conclude the first session of the 106th Congress if I did not convey my
personal expressions of thanks to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the subcommittee; to
each Democrat and Republican member of the subcommittee; to our very
fine chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and to the staff
on both the Democrat and Republican side for the accomplishments.
And pardon our immodesty, but I think we have realized
accomplishments during this first session.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection,
first let me just respond to the last comment of my friend.
As he knows, and I have discussed this privately, but it was a real
pleasure to be his ranking member this past year. We did get a lot
done. We did it, I think, on a bipartisan basis on almost every single
issue we faced and accomplished quite a bit, probably not as much as
the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, but a substantial work
product, much of which was in the legislation that passed as part of
the non-omnibus appropriations bill.
I also want to express my appreciation to the staff both of the
subcommittees and the full committees and to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) as
well for all their support.
On this particular legislation which is an important bill, it comes
under our obligations under the intellectual property provisions of
Article 1 of the Constitution to reassess the efficacy of our laws in
protecting copyright. Toward that end, earlier this year the Committees
on the Judiciary in both Houses resolved to address several concerns
which have been brought to our attention regarding the deterrence of
copyright infringement and penalties for such infringement in those
instances when it, unfortunately, occurs.
While I support the bill that we previously passed, I concur in the
passage of the bill before us tonight.
There are two key features in the legislation. First, it provides an
inflation adjustment for copyright statutory damages. It has been well
over a decade since we last adjusted statutory damages for inflation.
Our purpose must be to provide meaningful disincentives for
infringement, and to accomplish that, the cost of infringement must
substantially exceed the cost of the compliance so that those who use
or distribute intellectual property have incentive to comply with the
law.
Secondly, passage of this bill is important to expedite the
Sentencing Commission's adoption of a revised Intellectual Property
sentencing guidelines. The newly confirmed Sentencing Commissioners
will have 120 days to revise the Intellectual Property guideline to
increase the deterrence.
In 1997, when we adopted the NET Act, we directed the Sentencing
Commission to increase criminal penalties for Intellectual Property
crimes. The current IP sentencing guidelines include perverse
incentives that allow pirates to avoid significant prison terms. U.S.
Attorneys refuse to bring copyright or trademark criminal cases because
of the current weak guidelines. This bill will rectify that situation.
The new Commissioners will be required to focus on this important
problem immediately. The increasing threat of intellectual property
theft both in the on-line and off-line world will thus be fought with
all available weapons.
Mr. Speaker, I continue my reservation of objection, and I yield to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
While I was praising all my colleagues on the Judiciary and on the
subcommittee and, of course, intellectual property, inevitably
omissions are committed and I inadvertently failed to mention the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member
of the full committee.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 3456
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 ``Digital Theft Deterrence and
Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. STATUTORY DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT.
Section 504(c) of title 17, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$750''; and
(B) by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$150,000''.
SEC. 3. SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES.
Within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, or within 120 days after the first date on which there
is a sufficient number of voting members of the Sentencing
Commission to constitute a quorum, whichever is later, the
Commission shall promulgate emergency guideline amendments to
implement section 2(g) of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act
(28 U.S.C. 994 note) in accordance with the procedures set
forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987, as
though the authority under that Act had not expired.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to any action
brought on or after the date of the enactment of this Act,
regardless of the date on which the alleged activity that is
the basis of the action occurred.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONDEMNING RECENT HATE
CRIMES IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 254) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives condemning recent hate crimes in Illinois and Indiana,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 254
Whereas diversity and tolerance are essential principles of
an open and free society;
Whereas all people deserve to be safe within their
communities, free to live, work and worship without fear of
violence and bigotry;
Whereas crimes motivated by hatred against African-
Americans, Jews, Asian-Americans, or other groups undermine
the fundamental values of our Nation;
Whereas the communities of Skokie, the West Rogers Park
neighborhood of Chicago, Northbrook, and Urbana, Illinois,
and Bloomington, Indiana, were terrorized by hate crimes over
the Fourth of July weekend, a time when our Nation celebrates
its commitment to freedom and liberty;
Whereas hate crimes tear at the fabric of American society,
leave scars on victims and their families, and weaken our
sense of community and purpose;
Whereas Ricky Byrdsong, at age 43, was a loving husband and
father, an inspiring community leader, and a former
basketball coach at Northwestern University;
Whereas Ricky Byrdsong was a man of deep religious faith
who touched the lives of countless people and whose death is
mourned by his family, friends, and community, and by the
Nation;
Whereas Won-Joon Yoon, at age 26, was the only son in a
family of 6, and was soon to become a doctoral student in
Economics at Indiana University;
Whereas Won-Joon Yoon was a man who, through his demeanor
and firmly-held Christian beliefs, positively influenced
those who knew him, and whose death is mourned by his family,
friends, and community, and by the citizens of the United
States and Korea; and
Whereas individuals who commit crimes based on hate and
bigotry must be held responsible for their actions and must
be
[[Page 30787]]
stopped from spreading violence: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns the senseless violence that occurred in
Illinois and Indiana over the Fourth of July weekend;
(2) conveys its deepest sympathy to the victims and their
families;
(3) condemns the culture of hate and the hate groups that
foster such violent acts;
(4) commends the communities of Illinois and Indiana for
uniting to condemn these acts of hate in their neighborhoods;
(5) commends the efforts of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials; and
(6) reaffirms its commitment to a society that fully
respects and protects all people, regardless of race,
religion, or ethnicity.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 2015
SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT CHINESE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP PERSECUTION OF
FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) expressing the sense of
the Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China
should stop its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentleman from New York to explain the bill.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 218, calling on
the People's Republic of China to stop persecuting the Falun Gong
practitioners which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights. During the past few weeks,
the leaders of the People's Republic of China have arrested, jailed,
beaten and tortured thousands of peaceful followers of Falun Gong, a
religious synthesis of traditional Chinese physical exercises and
Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Adherents to this meditation movement
have done nothing more than express their humble belief that people
should be kind to one another and work on themselves to change their
own lives. They are nonviolent and have not adopted any so-called
foreign beliefs. They do not promote nor do they use drugs. They are
not a cult. They only want to meditate, take their lives into their own
hands and attempt to live productive and peaceful lives.
What in the world can be wrong with that? What sort of government
finds that so threatening that it would have these good citizens
arrested, tortured, dismissed from their job? What sort of government
sends peaceful religious practitioners to labor camps and creates such
circumstances whereby some of them felt that they had to take their own
lives?
The answer to those questions is that the government of the People's
Republic of China is doing just that. The same government that earlier
this week threatened the State of Israel if its leaders had the
audacity to meet with its holiness, the Dalai Lama. It is the same
government that the Clinton administration so desperately wanted to be
accepted as a member of the WTO. And it is the very same government
that the State Department continues to promote military exchanges with.
Mr. Speaker, the government of China is led by those who do not share
our beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. They have an agenda
that is not moral. They have a purpose that is not peaceful. By their
repression of Falun Gong, they demonstrate that they will use any means
and methods to promote their effort to stay in power.
The repression of religion in China is a serious threat to all that
civilized people hold dear. If our government and other democracies
around the world continue business as usual with such a regime, we will
have only ourselves to blame for the ultimate consequences.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 218.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to
object, I rise in strong support of this resolution which was
introduced by my colleague on the Committee on International Relations
and chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and congratulate him
on his good work.
Most Americans, and, for that matter, most Members of Congress
probably had not heard of Falun Gong until last summer when the Chinese
dictatorship banned and started throwing thousands of people in jail
for practicing it. It is hardly surprising people that Chinese is
systematically arresting, torturing and even killing its own citizens
for wanting to practice their faith, which is what Falun Gong is. This
is the same gang of dictators, after all, that persecutes Christians,
Muslims and Buddhists and winks at forced abortions.
But even though this latest purge is completely in character, it is a
perfect illustration why we need to radically alter our relations with
that dictatorship. Because when Beijing decided to make practicing
Falun Gong a capital offense, which is exactly what the rubber-stamp
Chinese congress did before the visit to Beijing of our trade
representative Charlene Barshefsky, we are seeing that life in the
People's Republic is not much different from 10 years ago when the
People's Liberation Army turned its tanks and machine guns on the
people in Tiananmen Square who wanted nothing less than the very same
political liberty that lets us stand here tonight and debate this
resolution.
As I speak there are thousands of men and women in China who are
being beaten and killed for choosing to believe in ideals we take for
granted in this country, whether it is our faith in God, our right to
vote or simply wanting to belong to Falun Gong. As we consider, Mr.
Speaker, permanent NTR next year to China, let us remember what the
Communist Chinese are doing to the Falun Gong.
Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object. I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I introduced H. Con. Res. 218 which already
has more than 70 bipartisan cosponsors, including the chairman of the
full committee the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf); the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Brown); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and
many others, condemning the crackdown of the Falun Gong spiritual
movement by the government of the People's Republic of China. As we all
know by now, the Chinese dictatorship has long been brutal in its
suppression of religious practice that is not state-controlled. Tibetan
Buddhists, Catholics loyal to the Pope, Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang
Province and Protestant House Church members have all borne the brunt
of a systematic and brutal persecution by the Chinese government which
often includes torture. In recent months, the Chinese government has
embarked on a new campaign, an attempt, in its own words, to smash
Falun Gong, a peaceful and nonviolent form of spiritual practice.
A meditative spirituality that blends elements of Buddhism and
Taoism, Falun Gong has millions of adherents in China and elsewhere.
Since the group was banned in July of this year, thousands of ordinary
citizens from all over China have been jailed for refusing to give up
their practice. There have been many credible reports of torture and
inhumane treatment of detained practitioners, including a report that a
42-year-old woman was tortured
[[Page 30788]]
to death by Chinese thugs. Numerous practitioners, Mr. Speaker, have
been sentenced to labor camps without trial and thousands have lost
their jobs or have been expelled from schools.
The Chinese government has also enacted laws criminalizing Falun
Gong. This past Friday after a single, 7-hour closed hearing, China
handed down the first sentences against Falun Gong practitioners. Three
men and one woman received sentences ranging from 2 to 12 years for
``using an evil cult to obstruct the law.'' It is feared that those
were only the first of what will become many trials aimed at stamping
out the practice of Falun Gong. According to press reports, China will
begin a new series of approximately 300 trials starting on Sunday with
the trial of a 63-year-old retired schoolteacher kicking that off. This
is an absolute outrage. Thankfully the House, I hope, will soon go on
record condemning it.
The fact that this rash of trials follows so closely on the heels of
the Beijing visit of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan demonstrates the
failure of his visit to advance the cause of human rights in China. I
could not believe my eyes, Mr. Speaker, reading yesterday's press
reports of the Secretary-General's remarks on Tuesday. Mr. Annan stated
that the Chinese foreign minister had given him ``a better
understanding of some of the issues involved'' in the Falun Gong
crackdown. He also parroted the Chinese official line, stating that,
and I quote, ``In dealing with this issue, the fundamental rights of
citizens will be respected, and some of the actions they are taking are
for the protection of individuals.''
Certainly Mr. Annan cannot be ignorant of the credible reports to the
contrary that have been pouring out of China in recent weeks. I fear
that the Secretary-General's failure to empathize with and to speak out
on behalf of these oppressed people and his willingness to give the
Chinese oppressors the benefit of an unjustified doubt has only
emboldened them in their efforts to crush Falun Gong.
The suppression of Falun Gong in China has been brutal, it has been
systematic, and it continues as we meet here tonight. Two days ago,
during the Secretary-General's visit, the authorities arrested 20 more
people who were practitioners of Falun Gong who were meditating in
Tiananmen Square. The police used force against the group, reportedly
kicking and jumping on the peaceful protesters before removing them
from the square in a van.
In response to this further suppression of fundamental human rights
by the Beijing dictatorship, H. Con. Res. 218 expresses the sense of
the Congress that the government of the PRC should stop persecuting
Falun Gong practitioners and other religious believers and expresses
our belief that the U.S. Government should use every appropriate forum
to urge the PRC to release all detained Falun Gong practitioners; allow
those practitioners to pursue their beliefs in accordance with the
Chinese constitution; and to abide by the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Given this Chamber's commitment to freedom of conscience and the
undisguised severity of the persecution against Falun Gong, I strongly
urge support of this resolution.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to report to my colleagues that this resolution
introduced by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)
with many other cosponsors was reported to the Subcommittee on Asia and
the Pacific only lately because it was introduced on November 2. We
took a look at it, made very slight rhetorical changes, cleared it with
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) on the minority side who were also
cosponsors along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and
other distinguished members of the Congress, including some on our
committee, the Committee on International Relations, and we thought it
was entirely appropriate that it was reported to the floor.
The gentleman from New Jersey has highlighted some of the concerns
that obviously we have with the way the Falun Gong is being treated in
China. It only hurts their credibility. I think it speaks unfortunately
to their legitimacy. I would hope that this is a message that they will
take to heart. I urge support of the resolution.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 218
Whereas Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of
religious belief and practice with millions of adherents in
China and elsewhere;
Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China
has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their
faith;
Whereas this prohibition violates China's own Constitution
as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Whereas thousands of ordinary citizens from all over China
have been jailed for refusing to give up their practice of
Falun Gong and for appealing to the government for protection
of their constitutional rights;
Whereas there are many credible reports of torture and
other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment of detained
Falun Gong practitioners, including a report that a 42-year-
old woman, Zhao Jinhua, was tortured to death by Chinese
government officials;
Whereas the People's Republic of China has enacted new
criminal legislation that the government's official newspaper
hailed as a ``powerful new weapon to smash evil cultist
organizations, especially Falun Gong'';
Whereas some of the detained Falun Gong members have been
charged with political offenses, such as violations of
China's vague ``official state secrets'' law, and under the
new legislation Falun Gong practitioners will be chargeable
with such offenses as murder, fraud, and endangering national
security;
Whereas other Falun Gong members have been sentenced to
labor camps, apparently under administrative procedures
allowing such sentences without trial;
Whereas Chinese authorities in recent months have
reportedly confiscated, burned, or otherwise destroyed
millions of Falun Gong books and tapes;
Whereas thousands of Falun Gong practitioners in China have
lost their jobs and students have been expelled from schools
for refusing to give up their beliefs; and
Whereas the brutal crackdown by the Chinese Government on
Falun Gong is in direct violation of the fundamental human
rights to freedom of religious belief and practice,
expression, and assembly: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should
stop persecuting Falun Gong practitioners and other religious
believers;
(2) the Government of the United States should use every
appropriate public and private forum, including but not
limited to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, to
urge the Government of the People's Republic of China--
(A) to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners
and put an immediate end to the practices of torture and
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against them and
other prisoners of conscience;
(B) to allow Falun Gong practitioners to pursue their
religious beliefs in accordance with article 36 of the
Constitution of the People's Republic of China; and
(C) to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Amendment In the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Gilman
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Gilman:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should
stop persecuting Falun Gong practioners; and
(2) the Government of the United States should use every
appropriate public and private forum, including but not
limited to the United Nations Human Rights Commission,
[[Page 30789]]
to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China--
(A) to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners
and put an immediate end to the practices of torture and
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against them and
other prisoners of conscience;
(B) to allow Falun Gong practitioners to pursue their
personal beliefs in accordance with article 36 of the
Constitution of the People's Republic of China; and
(C) to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read
and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman).
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution, as amended.
The concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
Amendment to the Preamble Offered by Mr. Gilman
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment to the preamble offered by Mr. Gilman:
Insert a complete new preamble as follows:
Whereas Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of
personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in
China and elsewhere;
Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China
has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their
beliefs;
Whereas this prohibition violates China's own Constitution
as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Whereas thousands of ordinary citizens from all over China
have been jailed for refusing to give up their practice of
Falun Gong and for appealing to the government for protection
of their constitutional rights;
Whereas there are many credible reports of torture and
other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment of detained
Falun Gong practitioners;
Whereas the People's Republic of China has enacted new
criminal legislation that the government's official newspaper
hailed as a ``powerful new weapon to smash evil cultist
organizations, especially Falun Gong'';
Whereas some of the detained Falun Gong members have been
charged with political offenses, such as violations of
China's vague ``official state secrets'' law, and under the
new legislation Falun Gong practitioners will be chargeable
with such offenses as murder, fraud, and endangering national
security;
Whereas other Falun Gong members have been sentenced to
labor camps, apparently under administrative procedures
allowing such sentences without trial;
Whereas Chinese authorities in recent months have
reportedly confiscated, burned, or otherwise destroyed
millions of Falun Gong books and tapes;
Whereas thousands of Falun Gong practitioners in China have
lost their jobs and students have been expelled from schools
for refusing to give up their beliefs; and
Whereas the brutal crackdown by the Chinese Government on
Falun Gong is in direct violation of the fundamental human
rights to freedom of personal belief and practice,
expression, and assembly:
Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment to the preamble be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment to the
preamble offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the matter just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
____________________
MERVYN MALCOLM DYMALLY POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 642) to redesignate the Federal building located at 701 South
Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main
Post Office, as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building'',
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 642
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.
The Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue
in Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post
Office, shall be known and designated as the ``Mervyn Malcolm
Dymally Post Office Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the Federal building
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building''.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
{time} 2030
NATIONAL CHILDREN'S MEMORIAL DAY
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 376) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives in support of ``National Children's Memorial Day,'' and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 376
Whereas approximately 80,000 infants, children, teenagers,
and young adults of families living throughout the United
States die each year from myriad causes;
Whereas the death of an infant, child, teenager, or young
adult of a family is considered to be one of the greatest
tragedies that a parent or family will ever endure during a
lifetime;
Whereas a supportive environment and empathy and
understanding are considered critical factors in the healing
process of a family that is coping with and recovering from
the loss of a loved one, and
Whereas Senate Resolution 118 would designate December 12,
1999, as ``Natinal Children's Memorial Day'': Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved,
That the House of Representatives supports the goals and
ideas of ``National Children's Memorial Day'' in remembrance
of the many infants, children, teenagers, and young adults of
families in the United States who have died.
The resolution was agreed to.
Amendment to the Preamble Offered by Mr. Ose
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.
The clerk read as follows:
Amendment to the preamble offered by Mr. Ose:
Strike the final ``whereas'' clause.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment to the
preamble offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when
the
[[Page 30790]]
House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE HONORABLE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA OR THE HONORABLE
FRANK R. WOLF TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE AND TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS
AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR REMAINDER OF FIRST SESSION OF 106TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
November 18, 1999.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Constance A. Morella or, if
not available to perform this duty, the Honorable Frank R.
Wolf to act as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and
joint resolutions for the remainder of the First Session of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the designations are
agreed to.
There was no objection.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; which was read and, without objection, referred to the
Committee on Appropriations:
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, November 17, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am transmitting herewith copies of the
resolutions approved on November 10, 1999 by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, as follows:
Committee survey resolutions authorizing the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to study the following potential water
resources projects: Brazoria County Shoreline, Texas;
Dickinson Bayou, Texas; and for the City of Brownsville,
Texas.
Committee resolution authorizing the natural Resources
Conservation Service to undertake a small watershed project
for the Middle Deep Red Run Creek Small Watershed, Oklahoma.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
There was no objection.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
____________________
DISTURBING PATTERN OF PAKISTANI ACTIONS DEMANDS SERIOUS SCRUTINY BY THE
ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS
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, last Tuesday in this House we approved on a
bipartisan basis a resolution congratulating the people of India and
their government for the successful parliamentary elections recently
concluded by that thriving democracy. I was pleased to support that
resolution and to speak in favor of it.
Unfortunately, action on another resolution that has been approved by
the Committee on International Relations and is ready for consideration
on this floor has been delayed. That other resolution would express the
strong opposition of Congress to the recent military coup in Pakistan
that overthrew the civilian government. While individual members of
Congress, including me, have spoken out against the Pakistani coup, it
is important for the House of Representatives to go on record
collectively stating that we do not tolerate the overthrow of an
elected government.
I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the Republican leadership for
the continued delay in bringing up this resolution. Since we are about
to adjourn, it is likely the resolution is dead for this year.
Last month, Mr. Speaker, the military coup in Pakistan was one of a
series of disturbing actions that deserve very close scrutiny and clear
condemnation by the U.S. government, the Congress, as well as the
administration. One of the most shocking of these was last week's
rocket attacks against American and UN targets in the Pakistani capital
of Islamabad. The rockets were aimed at buildings in the heart of the
capital, including the U.S. Embassy, a library and cultural center
known as the American Center, and an office tower housing several UN
agencies. Thank God, no one was killed, although one person was
injured, a Pakistani guard at the American Center.
Mr. Speaker, the attacks came 2 days before UN sanctions were
scheduled to go into effect against the Taliban redream in neighboring
Afghanistan unless that country turns over bin Laden, the international
terrorist who has masterminded attacks against American and western
targets in various countries. There has been solid evidence in the past
linking bin Laden's operation with Pakistan, so this connection is
extremely plausible.
As the New York Times reported last Saturday, November 13, the list
of possible culprits is short. Apart from the Taliban itself, Pakistan
is home to several well-armed paramilitary groups sympathetic to the
Taliban and hostile to the United States, in addition to thousands of
Pakistani militants, who, over the years have trained side-by-side,
with Taliban Members in Islamic schools.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that Pakistan has for years been
identified with the violent separatist movement in India's state of
Jammu and Kashmir, causing the deaths of thousands of civilians and the
displacement of hundreds of thousands from their homes. Pakistan's role
in selling death and destruction in Kashmir was exposed to the world
earlier this year when Pakistani military leaders, many of the same
elements who carried out last month's coup d'etat, precipitated a major
crisis by unleashing an attack against Indian positions in the area of
Kargil, along the line of control that separates India and Pakistani
controlled areas of Kashmir.
Pakistan's actions were condemned by the U.S. and the international
community, and Pakistan was forced to essentially withdraw. But the
attacks by Pakistani forces on India army positions continued day-to-
day, causing casualties on both sides and threatening the stability of
the entire south Asia region.
You have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the U.S. continues to try to win
the favor of the Pakistani regime, given the proven collaboration
between Pakistan and the fundamentalist Taliban militia in Afghanistan,
and with bin Laden. Bin Laden and the Taliban represent the height of
violent anti-Americanism, and yet here is the Pakistani regime
tolerating, if not directly supporting, the operations of these
movements in their country.
We have recently seen another example of the lack of respect for
democracy and the rule of law on the part of the new Pakistani military
regime with the initiative to indict the deposed Prime Minister,
Sharif, on trumped up charges of treason and hijacking, charges which
carry the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get carried away singing the praises of
Mr. Sharif. He was deeply involved in the ill-fated military campaign
in Kashmir earlier this year. But he was the recognized legitimate
leader of the nation. He had apparently attempted to dismiss the army's
Chief of Staff, General Musharraf, and, instead, the general turned the
tables and dismissed the prime minister, indicating who is really in
charge in Pakistan. The turn of events indicates that the notion of
democratic civilian leadership and the rule of law are not well
developed in Pakistan.
Reports in the last day out of Pakistan indicate that Prime Minister
[[Page 30791]]
Sharif, who has been in military custody since he was deposed in the
October 12th coup, has been moved to the port city of Karachi in a
military aircraft in preparation for a court appearance.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, there are some who seem to welcome the
seizure of military power by the military in Pakistan as a recipe for
stability. I believe this is misguided thinking. First, as the rocket
attacks against American targets last week indicate, the military
regime is no better at maintaining stability and security than the
previous civilian government. Furthermore, this year's Pakistani attack
on India in Kashmir demonstrates behavior that is highly destabilizing
and could lead to a wider war that would devastate much of South Asia.
It was the military brass now in charge of the country who
precipitated that conflict, and who continue to promote the ongoing
border incidents. Finally, the fact that Pakistan has been under
military dictatorship for approximately half of its 52 years of
independence inevitably led General Musharraf to conclude that it was
his right to dismiss the Prime Minister, not the other way around.
Until that type of thinking changes, Pakistan's prospects for stability
and democracy are dim. While we may not be able to change Pakistani
behavior, the United States should not be playing the role of enabler,
out of cynical expediency or in the misguided belief that the military
regime will bring ``stability.'' This body should go on record
expressing our condemnation of this year's turn of events in Pakistan.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE DEBT RELIEF ADOPTED BY OMNIBUS BUDGET RESOLUTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to emphasize to my colleagues
and the public that as part of the omnibus spending resolution just
adopted, the United States House of Representatives has endorsed the
most seminal bill ever advanced for the developing countries of the
world. Comprehensive debt relief has been adopted for the poorest of
the poor, many, but not all of which, are in Africa.
Relieving the debt burdens of the world's poorest countries has
become one of the foremost economic, humanitarian and moral challenges
of our time. Indeed, seldom has there been such a compelling
conjunction between abstract economics, ethics and public policy.
In an effort to address this problem, earlier this year I introduced
H.R. 1095, an act which authorizes debt relief for certain countries
and conditions that relief on those countries transferring the savings
from debt service obligations into poverty reduction and sustainable
development.
Although initially skeptical about the breadth of this legislative
approach, the administration eventually embraced it, and I am
particularly appreciative of the support of Secretary Summers in this
cause. In Congress, a number of our colleagues have been instrumental
in bringing this initiative to the floor, and I would like to thank the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on this side of the
aisle, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) on the other.
That we are able to consider debt relief today is a result of
extensive collaboration and dialogue with a coalition of non-
traditional lobbyists. Such non-governmental organizations as OXFAM and
Bread for the World have provided much needed impetus to the effort,
and a group of some 200 religious groups embracing the entire spectrum
of faiths and denominations have united under the banner of Jubilee
2000.
The term ``jubilee'' is particularly appropriate, as it invokes the
Old Testament Biblical concept of restoration, providing a fresh start,
in this case for the most abject poor, at the beginning of the new
millennium.
A central text is Leviticus 25, which contains the injunction, ``and
ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all
the land . . . In the year of this jubilee, you shall return every man
unto his possession.''
As the Book of Proverbs reminds, ``If you refuse to listen to the cry
of the poor, your own cry will not be heard.''
The Jubilee movement is worldwide, but American leadership is
critical. In recent years we have demonstrated to the world our
capacity to lead in the use of force. Now we must show an equal
commitment to leading in the delivery of compassion. In a world in
which divisions between rich and poor daily become more accentuated, it
is imperative that Jubilee relationships be righted, that the
alternative to war and famine with their attendant social and capital
costs be averted.
Just as the Marshall Plan symbolized practicality and generosity at
the end of the greatest war in human history, debt relief under the
Jubilee banner stands at the end of the second millennium after the
birth of Christ as a critical moral response to social challenges in
parts of the world where poverty is endemic and governments have proven
unable or unwilling to serve well their people.
____________________
PROVIDING HOPE AND HELP TO FLOOD-RAVAGED NORTH CAROLINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members and the
Congressional and administrative staff numbering more than 500 who
boarded 12 buses on Saturday, November 6, to provide hope and help to
flood-ravaged Eastern North Carolina. On that day we cleaned up and
fixed up places that 6 weeks after the hurricane were still saturated
with water.
{time} 2045
As a result of the flooding, lives have been disrupted, disturbed,
and disordered. Tens of thousands were forced from their homes. Mr.
Speaker, 11,000 homes were destroyed, and hundreds are living in a
state of virtual homelessness. One-third of our population continues to
suffer from a disaster that is unprecedented in the entire history of
the State of North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, we faced record high floodwaters covering more than
20,000 square miles, a land area greater than the size of the whole
State of Maryland. Many people lost everything, their homes, their
farms, their business, and their loved ones. The full amount of damage
is still yet unknown.
As we begin to move from the phase of immediate relief to the phase
of recovery and then rebuilding and reconstruction, many in the private
sector have been helping as well. Certainly, the Red Cross and
Salvation Army have been at work. Business enterprises have stepped
forward with their support. Individual citizens from across the Nation
have helped. The church community is doing its part and will do more.
In fact, on December 19, the church community across the country will
hold a nationwide effort to gather support from various denominations
to help with the housing needs, especially for those who are the
working poor, disadvantaged and senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I believe those Members and staffers who joined us on
the November 6 now have a clear view of the needs of the people of
eastern North Carolina. I believe those Members and staff now
understand why this Congress must indeed pass an emergency rebuilding
and reconstruction package when we return in January.
When Congress returns, I and others will put before the Congress a
comprehensive rebuilding and reconstruction bill. At that time, we will
seek the support of our colleagues in the House and Senate, as well as
the support of the administration.
One aspect of the legislation we will introduce will be the provision
of grants rather than loans for those homeowners and businessowners who
simply cannot be helped by loans alone. Unless we are able to provide
grants, there are many, many who owned homes before the storm will not
[[Page 30792]]
be able to afford replacement houses after the storm. Unless we are
able to provide grants, there are many businesses, especially small
farmers who were in business before the storm, but will not be able to
return or remain in business because of the storm.
Over the years, America has come to the aid of many in foreign
countries, as we should and as we must continue to do. We have helped
to rebuild Europe. We have helped to boost the recovery of Japan. We
have come and will continue to come again and again to the aid of
Kosovo. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we can come to the aid of our fellow
citizens in eastern North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, America is at its best when conditions of our fellow
citizens are at their worst. America was at its best on November 6 when
those Members and staffers gave of their hearts and time and hands to
those storm-torn communities and to the flood victims.
In the budget agreement we just voted on, Congress did indeed provide
some immediate relief, for which I am very appreciative, although I was
forced to vote against the bill because it did not contain $81 million
promised by the Senate leadership for the agriculture cooperative that
would have aided our tobacco farmers, our peanut and cotton farmers.
There were indeed provisions in there that will provide a response to
the Housing needs and additional resources for agriculture and loans
and grants. I also want to thank the administration for its support.
With this budget, we have made a significant step, but only a step.
Much, much more is needed before we can say that Congress has done its
part. We must, indeed, do more.
____________________
TRAGEDY AT TEXAS A&M
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as one of the last speakers to
speak in this chamber in this century in terms of other than the purely
procedural motion, it is with great sadness that I rise this evening to
talk of a terrible tragedy that happened early this morning in College
Station, Texas.
The university where I graduated from in 1972 and where my father
graduated from in 1947, where my son graduated from in 1993, and my
daughter in 1997, has a tradition called Bonfire. Students spend
several months going out and first cutting down the logs and then
transporting the logs to the campus, and then once on campus, sorting
them out and stacking them together to create a bonfire which some
years has been over 100 feet tall, and which this year was somewhere
about 40 feet tall and was scheduled to be about 60 feet tall. Earlier
this morning, somewhere between 2:30 and 3 a.m., the bonfire stack
catastrophically collapsed, sending 50 to 60 students that were on the
stack plummeting down. Unfortunately, at least six of them have been
killed; over 20 have been injured. There are still five unaccounted
for, and there is a possibility that the death toll could rise to over
10 students.
Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible tragedy for Texas A&M; it is a
terrible tragedy for the families of the victims; it is a terrible
tragedy for young people in our country. It is a sad, sad day in
College Station, Texas.
Texas A&M truly is a family. There are over 250,000 living former
students of Texas A&M, and the Aggie family, literally all over the
world, is in shock and mourning for the students and their families,
the students that were injured and killed and their families.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other Aggie traditions, one of
which, unfortunately, will have to be utilized in the very near future.
Silver Taps is a tradition at Texas A&M where any student that dies
while an active student, there is a ceremony on campus where all of the
lights are turned out in the evening, all the students gather at a
common area in front of the academic building and Silver Taps are
played. So sometime in December, there will be Silver Taps for the
students that were killed earlier this morning and Aggies mourn their
passing.
There is a memorial service that is going on as we speak. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), whose district Texas A&M is located
in, flew down to College Station earlier this afternoon to be with the
students there as they have that memorial service this evening.
The bonfire has been held every year but one year since 1909. In
1963, after the assassination of President Kennedy, the bonfire was
canceled. That is the only time that it has been canceled until next
week. Because of the tragic accident, there will be no bonfire at Texas
A&M next week before the football game between Texas University and
Texas A&M.
Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strongest sympathy this evening. I
would ask all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pray
for the families whose children have been killed or injured. I have one
more daughter, Kristin, who is a senior in high school this year, and
she hopes to attend Texas A&M. It is my hope that the A&M
administration, President Bowen, who is an excellent academic leader
and faculty leader at Texas A&M, will conduct a full investigation of
this accident. If there is a way to find a cause and to prevent it from
happening in the future, I know that he will do that, but I also hope
that we do not cancel the bonfire in the future.
Again, hundreds of thousands of former students of Texas A&M have
participated in the bonfire. With almost no exceptions, those who have
participated have nothing but the warmest, fondest memories. We need to
grieve for our students who lost their lives early this morning; we
need to support the investigation to find the cause of that
catastrophic accident, and hopefully we can come up with safety
procedures so that the bonfire can continue in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues pray for the families of
those students who lost their lives early this morning at Texas A&M.
____________________
GIVE A KID A CHANCE LEGISLATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the delegation
from Texas, let me join my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), to offer my sympathy to the families of the victims of the
bonfire tragedy at Texas A&M University, those who lost their lives and
those who were severely injured. My sympathy to my colleague,
Congressman Brady whose district the university is in, and my sympathy
to my constituents, many of whom attend Texas A&M and whose family
members have attended Texas A&M. My prayers are with them and their
families, and I hope that they will know that they are in our thoughts
and that the university will proceed with a review of the
circumstances. But I offer to them my deepest sympathy.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the children of America, more
than 13.7 million that suffer from severe mental health disorders. When
we think of the tragedies that we have discussed over the past year,
the hateful acts of students allegedly in Cleveland, Ohio; the tragedy
of a killing of a middle school youngster in my own community; the
enormous tragedy of Columbine; the killings in Fort Worth, Texas and
Jonesboro, we do know that our children need help, need aid, need
nurturing, and need intervention.
Mr. Speaker, more than 13.7 million children in America suffer from
severe mental disorders. I have long been an advocate for children's
mental health services because I believe that good mental health is
indispensable to overall good health.
Mr. Speaker, today I introduced Give a Kid a Chance Omnibus Mental
Health Services Act of 1999. H.R. 3455 was offered and filed with over
42 original cosponsors. I believe that all children need access to
mental health services, whether these services are provided in a
private therapy session or in a group setting, in our communities, or
available as an intervention method in our
[[Page 30793]]
schools. My bill will provide mental health services to children,
adolescents and their families in our schools and communities. By
making these services more readily available, more accessible, more
known, we can spot mental health issues in children early before we
have escalated or they have escalated these incidences into violence.
Mr. Speaker, at least one in five children in adolescence has a
diagnosable mental, emotional or behavioral problem that can lead to
school failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide. However, 75 to 80
percent of these children do not receive any services in the form of
specialty treatment or some form of mental health intervention.
Mr. Speaker, it is not always the kind of specialized treatment that
is needed, but just to be able to give the family and parents access to
some form of counseling that will be readily available that would not
be distant, that would not be overly exorbitant in cost, that would not
be beyond their reach. The lack of access to mental health services has
resulted in an increase of children dropping out of school, becoming
involved in delinquent or criminal activity and becoming involved in
the juvenile justice or protective child systems.
In light of the Columbine tragedy and other violent events of the
past 7 months, our children need us to pay close attention to the early
signs of mental disorders. Clearly there are warning signs of trouble
in young people that point to the possibility of emotional and
behavioral disorders. These warning signs include isolation,
depression, alienation and hostility. But if they have no access either
through the community or school health services or their parents do not
know where to go, these terrible warning signs can turn into actions of
violence. Recognizing these signs is the first step to ensuring that
the troubled youngsters get the attention they need early to address
their mental health needs before it is too late.
Although the problem of youth violence cannot be traced to a single
cause or source, unrecognized or unaddressed mental health disorders in
children can be catastrophic. The current mental health system fails to
provide a refuge for these children before they are dumped into the
juvenile justice system. Two-thirds of the children who are in the
juvenile justice system need mental health intervention. I believe that
prevention and intervention from an early age are critical to stemming
the tide of youth violence. We must put something in place to intervene
in a child's life.
This bill provides for a comprehensive, community-based, culturally
competent and developmentally appropriate prevention and early
intervention program that provides for the identification of early
mental health problems and promotes the mental health and enhances the
resiliency of children from birth to adolescence and their families.
{time} 2100
It incorporates families, schools and communities in an integral role
in the programs. It coordinates behavioral health care services, Mr.
Speaker, interventions and support in traditional and nontraditional
settings and, finally, it provides a continuum of care for children
from birth through adolescence along with their families.
Let me close simply, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I hope that all of
my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will join in a unified voice
in support of pushing this legislation quickly, because we are in great
need of providing the kind of comfort and support of our children,
intervention, support, mental health services accessible to all.
I rise today on behalf of the children--the more than 13.7 million
that suffer from severe mental health disorders. I have long been an
advocate for children's mental health services because I believe that
good mental health is indispensable to overall good health. Today I
introduced a bill, ``Give a Kid a Chance Omnibus Mental Health Services
Act of 1999,'' H.R. 3455 with forty-two (42) Original Co-Sponsors.
I believe that all children need access to mental health services.
Whether these services are provided in a private therapy session or in
a group setting in the schools, we need to make these services
available.
My bill will provide mental health services to children, adolescents
and their families in the schools and communities. By making these
services more readily available, we can spot mental health issues in
children early before we have escalated incidents of violence.
At least one in five children and adolescents has a diagnosable
mental, emotional, or behavioral problem that can lead to school
failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide. However, 75 to 80
percent of these children do not receive any services in the form of
specialty treatment or some form of mental health intervention.
The lack of access to mental health services has resulted in an
increase of children dropping out of school, becoming involved in
delinquent or criminal activity, and becoming involved in the juvenile
justice or child protective systems.
In light of the Columbine tragedy and other violent events of the
past seven months, our children need us to pay close attention to the
early signs of mental disorders. Clearly, there are warning signs of
trouble in young people that point to the possibility of emotional and
behavioral disorders. These warning signs include isolation,
depression, alienation and hostility.
Recognizing these signs is the first step to ensure that troubled
youngsters get the attention they need early to address their mental
health needs before it is too late. Although the problem of youth
violence cannot be traced to a single cause or source, unrecognized or
unaddressed mental health disorders in children can be catastrophic.
The current mental health system fails to provide a refuge for these
children before they are dumped into the juvenile justice system. I
believe that prevention and intervention from an early age are critical
to stemming the tide of youth violence. We must put a system in place
that can intervene in a child's life early on, long before the first
act of violence is ever committed.
However, there is a greater need to address the mental health needs
of all children, not just those who end up in the juvenile justice
system. We need to address the mental health needs of all children
before they become at-risk or troubled youth. Our children need to feel
more comfortable about seeking help for their problems.
In preparing this legislation, I worked with a coalition of mental
health professionals--psychologists, counselors, social workers and
others to create comprehensive mental health legislation that will
benefit all children and their families.
Mental health is indispensable to personal well-being, family and
interpersonal relationships. Mental health is the basis for thinking
and communication skills, learning, emotional growth, resilience and
self-esteem.
There were several issues that we considered--access to services, the
issue of stigma and the cultural and ethnic barriers to treatment. This
bill addresses each of these concerns. Access to mental health services
is key to saving this generation from self-destructive behavior.
In addition to access, there is the significant issue of stigma,
particularly among the various cultural groups in this country. As we
all know, there is already a significant stigma attached to mental
health services for adults.
Adults need to realize that mental health is not separate from
physical or bodily health. Good physical health is all encompassing,
inclusive of the mind and body. As adults, we need to feel more
comfortable about our own issues. We cannot continue to believe in the
stigma of mental help.
We must also explore the cultural and ethnic barriers to making
mental health services available to all children. In certain ethnic
cultures, the issue of mental health is almost a non-issue. For
example, in some cultures, a person may complain of physical discomfort
when the real issue is of a psychological nature.
In addition to internal cultural barriers to mental health treatment,
there are cross-cultural barriers that must be overcome. Mental health
professionals must be culturally savvy and have an understanding of
various cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
People from various cultural backgrounds are often mistrustful of
seeking professional mental health services because of a lack of trust
in the system, economic constraints, and limited awareness of the value
of good mental health. The challenge to the mental health profession is
to overcome these barriers to provide comprehensive treatment.
This silence ultimately harms our children. For example, in the
African-American community mental health is rarely discussed and it
often goes untreated in both adults and children. Depression is the
most common mental health disorder affecting 10 percent of the
[[Page 30794]]
population, yet we still do not engage in a public dialogue about this
issue.
The progress we make now in terms of mental health access and
treatment, erasing the stigma and overcoming the cultural barriers will
be long reaching.
I urge my colleagues to add their names to the list of cosponsors of
this legislation. In the next session, I look forward to this bill
passing.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mrs. Capps (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and the balance
of the week on account of family illness.
____________________
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. Maloney of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Udall of Colorado, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Clayton, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Barton of Texas) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Leach, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Barton of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Myrick, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate
of the following titles:
S. 278. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico.
S. 382. An act to establish the Minuteman Missile National
Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other
purposes.
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. 1398. An act to clarify certain boundaries on maps
relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
____________________
JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee did on this day present to the President, for his
approval, a joint resolution of the House of the following title:
H.J. Res. 83. A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other
purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 p.m.), under its previous
order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, November 19, 1999,
at noon.
____________________
OATH OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES
The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution
of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May
13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident
Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text
of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:
``I AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about
to enter. So help me God.''
has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk
of the House of Representatives by the following Member of the 106th
Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25:
Joe Baca, Forty-second, California.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
5439. A letter from the Associate Administrator, Dairy
Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Milk in the New England and Other
Marketing Areas; Exemption of Handlers Operating Plants in
Clark County, Nevada, From Order Requirements [Docket No. DA-
00-01] received November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
5440. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Herbicide Safener HOE-
107892; Extension of Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-
300933; FRL-6385-5] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received November 17,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
5441. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Glyphosate; Pesticide
Tolerance [OPP-300946; FRL-6390-5] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received
November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
5442. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Clopyralid; Pesticide
Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-300938; FRL-6388-5]
(RIN: 2070-AB78) received November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
5443. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Avermectin B1 and its
delta-8,9-isomer; Extension of Tolerance for Emergency
Exemptions [OPP-300948; FRL-6391-8] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received
November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
5444. A letter from the Acquisition and Technology,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, transmitting a
report entitled ``Establishing an Entitlement to Reimburse
Rental Car Costs to Military Service Members''; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
5445. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting
a Report On Proposed Obligations For Weapons Destruction And
Non-Proliferation In The Former Soviet Union; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
5446. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; States of
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming; General Conformity [CO-001-0035a;
UT-001-0023a; WY-001-0004a; FRL-6471-4] received November 17,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
5447. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Approval of Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan
Revision; Determination of Carbon Monoxide Attainment;
Removal of Oxygenated Gasoline Program [Region 2 Docket No.
NJ37-2-203 FRL-6477-3] received November 17, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
5448. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Iowa Update
to Materials Incorporated by Reference [IA 075-1075: FRL-
6462-3] received November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
5449. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--NESHAPS: Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors [FRL-6477-9] (RIN: 2050-AE01) received November
17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Commerce.
5450. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
[[Page 30795]]
Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology [AD-FRL-6478-8]
(RIN: 2060-AG91) received November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
5451. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum
Achievable Control Technology; Process Wastewater Provisions
[AD-FRL-6478-6] (RIN: 2060-AI53) received November 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
5452. A letter from the Chief, Policy and Programming
Division, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--In the Matter of Implementation of
Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 [CC Docket No. 96-98] received November 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
5453. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Allocation of
Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use
[ET Docket No. 94-32] received November 17, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
5454. A letter from the Assistant Bureau Chief, Management,
International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of the
Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed
Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International
Satellite Service in the United States [IB Docket No. 96-111]
received November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
5455. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Landowner Notification, Expanded Categorical Exclusions, and
Other Environmental Filing Requirements (Docket No. RM98-17-
000; Order No. 609) received November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
5456. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a copy of
Presidential Determination No. 2000-07, authorizing the
furnishing of assistance from the Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance Fund to meet the urgent needs related to
the Timor crisis and for the North Caucasus crisis, pursuant
to 22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(3); to the Committee on International
Relations.
5457. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a report on progress toward a negotiated
settlement of the Cyprus question covering the period August
1, 1999, to September 30, 1999, pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2373(c); to the Committee on International Relations.
5458. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the justification
and designation of Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan as
``countries of particular concern'' for having engaged in or
tolerated particularly severe violations of religious
freedom; to the Committee on International Relations.
5459. A letter from the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,
transmitting the Board's Annual Report on Audit and
Investigative Activities for Fiscal Year 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
5460. A letter from the Comptroller General, transmitting a
list of General Accounting Office reports from the previous
month; to the Committee on Government Reform.
5461. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation,
transmitting the Semiannual Report of the Office of Inspector
General for the period ended September 30, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
5462. A letter from the the Chief Administrative Officer,
U.S. House of Representatives, transmitting the quarterly
report of the Statement of Disbursements of the House of
Representatives covering receipts and expenditures of
appropriations and other funds for the period July 1, 1999
through September 30, 1999, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 104a; (H.
Doc. No. 106-125); to the Committee on House Administration
and ordered to be printed.
5463. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Indiana Regulatory Program [SPATS No. IN-143-FOR;
State Program Amendment No. 98-5] received November 17, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
5464. A letter from the Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Maryland Regulatory Program [MD-044-FOR] received
November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
5465. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Ohio Regulatory Program [OH-246-FOR] received
November 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
5466. A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary
of the Army, transmitting notification of the intention of
the Department of the Army and the Department of Agriculture
to interchange jurisdiction of Military and National Forest
System lands at the Army's Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation, California, and the USDA Forest Service's
Toiyabe National Forest in Mineral County, Nevada, pursuant
to 16 U.S.C. 505a; jointly to the Committees on Armed
Services and Resources.
5467. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy,
transmitting a report entitled ``A Roadmap for Developing
Accelerator Transmutation of Waste Technology--A Report to
Congress''; jointly to the Committees on Commerce and
Science.
5468. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, transmitting activities taken relative to Medicare
approved home health agencies including the status,
implementation and impact of the revised survey cycle;
jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce.
5469. A letter from the Chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Secretary of Treasury, Chairman of
transmitting the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets entitled ``Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets and
the Commodity Exchange Act''; jointly to the Committees on
Agriculture, Banking and Financial Services, and Commerce.
5470. A letter from the Acting, Executive Office of the
President, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled,
``Southeast Europe Trade Preference Act''; jointly to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce,
and Agriculture.
____________________
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. LEACH: Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
H.R. 1095. 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; with an amendment (Rept. 106-483 Pt. 1).
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. H.R. 728. A bill to amend the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act to authorize the
Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost share assistance for
the rehabilitation of structural measures constructed as part
of water resource projects previously funded by the Secretary
under such Act or related laws; with amendments (Rept. 106-
484 Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 2669. A
bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 106-485).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the
Speaker:
H.R. 1838. Referral to the Committee on Armed Services
extended for a period ending not later than November 19,
1999.
H.R. 3081. Referral to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce extended for a period ending not later than
November 19, 1999.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself and Mr.
Cardin):
H.R. 3443. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social
Security Act to provide States with more funding and greater
flexibility in carrying out programs designed to help
children make the transition from foster care to self-
sufficiency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE (for herself, Mr. Barr of
Georgia, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Doolittle, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Young of Alaska,
Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Paul, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr.
Skeen, Mr. Pickett, Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. Bateman,
Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and Mr. Wicker):
[[Page 30796]]
H.R. 3444. A bill to repeal section 658 of Public Law 104-
208, commonly referred to as the Lautenberg amendment; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. FOWLER:
H.R. 3445. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
allow the Secretaries of the military departments to
authorize civilian special agents of their respective
military criminal investigative organizations to execute
warrants and make arrests; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. OBERSTAR:
H.R. 3446. A bill to authorize appropriations for the
Surface Transportation Board, to enhance railroad
competition, to protect collective bargaining agreements, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself and Mr.
Walden of Oregon):
H.R. 3447. A bill to amend the Pacific Northwest Electric
Power Planning and Conservation Act to provide for sales of
electricity by the Bonneville Power Authority to joint
operating entities; to the Committee on Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GREENWOOD (for himself, Mr. Dooley of
California, Mr. Boehlert, and Mrs. Tauscher):
H.R. 3448. A bill to improve the management of
environmental information and to encourage innovation in the
pursuit of enhanced environmental quality, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GREENWOOD:
H.R. 3449. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for
a State waiver of the requirements concerning the oxygen
content of gasoline; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 3450. A bill to direct the Archivist of the United
States to transfer certain Federal land located in the State
of Michigan to the Gerald R. Ford Foundation in trust, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. ABERCROMBIE:
H.R. 3451. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the unused portion of the low-income housing
credit for buildings financed with tax exempt State bonds to
be used for the construction of military housing in the
State; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BAKER (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Stump, Mr.
Traficant, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Wamp, Mrs.
Bono, Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Bachus, Mrs. Johnson
of Connecticut, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Cunningham, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Tancredo):
H.R. 3452. A bill to establish conditions on the payment of
certain balances under the Panama Canal Act of 1979; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. GOODLATTE:
H.R. 3453. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to
require the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase additional
commodities for distribution under section 214 of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 for fiscal years 2001
and 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
H.R. 3454. A bill to designate the United States post
office located at 451 College Street in Macon, Georgia, as
the ``Henry McNeal Turner Post Office``; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Lee, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Kucinich, Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Sawyer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Cramer, Mrs.
Meek of Florida, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Napolitano,
Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Mr. Ford, Mr. Martinez, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Gonzalez,
Mr. Fattah, Mr. Larson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Baldacci, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. Weygand, Mr. Baca, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Baird, Mr. Strickland, and Mr. Lampson):
H.R. 3455. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
with respect to mental health services for children,
adolescents and their families; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 3456. A bill to amend statutory damages provisions of
title 17, United States Code; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. UPTON (for himself, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mr. Bliley, and Mr. Roemer):
H.R. 3457. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to
direct the emergency scheduling of gamma hydroxybutyric acid,
to provide for a national awareness campaign, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 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 Ms. PRYCE of Ohio:
H.R. 3458. A bill to reduce the incidence of child abuse
and neglect, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 3459. A bill to provide that a person who brings a
product liability action in a Federal or State court for
injuries sustained from a product which is not in compliance
with a voluntary or mandatory standard issued by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission may recover treble damages, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BACHUS (for himself and Mr. Jones of North
Carolina):
H.R. 3460. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
require the consent of a member of the Armed Forces before
administering the member with an investigational new drug or
drug unapproved for its applied use; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself and Mr. Traficant):
H.R. 3461. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to establish additional provisions to combat
waste, fraud, and abuse within the Medicare Program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on Commerce, and the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. Oxley, and Mr.
Portman):
H.R. 3462. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to establish certain
requirements enforceable under such title relating to certain
stock purchase arrangements maintained by employers for
employees, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide favorable treatment for such arrangements meeting
such requirements, subject to certain restrictions on
disposition of transferred shares; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee
on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. BONIOR (for himself, Mr. Levin, Ms. Stabenow,
Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hinchey,
and Mr. Horn):
H.R. 3463. A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to
grant a Federal charter to the Ukrainian American Veterans,
Incorporated; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BOSWELL:
H.R. 3464. A bill to establish a cooperative program of the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, and the
Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the feasibility
of using only fuel blended with ethanol to power municipal
vehicles; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. McIntosh, and
Mr. Bryan):
H.R. 3465. A bill to provide safer schools and a better
educational environment; to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
By Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut,
and Mrs. Thurman):
H.R. 3466. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to expand the credit for electricity produced from
certain renewable resources to energy produced from landfill
gas; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
H.R. 3467. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for
ensuring that persons reporting instances of suspected child
abuse occurring on military installations may submit such
reports anonymously; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. CANNON:
H.R. 3468. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to convey to certain water rights to Duchesne City, Utah; to
the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. EVANS (for himself and Mr. Leach):
H.R. 3469. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for the coverage and treatment of overhead costs of
United States factories and arsenals when not making supplies
for the Army, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin:
H.R. 3470. A bill to provide for the appointment of 1
additional Federal district judge for the eastern district of
Wisconsin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
[[Page 30797]]
By Mr. GREENWOOD:
H.R. 3471. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to carry out demonstration projects to
increase the supply of organs donated for human
transplantation; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. HOLT:
H.R. 3472. A bill to provide for mandatory licensing and
registration of handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 3473. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to restrict the transfer by local
law enforcement agencies of certain firearms; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 3474. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Fungaflor 500 EC; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 3475. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
NORBLOC 7966; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 3476. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Imazalil; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon:
H.R. 3477. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to
require credit card statements to include the date by which a
consumer's payment by mail must be postmarked in order to
avoid the late fee and to prohibit a late fee for a
consumer's payment by mail which is postmarked by such date,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
By Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Gillmor,
and Mr. Hansen):
H.R. 3478. A bill to establish a compensation program for
the contractors of the Departments of Energy and Defense and
beryllium vendors who sustained a beryllium-related illness
due to the performance of their duty, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Armed
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 Mrs. KELLY (for herself, Mr. Franks of New Jersey,
and Mr. Jones of North Carolina):
H.R. 3479. A bill to authorize the Small Business
Administration to make grants and loans to small business
concerns, and grants to agricultural enterprises, to enable
such concerns and enterprises to reopen for business after a
natural or other disaster; to the Committee on Small
Business.
By Mr. KLINK (for himself and Ms. DeGette):
H.R. 3480. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social
Security Act to expand enrollment of children under the
Medicaid and State children's health insurance program
(SCHIP) through the expanded use of presumptive eligibility;
to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mrs. LOWEY:
H.R. 3481. A bill to impose a 2-year moratorium on the
issuance of new Federal licenses to deal in firearms; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut:
H.R. 3482. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to assure access of Medicare beneficiaries to
prescription drug coverage through the NICE drug benefit
program; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition
to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. MARKEY:
H.R. 3483. A bill to amend the Federal securities laws to
enhance oversight over certain derivatives dealers and hedge
funds, reduce the potential for such entitles to increase
systemic risk in the financial markets, enhance investor
protections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce.
By Mr. McCOLLUM (for himself and Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut):
H.R. 3484. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide that certain sexual crimes against children are
predicate crimes for the interception of communications, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. McCOLLUM (for himself, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Diaz-
Balart, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr.
Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Tiahrt, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H.R. 3485. A bill to modify the enforcement of certain
anti-terrorism judgments, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MORAN of Kansas:
H.R. 3486. A bill to protect previously approved State
Medicaid plans from changes in Federal payment for school-
based health services for Medicaid-eligible children with
individualized education programs; to the Committee on
Commerce.
By Mr. OXLEY (for himself, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Boucher, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Stupak):
H.R. 3487. A bill to provide consumers in multitenant
buildings with the benefits of competition among providers of
telecommunications services by ensuring reasonable and
nondiscriminatory access to rooftops of mulitenants buildings
by competitive telecommunications carriers, and promote the
development of fixed wireless, local telephony, and broadband
infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce.
By Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Smith of
New Jersey, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell,
Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Holt, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Payne, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Roukema, and
Mr. Saxton):
H.R. 3488. A bill to designate the United States Post
Office located at 60 Third Avenue in Long Branch, New Jersey,
as the ``Pat King Post Office Building``; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Mr. PICKERING (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Wilson,
Mr. Largent, and Mr. Tauzin):
H.R. 3489. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to regulate interstate commerce in the use of mobile
telephones and to strengthen and clarify prohibitions on
electronic eaves-dropping, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, 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. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. Cardin):
H.R. 3490. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to clarify the status of professional employer
organizations and to promote and protect the interests of
professional employer organizations, their customers, and
workers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PORTMAN:
H.R. 3491. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to codify the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury
to issue regulations covering the practice of enrolled agents
before the Internal Revenue Service; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, and Mr. Metcalf):
H.R. 3492. A bill to amend the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act to exempt mortgage servicers from certain
requirements of the Act with respect to federally related
mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin:
H.R. 3493. A bill to promote international monetary
stability and to share seigniorage with officially dollarized
countries; to the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services.
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Filner, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Owens, and
Mr. Evans):
H.R. 3494. A bill to clarify that no provisions of title
LXII of the Revised Statutes of the United States, the Home
Owners' Loan Act, or any other Federal law have ever been
intended, and may not be construed, to supersede
nondiscriminatory State or local laws that regulate fees and
surcharges imposed by operators of automated teller machines
for use of such machines; to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
By Mr. STRICKLAND (for himself, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Udall
of Colorado, Mr. Whitfield, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Baird,
Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Pallone, and Ms. Kaptur):
H.R. 3495. A bill to establish a compensation program for
Department of Energy employees injured in Federal nuclear
activities; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TANNER:
H.R. 3496. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that certain uses of a facility owned by a
tax-exempt organization shall not be treated as private
business use for purposes of determining whether bonds issued
to provide the facility are tax-exempt bonds; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (for himself, Mr. Shows,
and Mr. Taylor of Mississippi):
H.R. 3497. A bill to authorize a study on the feasibility
of preserving certain Civil War battlefields along the
Vicksburg Campaign Trail and of establishing a Civil Rights
Trail in the State of Mississippi; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr.
Markey, and Mr. Oxley):
H.R. 3498. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to improve the operations of the Telecommunications
Development Fund; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. TRAFICANT:
H.R. 3499. A bill to amend section 107 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 to authorize the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development to make grants from
community development block grant amounts to the Park and
Recreation Commission, City of Youngstown, Ohio, for the
construction of a community center and the renovation of a
sports complex in such city;
[[Page 30798]]
to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
H.R. 3500. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to conduct a pilot program to raise
awareness about telecommuting among small business employers
and to encourage such employers to offer telecommuting
options to employees; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Udall of
New Mexico):
H.R. 3501. A bill to promote and appropriately recognize
the role of volunteers and partnership organizations in the
stewardship of the resources and values of Federal lands
administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico:
H.R. 3502. A bill to enhance the ability of the National
Laboratories to meet Department of Energy missions, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Science, and in addition
to the Committee on Armed 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 Ms. WATERS:
H.R. 3503. A bill to provide for basic low-cost banking
accounts, to eliminate certain automated teller machine
surcharges, and to reauthorize a bank fee survey conducted by
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services.
By Ms. WATERS (for herself, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Markey, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Payne, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Meeks of New York, and Mrs. Jones of
Ohio):
H.R. 3504. A bill to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of
1956, the Revised Statutes of the United States, the
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act with regard to community reinvestment, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services.
By Mr. WATKINS:
H.R. 3505. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for a medical research tax credit; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WELDON of Florida:
H.R. 3506. A bill to amend the Service Contract Act of 1965
to provide for the responsibility in certain cases of a
parent corporation of a Federal contractor to provide health
care benefits to retired employees of the contractor if the
contractor fails to provide such benefits; to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. WISE (for himself, Mr. Rahall, and Mr.
Mollohan):
H.R. 3507. A bill to establish a program of supplemental
unemployment benefits for unemployed coal miners who have
exhausted their rights to regular unemployment benefits, and
whose separation from employment is due to environmental laws
or court orders directly related to the mining of coal; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WU (for himself, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and Mr.
Stark):
H.R. 3508. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide status in each of fiscal years 2000 through
2002 for 65,000 H-1B nonimmigrants who have a master's or Ph.
D. degree and meet the requirements for such status and whose
employers make scholarhip payments to institutions of higher
education for undergraduate and postgraduate education; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. YOUNG of Florida:
H.J. Res. 84. A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
By Mr. ARMEY:
H.J. Res. 85. A joint resolution appointing the day for the
convening of the second session of the One Hundred Sixth
Congress; considered and agreed to.
H. Con. Res. 234. Concurrent resolution tabling the bill
(H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. ARMEY:
H. Con. Res. 235. Concurrent resolution providing for the
sine die adjournment of the first session of the One Hundred
Sixth Congress; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ROGERS:
H. Con. Res. 236. Concurrent resolution correcting the
enrollment of H.R. 1180; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. George MILLER of California (for himself, Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Vento, Mr.
Pastor, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Eshoo, and Ms.
Waters):
H. Con. Res. 237. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that a portion of the budget surplus
should be used to fulfill moral and legal responsibilities of
the United States by ensuring proper payment and management
of all federally held tribal trust fund accounts and
individual Indian money accounts; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Ms. PELOSI (for herself, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Porter,
Mr. Lantos, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Meehan,
Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Holt, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Eshoo, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Engel, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Stark, Mr. Moakley, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Maloney of
Connecticut, Mr. Kind, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
LaFalce, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Ms.
Slaughter, Ms. Waters, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Berman, Mr. Cummings, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Sanders, and
Mr. Olver):
H. Con. Res. 238. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress regarding a peaceful resolution of the
conflict in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. FROST:
H. Res. 391. A resolution designating minority membership
on certain standing committees of the House; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. WELLER:
H. Res. 392. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding National Pearl Harbor
Remembrance Day; to the Committee on Government Reform.
H. Res. 393. A resolution returning to the Senate the bill
S. 4; considered and agreed to.
H. Res. 394. A resolution returning to the Senate the bill
S. 1232; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ARMEY:
H. Res. 395. A resolution providing for a committee of two
Members to be appointed by the House to inform the President;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr.
Bass, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr.
Condit, Mr. Luther, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Ms.
Dunn, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Regula, Mr.
Gilchrest, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr.
Goode, Mr. Thune, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mrs. Myrick,
Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Baker, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Bachus, Mr. Castle, Mr. Royce, Mr. Hall of Texas,
Mr. Wamp, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. LaFalce, Mrs. Roukema, Mr.
Weldon of Florida, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Reynolds, Ms.
Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Everett, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Stump, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bilbray, Mr.
Callahan, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Kolbe, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dooley of
California, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Farr of
California, Mr. Herger, Mr. Horn, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Kuykendall, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Ose, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rogan, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson of California,
Mr. Hefley, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Tancredo,
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Shays, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart,
Mr. Foley, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Mica, Mr.
Miller of Florida, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Shaw, Mr.
Barr of Georgia, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Collins, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Linder, Mr.
Norwood, Mr. Abercrombie, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Crane,
Mr. Hyde, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Porter, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Weller, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Buyer, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Souder, Mr.
Latham, Mr. Leach, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moran of Kansas,
Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mrs.
Northup, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Tauzin, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich, Mrs. Morella, Mr.
Camp, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Stupak, Mr.
Upton, Mr. Minge, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr.
Ramstad, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Danner, Mrs. Emerson, Mr.
Hulshof, Mr. Armey, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Talent, Mr.
Pickering, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Gibbons, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Skeen, Mrs.
Wilson, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Gilman, Mr.
[[Page 30799]]
Houghton, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Lazio, Mr.
McHugh, Mr. Owens, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
Ballenger, Mr. Coble, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Burr of North
Carolina, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Gillmor, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Ney, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Portman, Mr.
Traficant, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Largent, Mr. Lucas of
Oklahoma, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Walden of Oregon, Mr. English, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Gekas,
Mr. Goodling, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Peterson of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Toomey,
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Sanford, Mr. Spence, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Archer, Mr.
Bonilla, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Combest, Ms.
Granger, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sandlin, Mr.
Smith of Texas, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Thornberry, Mr.
DeLay, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Davis
of Virginia, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Sisisky,
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Smith of Washington,
Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Goss, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Watkins, Mr.
Packard, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Pease, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Hall of Ohio, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Riley, Mr. Matsui, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Ryun of Kansas,
Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Tanner,
Mr. Shows, Mr. Ford, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Cannon):
H. Res. 396. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that a biennial budget process should be
enacted in the second session of the 106th Congress; to the
Committee on the Budget.
By Mr. GEJDENSON (for himself, Mr. Bateman, Ms.
DeLauro, Mr. Goode, Mr. Goodlatte, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, Mr. Larson, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut,
and Mr. Shays):
H. Res. 397. A resolution commending the submarine force of
the United States Navy on the 100th anniversary of the force;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself and Mr. Bonior):
H. Res. 398. A resolution calling upon the President to
provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign
Service officers, United States Department of State
officials, and any other executive branch employee involved
in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic
cleansing, and genocide, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. TANCREDO (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. McIntosh,
Mr. Graham, Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
McInnis, Mr. Largent, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mr.
Doolittle):
H. Res. 399. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to violence within our
schools and the initiatives within States and localities to
address this epidemic; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico:
H. Res. 400. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding Earth Day; to the Committee on
Commerce.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
285. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 68 to
memorialize the Congress of the United States to end tobacco
subsidies and to redirect this support to food-processing
agricultural activities; to the Committee on Agriculture.
286. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Jersey, relative to Senate Resolution No. 113 memorializing
the Congress of the United States to oppose the proposed
transfer of the United States Navy ships and sailors from the
Earle Naval Weapons Station, located in Monmouth County, New
Jersey, to naval stations at Norfolk, Virginia and Mayport,
Florida and requests the postponement of any final transfer
decision so that the feasibility and practicality of the
transfer can be properly studied; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
287. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Jersey, relative to Senate Resolution No. 97 memorializing
the Congress of the United States and the President to
provide federal assistance to cover costs incurred by the
State in providing health care at New Jersey hospitals to the
Kosovo refugees; to the Committee on Commerce.
288. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relative to a resolution
memorializing the President and the Congress to act boldly to
secure that East Timor triumphantly transitions to
independence by seeking the prompt ratification by the
Indonesian National Assembly of the East Timorese's
Referendum Vote, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
International Relations.
289. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Jersey, relative to Senate Resolution No. 63 memorializing
the Congress of the United States, the President of the
United States, and the Secretary of the Interior to take
whatever action is necessary to establish the Sandy Hook bay
and peninsula, as a National Park Service entity separate and
distinct from the Gateway National Recreation Area for
administrative and funding purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
290. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Jersey, relative to Senate Resolution No. 79 memorializing
the Federal Government to continue its financial support for
the Port Newark-Elizabeth dredging project; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
291. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Jersey, relative to Senate Resolution No. 1 memorializing the
President and the Congress of the United States, and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to take all available
steps to expeditiously provide relief to New Jersey's flood
victims and not to deduct State monies provided for flood
relief from the calculation of federal monies allocated to
New Jersey for its recovery from the devastating effects of
Hurricane Floyd and its aftermath; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, private bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. BONIOR:
H.R. 3509. A bill for the relief of Elizabeth McKenney
Padgett; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. LOWEY:
H.R. 3510. A bill to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to convey the National Defense Reserve Fleet
vessel S.S. GUAM to American Trade Fair Ship, Inc.; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 72: Mr. Fossella and Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 73: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 133: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 148: Mr. Mascara.
H.R. 205: Mr. Wise.
H.R. 303: Mr. Cramer.
H.R. 332: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 353: Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 355: Mr. Wise.
H.R. 357: Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Boswell.
H.R. 372: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 380: Mrs. Clayton and Ms. McCarthy of Missouri.
H.R. 407: Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 443: Mr. Becerra, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Lazio, Mr.
Weygand, Mr. Klink, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Thompson of California, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, and Mr. Greenwood.
H.R. 444: Mr. Latourette and Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 475: Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Frost.
H.R. 531: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 534: Mr. Oxley, Mr. Allen, Mr. LaHood, and Mrs.
Wilson.
H.R. 648: Mr. Wise.
H.R. 670: Mr. Markey, Mr. Cox, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Gephardt,
Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Dixon, Mr.
Condit, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Hastings
of Florida, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Minge, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr.
Callahan, and Mr. Barr of Georgia.
H.R. 701: Mr. Hansen, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, and Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 721: Mr. Everett and Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 732: Mr. Camp.
H.R. 742: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 762: Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. John, Mr.
Thompson of California, Mr. Dickey, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Ewing.
H.R. 797: Mr. Berry.
H.R. 815: Mr. Fletcher.
H.R. 827: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 846: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Owens, and Mr.
Wu.
H.R. 847: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 852: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. John, and Mr. Barrett
of Nebraska.
H.R. 864: Mr. Cannon.
H.R. 903: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 904: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 937: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 941: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 957: Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 982: Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 997: Ms. DeGette and Ms. Rivers.
H.R. 1044: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 1060: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 1071: Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Wise.
H.R. 1079: Mr. Dicks, Mr. Bonior, and Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 1095: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1102: Mr. McInnis.
[[Page 30800]]
H.R. 1115: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 1129: Ms. Stabenow.
H.R. 1142: Mr. Watkins.
H.R. 1187: Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 1195: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1217: Mr. Holden, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Baker, and Mr.
Gallegly.
H.R. 1228: Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Horn.
H.R. 1274: Mrs. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 1276: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 1291: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 1300: Ms. Lee and Mr. Packard.
H.R. 1310: Mr. Engel and Mr. Burr of North Carolina.
H.R. 1311: Mr. Burr of North Carolina.
H.R. 1387: Mr. Wise.
H.R. 1396: Mr. Wynn and Ms. Carson.
H.R. 1413: Mr. Wise.
H.R. 1422: Mr. Murtha, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Deutsch, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Holt.
H.R. 1445: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1452: Mrs. Jones of Ohio and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1472: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 1494: Mr. Packard.
H.R. 1495: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1545: Ms. Stabenow.
H.R. 1591: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 1592: Mr. McCollum.
H.R. 1593: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 1625: Mr. Romero-Barcelo and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 1649: Mr. Cook.
H.R. 1686: Mr. Collins and Mr. DeLay.
H.R. 1708: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 1731: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 1748: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 1775: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 1776: Mr. Ryun of Kansas.
H.R. 1816: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1824: Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Boehner.
H.R. 1850: Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 1885: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 1926: Mr. Wise.
H.R. 1939: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 1943: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 1967: Mr. Stickland.
H.R. 1990: Mr. Moran of Kansas and Mr. Holden.
H.R. 1997: Mr. Dixon.
H.R. 2000: Mr. John.
H.R. 2004: Mr. Walsh.
H.R. 2053: Mr. Dixon and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 2057: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 2066: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 2106: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 2120: Ms. Roybal-Allard and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 2121: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 2137: Mr. McCollum.
H.R. 2221: Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 2233: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 2244: Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma.
H.R. 2259: Mrs. Morella.
H.R. 2282: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. Walden of
Oregon.
H.R. 2340: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Etheridge, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island, Ms. McKinney, and Mr. Watkins.
H.R. 2372: Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Sweeney, Mrs.
Myrick, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 2420: Mr. Collins, Mr. Sherwood, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. Condit, Mr. Bass, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 2494: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 2505: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2511: Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Packard, and Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 2534: Mr. Martinez, Mr. Bonior, and Mr. Sawyer.
H.R. 2539: Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Hunter Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Ose, Mr. Pombo, Mr.
Thomas, Mr. Herger, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Lewis of
California.
H.R. 2544: Mr. Wamp and Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma.
H.R. 2551: Mr. Rahall, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Mascara,
Mr. Lantos, Mr. Ford, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Borski, Mr. Clement,
and Mr. Blagojevich.
H.R. 2554: Mrs. LoBiondo, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Mrs.
Roukema.
H.R. 2572: Mr. Holden and Mr. Davis of Florida.
H.R. 2576: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 2620: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 2631: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 2635: Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Deutsch, Mr.
Stearns, Ms. Eshoo, and Mrs. Fowler.
H.R. 2698: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 2707: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2718: Mr. Rush, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Hall of Texas.
H.R. 2720: Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Petri, Mr. Collins, Mr. Coble, Mr. Moakley, and
Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 2722: Ms. Berkley, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Oberstar,
and Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 2726: Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 2733: Mr. Forst, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr.
Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 2763: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2764: Mr. Martinez and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 2798: Mr. Rogan.
H.R. 2802: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 2829: Mr. Wise, Mr. Minge, and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 2830: Mr. Boswell, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi, Mr. Minge, and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 2870: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Fossella.
H.R. 2900: Mr. Berman and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 2901: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 2902: Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sawyer,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Delahunt, Mrs. Meek of Florida,
Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Klink,
Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Traficant.
H.R. 2906: Mr. Goodling and Mr. Canady of Florida.
H.R. 2928: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Istook, Mr. Hoekstra, and
Mr. Coburn.
H.R. 2933: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Sawyer, and
Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2934: Mr. Martinez, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Udall of New
Mexico.
H.R. 2945: Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr.
Gibbons, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. LaHood, Mr.
Oberstar, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Rahall, Mr.
George Miller of California, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Lampson, Mr.
Dixon, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mrs. Capps,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Jenkins, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 2953: Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 2866: Mr. Baldacci, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. John, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. LaHood, Ms. Lee, Mr. Metcalf, Mr.
Tancredo, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr.
Coyne.
H.R. 2985: Mr. Ose.
H.R. 2991: Mr. Pombo, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Ms.
Granger, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
McCrery, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Talent.
H.R. 2992: Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Skeen, Mr.
Largent, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Dreier.
H.R. 3003: Mr. Baird and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 3008: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Evans, Mr. Rush, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Fattah, and Mrs.
Christensen.
H.R. 3031: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3059: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 3071: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 3082: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 3083: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 3088: Mr. Petri, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 3091: Mr. Rush, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Etheridge, Ms.
Stabenow, Mrs. Thurman, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrett of
Wisconsin, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Millender-McDonald,
Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Boehlert, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut,
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mrs.
Tauscher, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 3100: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 3107: Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 3115: Mr. Bereuter and Mr. McCrery.
H.R. 3116: Mr. English and Mr. Maloney of Connecticut.
H.R. 3140: Mr. Olver, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Shays, Mr.
Rush, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Goolding.
H.R. 3144: Mr. Spratt, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Rush, and Mr.
Berry.
H.R. 3148: Mr. Evans.
H.R. 3150: Mrs. Morella.
H.R. 3160: Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 3173: Mr. Talent, Mr. Berry, and Mr. Riley.
H.R. 3180: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 3192: Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 3193: Mr. Klink, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Peterson
of Minnesota, Mr. Combest, and Mrs. Kelly.
H.R. 3201: Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 3212: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 3213: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 3218: Mr. Gilchrest, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. Burr of
North Carolina.
H.R. 3222: Mrs. Northup.
H.R. 3224: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 3232: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 3233: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 3235: Mr. Stupak and Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 3240: Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 3242: Ms. Dunn, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
Hilliard, Mr. Boswell, and Mrs. Kelly.
H.R. 3248: Mrs. Myrick and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 3252: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 3262: Mr. Isakson.
H.R. 3270: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mrs. Fowler, Mrs.
Myrick, and Mr. Foley.
H.R. 3275: Mr. Conyers, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Kucinich, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Capuano,
Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Larson, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Wu, Mr.
Forbes, and Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 3293: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. English, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Scarborough, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Smith of
Texas.
H.R. 3301: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 3308: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Saxton, Mr.
Boehner, Mr. Largent, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Ehrlich, and
Mr. McKeon.
[[Page 30801]]
H.R. 3311: Mr. McIntosh.
H.R. 3319: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 3320: Mr. Scott, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Murtha, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Berman, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 3330: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 3331: Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 3367: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 3371: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 3375: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Holt, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Walsh,
Mr. Weiner, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Holden, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr.
Nadler.
H.R. 3377: Ms. Rivers and Mrs. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 3379: Mr. Bryant.
H.R. 3387: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Boucher, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Deutsch, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Larson, Ms. Lee, Mr. Menendez,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Sawyer,
and Mr. Watt of North Carolina.
H.R. 3397: Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 3405: Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Forbes,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, and
Mrs. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 3408: Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Ney, and Mr. McCollum.
H.R. 3410: Ms. Granger.
H.R. 3439: Mr. Fossella.
H.J. Res. 53: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.J. Res. 55: Mr. Gallegly.
H.J. Res. 77: Mr. Graham, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Salmon, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Crane, Ms. Danner, and
Mr. Hunter.
H. Con. Res. 23: Mr. Calvert.
H. Con. Res. 67: Mr. Luther and Mr. Olver.
H. Con. Res. 79: Mr. Rangel.
H. Con. Res. 115: Mrs. Christensen.
H. Con. Res. 123: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin,
Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.
H. Con. Res. 177: Mr. Lantos and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi.
H. Con. Res. 186: Mr. Duncan, Mr. Everett, and Mr. Metcalf.
H. Con. Res. 218: Mr. Pallone, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Goodlatte,
Mr. Coyne, and Mr. Rush.
H. Con. Res. 225: Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr.
McGovern.
H. Con. Res. 228: Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Snyder, and Mr. Ortiz.
H. Con. Res. 231: Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ney, Mr. Wamp, and Mr.
Doolittle.
H. Res. 37: Mr. Green of Texas and Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 107: Mr. Sabo.
H. Res. 144: Ms. Roybal-Allard and Mr. Turner.
H. Res. 238: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. Walden of
Oregon.
H. Res. 309: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H. Res. 346: Ms. Waters, Mr. Shows, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Meeks
of New York, Mr. Payne, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Owens, Ms.
Kilpartick, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Lampson, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Watt of North Carolina,
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi.
H. Res. 347: Mr. English.
H. Res. 357: Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Delahunt, Mrs.
Clayton, and Mr. Berman.
H. Res. 369: Mr. Rush.
H. Res. 289: Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Kucinich.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 329: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 1598: Mr. Cook.
H.R. 2420: Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 2699: Mr. Chambliss.
H.R. 3308: Mr. Phelps.
H. Con. Res. 173: Mrs. Tauscher.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:
70. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Town Board of
Southampton, relative to Resolution No. 1199 petitioning the
Federal Government to permit the Suffolk County Department of
Health to have access to and participate in monitoring health
related activity at the Plum Island Disease Center; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
71. Also, a petition of the Southern Governors'
Association, relative to a resolution petitioning support for
funding efforts for the National Guard Youth Challenge
Program; to the Committee on Armed Services.
72. Also, a petition of the Southern Governors'
Association, relative to a resolution petitioning support for
the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
73. Also, a petition of the Southern Governors'
Association, relative to a resolution petitioning the
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act; to the
Committee on Resources.
74. Also, a petition of the Southern Governors'
Association, relative to a resolution petitioning support for
Outer Continental Shelf Coastal Impact Assistance; to the
Committee on Resources.
75. Also, a petition of the Southern Governors'
Association, relative to a resolution petitioning support for
the reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program; to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
76. Also, a petition of the Southern Governors'
Association, relative to a resolution petitioning for the
passage of ``Fast-Track'' authority for the President to
Negotiate International Trade Agreements; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
77. Also, a petition of the Village of East Hazel Crest,
relative to Resolution 99-4 petitioning Congressional
Representatives to support the Firefighter Investment and
Response Enhancement Act; jointly to the Committees on
Science and Transportation and Infrastructure.
[[Page 30802]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
November 18, 1999
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2420
______
HON. RICHARD H. BAKER
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that America's schools,
libraries, and rural clinics are allowed to capitalize on the newest
computer and data communications technology.
In 1996, Congress and the Clinton Administration joined together to
establish a program to extend the Internet to all our schools. That
effort is underway--at a cost of about $2.45 billion a year,
incidentally. But in this field, just like everywhere else, it is the
weakest link in the chain that matters. And, the ``weak link'' here is
the data communications network--or, more accurately, the lack of such
a network.
Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to expand these networks by harnessing
the power of competition, economic freedom, and individual choice, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seems to be relying on
yesterday's tools--heavy handed and restrictive regulation.
That's not my estimate, it's the considered judgment of two of this
country's experts--Congressman John Dingell and his colleague, the
Chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, Congressman
Tauzin.
Their appraisal of the situation is that we need to modernize and
reform FCC regulation--because, otherwise, the data links which this
country needs, are just not going to be available. That is the
philosophy reflected in their bill, H.R. 2420. And, it is a pro-growth,
pro-progress view which I want to embrace.
Mr. Speaker, if we can accomplish reform in this field, all of the
experts are predicting that there can be a rapid expansion of our
communications networks. That expansion, in turn, will help connect our
schools, libraries, and clinics faster. And that will yield substantial
public policy dividends.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE TEXAS REALTOR OF THE YEAR
______
HON. RALPH M. HALL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my
congratulations to Barbara Russell of Denton, Texas, who this year was
named the 1998 Realtor of the Year by the Texas Association of
Realtors.
Barbara has served on the Texas Association of Realtors Board of
Directors and is a former regional vice president and chairman of the
legislative and economic development committees. She also served two
three-year terms on the National Association of Realtors Board of
Directors.
In Denton, Barbara has earned many honors, including the Greater
Denton/Wise County Association of Realtors President's Award, Women's
Council of Realtors Gold Rule Award, Realtor of the Year and Associate
of the Year. In addition, she is active in various civic and charitable
organizations, including serving as former chairman of the board of the
Denton Chamber of Commerce and serving four years on the Denton
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Barbara has nearly 30 years of experience in the real estate
business, and this recent award is a testament to her professional
accomplishments and her hard work. She is married to Benny Russell, and
they have two daughters and four grandchildren.
And Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I also did not pay tribute to
the late Mary Claude Gay, a prominent realtor in Denton and associate
of Barbara's. Mary Claude's contributions to her profession also have
been significant, and she, too, was very influential in Denton's
community life.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Barbara Russell and Mary
Claude Gay for their accomplishments in their profession and for their
contributions to their community. The Texas Association of Realtors
could not have selected a more giving and devoted Realtor of the Year.
Barbara Russell is a class act and is the epitomy of the type of
leadership and professionalism that bring respect and admiration for
her profession.
As we adjourn today, and as we leave the floor of the House of
Representatives for the last time this century, let us do so in respect
and appreciation for the ``Texas Realtor of the Year''--Barbara
Russell.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2116, VETERANS MILLENNIUM HEALTH CARE AND
BENEFITS ACT
______
speech of
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
2116. This bill makes a number of important changes to veteran's health
care programs.
H.R. 2116--Veterans Millennium Health Care Act makes comprehensive
reforms to improve access to, as well as the timeliness and quality of
the Veterans Administration health care system. Reforms to improve
veterans' access to care include requiring the VA to increase home and
community based options for veterans needing extended care; requiring
the VA to provide nursing home care to certain veterans through 2003;
establishing means to enhance revenues for the VA; lifting the six-
month limit on VA adult day health care; authorizing the VA to enhance
mental health care services; and establishing a pilot program to make
contract arrangements for assisted living services.
Although the calendar year indicates that we honor these men and
women on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, I believe that we should pause
everyday to thank them for their sacrifice. The collective experience
of our 25 million living veterans encompasses the turbulence and
progress America has experienced throughout the twentieth century. This
nation's veterans have written much of the history of the last hundred
years. They have served this nation without reservation or hesitation
during its darker moments.
Their unwavering devotion to duty and country has brought this nation
through two World Wars and numerous costly struggles against
aggression. From World War I to the Gulf War, America's veterans have
been leading this nation against those who have threatened the values
and interests of our nation.
Only today are the accomplishments and sacrifices of our veterans
being fully appreciated by historians and the public. These genuine
heroes have often been ignored and denied their proper place in
America's melting pot. We need to remember that America owes these men
and women the best it can offer because they have given us the best
they could when America was in need.
Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have The Houston Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center located in my congressional district.
Having just celebrated fifty years of service to the veterans in the
Houston community. Some 1,646,700 veterans live in the State of Texas
alone. The House VA Medical Center expects to receive and serve over
50,000 veterans in this year alone. I expect this measure to improve
the quality of life for all our veterans who so proudly served our
nation.
Mr. Speaker this bill is important not only because it provides for
the needs of our veterans today but because it sends an important
signal to the men and women serving our nation in places like Bosnia,
Kosovo, Germany, Korea, Japan and other far off places around the
world. That message is simple, that when you serve our nation we will
answer the plea of President Lincoln ``to care for him who shall have
borne the battle.''
I urge my colleague to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2116 and care for the men
and women who have borne the battle.
[[Page 30803]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN DORREN-BACHER--A GREAT AMERICAN
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to
take this moment to recognize the remarkable life and significant
achievements of a leading civic servant, John Dorrenbacher. Tragically,
John died in his home Monday, November 8, 1999. While family, friends
and colleagues remember the truly exceptional life of John, I, too,
would like to pay tribute to this remarkable man.
For the last 18 years, John ran the computers and books for the
Colorado Republican Party. In his time at the party, he was a pioneer
of the mailing list. In the earliest days of computers, he mastered
integrating information to create better mailing lists. With this
advancement, those who John served were able to do targeted mailings,
therefore better contacting constituents and ultimately, better serving
the people. There may not be a Colorado Republican in legislative or
statewide office today who wasn't helped by a mailing list generated by
John. Amazingly, John managed to serve five very different Republican
chairman. In addition, he once served as Boulder County GOP chairman.
Although his professional accomplishments will long be remembered and
admired, most who knew him well will remember John Dorrenbacher, above
all else, as someone who loved his country and had a deep faith in our
democracy. It is clear that the multitude of those who, like me, have
come to know John as a friend will be worse off in his absence.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, in spite of this profound
loss, the family and friends of John Dorrenbacher can take solace in
the knowledge that each is a better person for having known him.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MRS. DAISY BATES
______
HON. EARL F. HILLIARD
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to with a great sense of
twoness--one as an African American and another as an American to honor
death of my mentor and friend, Mrs. Daisy Bates. Her death last Friday
comes prematurely as we honor Congressional Gold Medals to the men and
women, known as the Little Rock Nine, that she shepherded into Central
High School against the will of a racist Governor and white neighbors.
She worked for many years in the NAACP and with the Democratic National
Committee to educate and register voters. In 1987, the City of Little
Rock paid tribute to her work by naming an elementary school in her
honor. Her life is a celebration of progress and shows us how man in
his quest for justice, is determined and cannot be deterred. Her
sacrifices to tear down the walls of prejudice and injustice through
education and voter registration will go ahead, whether we accept it or
not. Daisy Bates' life, along with the life of other Civil Rights
Movement heroes, showcases how overcoming racism in this country has
become one of the greatest adventures of all time. But, it is an
adventure that must be overcome.
Today as I lift up Daisy Bates, I acknowledge that there is new
knowledge to be gained, new rights to be won for the progress of not
just African Americans, but all Americans. Whether this country likes
it or not, there will come a day when the position of preeminence for
the United States will not rest on the human rights it has obtained for
others across the world, but the rights and dignity she has bestowed
upon her own citizens.
Our forefathers made certain that this country would ride the first
waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern
invention, the first waves of nuclear power, and the first waves of
equality under the law. Unfortunately, we have not yet ridden the wave
for equal justice and must struggle to once again be a part of it and
lead it. The eyes of the world now look unto us for the banner of
freedom and peace.
So, today, as I honor my mentor for her work and undying courage, I
challenge my brothers and sisters across the world to begin
establishing their lives, like Daisy Bates as instruments of knowledge
and understanding.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE SOKOL GREATER CLEVELAND'S NEW ATHLETIC FACILITY
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the grand opening
of the Czech Cultural Center of Sokol Greater Cleveland's new athletic,
a state-of-the-art expansion to the historic Bohemian National Hall.
After considerable planning and construction, the new facility
opening this month will provide a variety of health, fitness, leisure,
and cultural activities to everyone in the community. In the tradition
of the American Sokol Organization, the Czech Cultural Center of Sokol
Greater Cleveland's new athletic facility will provide Cleveland
citizens with the opportunity to strengthen both their physical and
mental character allowing them to enhance their celebration of life and
vitality. With membership open to the community, this new facility is
sure to provide Cleveland citizens with an opportunity to cultivate a
harmonious and total person.
The Czech Cultural Center of Sokol Greater Cleveland's new athletic
facility promises to be a popular place for fitness enthusiasts who
will enjoy the volleyball, gymnasium, cardio-conditioning area and
strength training center. Additionally, the facility will serve as a
center for community development where both young and older generations
can display their abilities and knowledge in dance and gymnastic
performances. In short, the health and quality of life for everyone in
Cleveland will improve greatly with the opening of this new facility.
My fellow colleagues, please join me in recognizing dedication of the
Czech Cultural Center of Sokol Greater Cleveland for building this new
athletic facility for the benefit of the Cleveland community.
____________________
EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERN REGARDING ARMED CONFLICT IN NORTH CAUCASUS
REGION OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION
______
speech of
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con.
Res. 206. This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress urging
all parties involved in the conflict, to cease the indiscriminate use
of force against civilian population in Chechnya. In addition this
measure calls on all sides in this conflict to enter into a
constructive dialogue under the auspicious of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. This group was successful in
brokering a settlement to end the 1994-1996 war.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this region as once before experienced the horrors
of war. As the 1994-1996 Russo-Chechen war resulted in the massive use
of force against civilians, causing immense human casualties, human
rights violations, large-scale displacement of individuals, and the
destruction of property. In recent months this conflict has been
renewed as forces in Chechnya have mounted armed incursions into the
Russian Federation of Dagestan and have committed bombing in Moscow.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress must insist that all parties in this
conflict resolve this situation peacefully, with complete respect to
the human rights of all the citizens of the Russian Federation. We must
also insist that all parties commit themselves to allowing humanitarian
assistance to the victims caught in the middle of this conflict.
I urge my colleagues to lend their support and the considerable
weight of this body on all sides involved in this conflict.
____________________
HONORING DON SCOGGINS
______
HON. RALPH M. HALL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in
recognition of Don W. Scoggins, president of the Texas Eastman Division
of Eastman Chemical Company in Longview, Texas, who is retiring this
year after 37 years of service at Texas Eastman.
Mr. Scoggins joined Texas Eastman in 1962 as a Mechanical Engineer in
the Plastics Laboratory. He has served as a supervisor, assistant
supervisor, assistant to the general superintendent, senior mechanical
engineer, and assistant superintendent of various divisions at Texas
Eastman. He also served Eastman Chemical in Kingsport, Tennessee, in a
variety of capacities before returning to Texas Eastman as director of
Administration. He was
[[Page 30804]]
named manager of Operations in 1989, became a vice president in 1990
and was named president in 1998.
Mr. Scoggins received a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering
from the University of Texas and is a Registered Professional Engineer
in Texas. He serves on the Texas Chemical Council's Board of Directors
and on the Board of Trustees at Good Shepherd Medical Center.
Texas Eastman's influence on economic development and community
causes in Longview has been enormous, and the employees and
administrators at Texas Eastman--like Don Scoggins--have played a
significant role in those accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
recognize Don Scoggins for his contributions to Texas Eastman Division
and to his community--and to wish him well in his retirement.
I am especially privileged in that Don's mother and father live in my
hometown of Rockwall. They are, like Don, strong and loved members of
the First United Methodist Church. They teach, direct, entertain, and
lead us in both the Sunday School class and in the overall direction of
our religious activities.
As we adjourn today--the last day of this century that the United
States House of Representatives is in session--let us adjourn on this
signal day in respect and admiration for Don Scoggins.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF TWO BILLS TO REDUCE TAXES ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
______
HON. JERROLD NADLER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Representative
Nita Lowey to announce the introduction of two bills to reduce taxes on
Social Security benefits. The first bill would repeal the 1993 tax
increase on Social Security benefits. I have always opposed this
provision, and I believe that it is now time to repeal this tax on our
Nation's seniors.
The 1993 economic plan imposed additional taxation on the benefits of
single social security recipients with incomes over $34,000, and on
married recipients with joint incomes over $44,000 by including, in
each case, 85 percent of Social Security benefits in taxable income. At
the time, proponents of the tax increase said it was necessary to
reduce to deficit. Remember the atrocious national debt had risen from
$800 billion in 1981 to more than $4 trillion in 1993. The annual
deficit, which was almost $300 billion a year in 1992, was projected to
increase to $500 billion a year later in the decade. We passed a tough
economic plan, the economy improved, and the deficit was eliminated.
I believed it was unfair to tax seniors on their social security
benefits to reduce the deficit, and, therefore, I joined with
Representative Nita Lowey in offering a bill which would have repealed
the provision immediately and taken other steps to reduce the deficit.
We demonstrated that you could still reduce the deficit without
increasing taxes on social security benefits. Now that 6 years have
passed and the deficit has been transformed into a surplus, it is more
important than ever that we abolish this unnecessary tax on seniors.
So, again, I am joining with Representative Nita Lowey to abolish this
unfair tax on social security benefits. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill and work toward its swift passage.
Mr. Speaker, if we are unable to implement this bill quickly, then
the very least we should do is adjust the 1993 income threshold to take
into account the rise in the cost of living. That is why I am also
announcing the introduction of another tax relief bill for our seniors,
which should be implemented immediately. Again, I am proud to work with
Representative Nita Lowey to advance this effort.
This bill would ensure that we do not inadvertently tax more and more
seniors with relatively less income every year. Under current law, the
income levels that were set in 1993 were not adjusted for cost of
living increases. As a result, more and more people are having their
social security benefits taxes. This is unfair and unnecessary. So,
this second bill would require the 1993 level to be adjusted on an
annual basis to take account for the rise in the cost of living. I am
hopeful that we can build strong bipartisan support for this
legislation and work together to ease the tax burden on our Nation's
seniors. I urge all of my colleagues to support these two tax cut
measures.
____________________
THE TRAGEDY OF THE S.S. ``LEOPOLDVILLE''
______
HON. RONNIE SHOWS
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take a minute to tell
my colleagues and the American People about a pitch-black night on
Christmas Eve in 1944 during one of the darkest hours of World War II.
A Belgian troop transport, the S.S. Leopoldville, was sunk by a German
U-Boat, taking the lives of 802 American soldiers. The Leopoldville was
part of a crossing of the English Channel for the Battle of the Bulge.
2,235 American Soldiers were being carried to this historic battle.
The Leopoldville was torpedoed and sunk 5\1/2\ miles from Cherbourg,
France. The result was a horrific loss of lives--almost one-third of
the 66th Infantry Division was killed. 493 bodies were never recovered
from the cold and murky waters of the English Channel. Most of the
soldiers who died were young Americans, from 18 to 20 years old, barely
out of High School. These young men came from 46 out of the 48 states
that were part of the Union at that time.
Sadly, this tragic story has been a mere footnote in the history
books of World War II. Their efforts to preserve and sustain Democracy
must be remembered. Their lives must not be vainly forgotten.
Today, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in
remembering and honoring those who gave their lives that we might be
free today. The young men aboard the S.S. Leopoldville, those who
perished and those who survived, were part of an American force that
advanced Democracy and forever changed the world. They went because
their country called. They sacrificed because their way of life was
threatened. They rose to incredible heights of courage because their
faith and resolve mandated no less.
My friend and fellow-Mississippian, Sid Spiro, was on the S.S.
Leopoldville. Mr. Spiro, after the direct torpedo hit, lowered himself
in the freezing water by a rope. And for three hours he floated and
waited for help. The water was freezing and he nearly died. He was 19
years old then. Today, he and other survivors often gather to remember
and commemorate their fellow Americans who died. I am in awe of these
men. And I want Sid and all of them to know of my admiration and
respect.
These young men, forever part of our national memory, must be
honored. We must never forget. I salute the survivors of the S.S.
Leopoldville and I honor the memory of those who gave their lives.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF EXPEDITED RESCISSION LEGISLATION
______
HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that
will give the President an important tool to control spending by
identifying low priority and wasteful spending that can be eliminated.
The legislation I am introducing today, known as modified line item
veto or expedited rescission legislation, would strengthen the ability
of Presidents to identify and eliminate low-priority budget items with
the support of a majority in Congress.
Under this legislation the President would be able to single out
individual items in tax or spending legislation and send a rescission
package to Congress. The President would have the option of earmarking
savings from proposed rescissions to deficit reduction by proposing
that the discretionary spending caps be reduced by the amount of the
rescissions. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the
package under an expedited procedure. Members could offer motions to
remove individual items from the package by majority vote if their
motion was supported by fifty members. The spending items would be
eliminated or the tax item would be repealed if a majority of Congress
approves the rescission package. If the rescission bill is defeated in
either House the funds for any proposed rescission would be spent or
the tax item would take effect.
This legislation embodies an idea which many Members, both Democrats
and Republicans, have worked on for several years. Dan Quayle first
introduced expedited rescission legislation in 1985. Tom Carper and
Dick Armey did yeomen's work in pushing this legislation for several
years. On the Democratic side, Tim Johnson, Dan Glickman, Tim Penny and
L.F. Payne were particularly effective advocates of this legislation
for years. Numerous Republicans, including Lynn Martin, Bill Frenzel,
Gerald Solomon, Harris Fawell and others
[[Page 30805]]
made meaningful contributions to expedited rescission legislation as it
has developed.
Thanks to the efforts of these and other members, the House
overwhelmingly passed expedited rescission legislation in the 102nd
Congress. In the 103rd Congress, John Spratt and Butler Derrick worked
with me to refine the legislation. This revised legislation was passed
by the House in 1993. In 1994, Representatives John Kasich and Tim
Penny joined the effort and helped pass a strengthened version of this
legislation. Since then, Representatives Bob Wise, Rob Andrews and
others have advocated this approach. Today, I am joined by David Minge,
Rob Andrews, Collin Peterson, Marion Berry, Max Sandlin, Ralph Hall and
Allen Boyd in introducing this legislation.
We have heard a lot of talk about eliminating waste and pork barrel
spending, but little serious action to actually eliminate pork barrel
spending. In fact, the appropriations bills passed by the House
includes hundreds of earmarks for spending items that were not
requested by the administration and have not been subject to hearings
or review. Senator John McCain has identified more than $14 billion of
spending items buried in appropriations bills that have not been
subjected to the proper review. Other private organizations have
identified even more earmarked spending in the appropriations bills
passed by Congress which they believe can be eliminated. Instead of
subjecting these spending items buried in the appropriations bills to
scrutiny, the Majority has proposed an across the board spending that
would cut good programs just as much as we cut low priority and
wasteful programs.
Forcing votes on individual items in tax and spending bills will
bring a little more accountability to the budget process. I hope that
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are serious about
controlling spending and eliminating wasteful spending and special
interest tax breaks that cannot withstand public scrutiny, will join me
in cosponsoring this legislation.
Summary of Expedited Rescission Legislation
The legislation would amend the Budget Control and
Impoundment Act of 1974 to require Congress to consider
Presidential rescissions of appropriations or tax items by a
majority vote.
The President could propose to cut or eliminate individual
spending items in appropriations bills or to repeal targeted
tax breaks (tax breaks which benefit a particular taxpayer or
class of taxpayers, except benefits based on demographic
conditions).
The President would be required to submit proposed
rescissions of tax items within ten days of signing the tax
bill. Proposed rescissions of spending items could be
submitted at any time during the fiscal year.
The President could propose that the discretionary spending
limits be reduced by the amount of the rescissions, but would
not be required to do so.
Within ten legislative days after the President sends a
rescission package to Congress, a vote shall be taken on the
rescission bill in the House. The bill may not be amended on
the floor, except that 50 House members can request a vote on
a motion to strike an individual rescission from the package.
If the President's rescission package is approved by a
simple majority of the House, the bill would be sent to the
Senate for consideration under the same expedited procedure.
Fifteen Senators may request a separate vote on an individual
item.
If a simple majority in either the House or Senate defeats
a rescission proposal, the funds for programs covered by the
proposal would be released for obligation in accordance with
the previously enacted appropriation, or the tax provision
would take effect.
If a bill rescinding spending or eliminating tax benefits
is approved by the House and Senate, it would be sent to the
President for his signature. Upon Presidential signature, the
spending items in the rescission package are reduced or
eliminated, or the tax items in the rescission package are
repealed.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FRANCES L.
MURPHY II
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frances L. Murphy II,
publisher emeritus of the Washington AFRO-American Newspaper, and a
great lady who has had major responsibility for this great asset to the
city of Washington and the communities surrounding it. Her hard-hitting
editorials and well written stories provide the local African American
community with news and information that cannot be obtained elsewhere.
She has trained and nurtured many young journalistic talents, who have
taken what they learned at the AFRO to institutions as diverse as the
NAACP, the Washington Post, and African Americans on Wheels magazine.
Ms. Murphy's grandfather, John H. Murphy, Sr., founded the AFRO in
1892. Her father, Dr. Carl Murphy, was editor and publisher of the
AFRO-American Newspapers from 1918 until his death in 1967. But, Ms.
Murphy did not start at the top. She learned her business inside out,
starting as a library assistant, and moved up the ladder to reporter,
then editor, magazine editor, and managing editor before becoming
publisher.
In addition to her work as publisher of the AFRO, Ms. Murphy has
spent much of her time as an educator. She started in the Baltimore
schools in 1958, where she stayed until 1964, when she took her first
position in higher education at Morgan State College. Until She retired
from teaching in 1991, she held various teaching positions at
University of Maryland Baltimore County, Buffalo State College, and
Howard University. Her students rated her a top professor, and said, as
others have said about her journalism, ``She is tough but fair.''
Ms. Murphy is well known for her contributions to her community,
having served as a member of the National Board of Directors of the
NAACP and of the Board of Trustees of both the State Colleges of
Maryland and the University of the District of Columbia. She is on the
board and serves as treasurer of the African American Civil War
Memorial Freedom Foundation. She also is an active member of St. Luke's
Episcopal Church, where she is a member of the flower guild, a lector,
a member of the Search Committee and president of the Episcopal Church
Women. All this from a woman who has been a distinguished journalist
and publisher and managed, as well, to raise three children, and now to
be grandmother to fourteen grandchildren, and great-grandmother to two.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Murphy and her accomplished family are a
quintessential family of service and a source of great and enduring
pride to the entire Washington region. Like thousands of
Washingtonians, I count Frances Murphy as a friend whom I greatly
admire. I ask my colleagues to join me in a well deserved honor for the
model life and career of Frances L. Murphy II.
____________________
OUTSTANDING VETERANS DAY ESSAYS FROM DISTRICT STUDENTS
______
HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the
attention of my colleagues, seven outstanding Veterans Day essays by
young individuals from the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois. For
my annual Veterans Day Ceremony in Chicago, the following students
wrote about what Veterans Day means to them. I hope you will also enjoy
these essays:
Veterans Day
(By Katie Wiencek, Kinzie Elementary School)
Veterans Day is a very important day. It is the day when we
remember the American soldiers who have lost their lives in
the many wars. More than 58,000 soldiers died during the
Vietnam War. It has been called one of the most painful
periods in our history. But, America still had it good, after
all, we had ceased fighting and were trying to rebuild South
Vietnam by sending money. America has been the ``good guy''
in almost every war. This stereotype goes for not just the
government, but the people and soldiers as well. I think they
have a right to be remembered. It is our debt to them to have
this memorial for four of the many soldiers who fought so
hard for us. They need to be noticed. This memorial is a
``good thing,'' as Martha Stewart would say. I would say, it
is a very good thing.
____
Veterans Day
(By Rich Pala, Byrne Elementary School)
Veterans Day is a day all proud Americans honor the men and
women who served the American Army. Some people fought and
died for what they believed was right. Some went to war and
many died for our country. These are the true heroes of
America, and deserve all the respect of billions of American
people. Without these brave men and women, America would not
be what it is today. We owe everything to these men and
women, because they put the pride and honor in America. They
fought for everything America stands for.
____
Veterans Day
(By Shaun Caulfield, Byrne Elementary School)
Bring to mind images of brave soldiers fighting for our
country in war time, working in peace time, and trying to
keep our
[[Page 30806]]
country free. Great soldiers come in mind: General
Washington, George Patton, Audie Murphy, the less famous but
not less important vet. John Joseph Kunkes, my grandfather,
fought in Korea. He was missing from action from his platoon
for one month. He was on his own staying alive on skills
taught to him by the U.S. Army.
Thinking about my grandfather's adventures makes me
remember every veteran has their tale to tell. It would be to
our best interest to seek out his story and appreciate his
commitments to his country and his branch of service.
To some, Veterans Day is a day off of school or work. But
World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam fighters make me
shiver. They fought in those wars and risked their lives that
makes them so great.
On Veterans Day, remember and pray for courageous vets and
honor them with the respect and dignity they deserve. To all
past, present, and future veterans, remember we are all
behind you.
____
Veterans Day
(By Julian Ollry, Nathan Hale Middle School)
Many brave men and women have given their lives in wartime
for our country. One that was not so far in the past was the
Vietnam War. The veterans of this war must be especially
honored for their valor and loyalty at the most crucial time
in American History.
This war was difficult for Americans because many of them
disagreed with the war. In 1973, the United States government
had agreed to stop fighting in Vietnam. When many soldiers
returned from the hardships during the war, seeing friends or
relatives die in battle, many Americans did not support them
and many soldiers felt very unappreciated. Veterans are now
beginning to be recognized by other foreign war heroes.
Veterans gather at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington, DC to place gifts and stand quiet vigil at the
names of their friends and relatives who fell in the Vietnam
War. Families have lost sons and/or daughters in wars. Their
thoughts and many others are toward peace and the avoidance
of future wars.
Today, let us give thanks to these Vietnam veterans and all
the brave men and women who fought for America. These
soldiers are our heroes. They gave their lives for us and for
the cause of freedom. May each and everyone be honored for
eternity.
____
What Veterans Day Means to Me
(By Amanda Lally, Grade 7, St. Jane de Chantal Elementary School)
Veterans Day is a very important holiday in our country. It
honors all of those who are living and dead--who served with
the US armed forces in times of war. We owe so much to those
brave men and women who fought for our freedom and protected
our country.
I am very proud to have family members who have served for
our country. My great-grandfather fought in World War II. He
was captured by the enemy and became a prisoner of war, but
he survived and came home. My great-uncle fought in the
Korean Conflict. They were both proud to serve our country.
Without all of these brave men and women, where would our
country be? they put their life on the line for all of us. We
should not only honor our veterans on this commemorative day,
but every day, because without our armed forces there would
be no peace or freedom.
To all of the people who have served for our country, you
make me feel proud to be an American.
____
What Veterans Day Means to Me
(By Jennifer Gename, Grade 8, St. Jane de Chantal Elementary School)
In my opinion, I think it is only fair to have a holiday
commemorating the men who risked their lives to uphold the
benefits and principles of our country. They worked hard to
uphold our nation's belief in freedom, and they deserve to
have a day of recognition.
Although Veterans Day is probably not one of the most
publicly mentioned holidays, it has great meaning towards my
family and me. My grandfather served in World War II, and
thankfully survived unharmed. He, and all the other men,
worked day and night in the midst of shootings, killings, and
pain. They didn't know if they would ever get through a day,
let alone survive until the end of the war. If this sort of
endurance doesn't deserve a holiday, then I don't know what
does. These men did so much for our country, so that everyone
would be able to lead happy, safe lives.
So, to me, Veterans Day is a very important holiday,
because it helps people realize what others went through to
help the nation.
____
Veterans Day
(By William Matuszak, St. Rene Goupil Elementary School)
Veterans Day is a time to remember and honor men and women
who have served in the Armed forces. This holiday is
celebrated on November, 11.
Veterans Day is important to me for many reasons. Both my
grandfathers have served in a war. One served in World War II
and the other in the Korean Conflict. It is not only
important to me, but to everyone, because many families have
served in armies and have fought for their countries in war.
Veterans Day can also show people between countries, because
war is over and we can celebrate that also.
Veterans Day is a very important day to all. Men and women
from all over the world have fought for their countries in
many different ways, and we honor them on this very special
day. We celebrate their accomplishments and sacrifices.
Veterans Day is a great way to honor all who have died and
all who are still living that have served their nation in the
military. Let us keep all of the men and women who are
presently serving in our military that God will keep them out
of harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, I wish all of these fine authors the best of luck in
their future studies.
____________________
COLLEGE STUDENT CREDIT CARD PROTECTION ACT
______
HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on October 25, John Duncan of Tennessee
and I introduced H.R. 3142, the College Student Credit Card Protection
Act. Madison Avenue and the credit card companies have convinced our
college students that getting a credit card is necessary for a fun
college experience. But upon graduation, many of these young people
find themselves buried in debt. Just recently, the House recognized the
need to educate young people on this issue by passing a bill to
encourage high schools to teach financial literacy, including credit
education. College by college, state by state, this issue is being
recognized as a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
A recent report found that one-fifth of the Nation's college students
are carrying credit debts of more than $10,000. Seventy percent of
undergraduates at 4-year colleges possess at least one credit card. One
19-year-old sophomore student in the Rochester, NY area who had no
income recently attempted to declare bankruptcy; he had accumulated a
stack of credit cards and owed the credit card companies $23,000! In
Knoxville, TN, one college student ran up $30,000 in credit card debt
in just 2 years. Students are snowballing into debt through the
extension of unaffordable credit lines, peer pressure to spend, and
financial naivete. Low minimum monthly payments and routine credit
limits hikes add to the seductiveness of plastic.
Even though many students with credit cards have no income to pay the
bills, credit card companies are aggressively marketing their cards to
college students. Credit card companies set up tables during
orientation week and outside college lunchrooms, advertising free gifts
such as t-shirts and mugs, to sign up as many students as possible.
Most of the time, all that is required is a student identification
card. For many students, they experience problems when they cannot
afford to make payments on their credit cards, which ruins their credit
ratings before they have even entered the workforce. While many college
students are adults, responsible for the debt they charge, the credit
card industry's policy of extending high lines of credit to unemployed
or underemployed students needs to be examined.
This bipartisan legislation would compel credit card companies to
determine before approving a card whether any prospective customer who
is a traditionally aged full-time student, can afford to pay off the
balance. This bill would limit credit lines to 20 percent of a
student's annual income without a cosigner. Students could also receive
a starter credit card with a lower credit limit, allowing increases
over time if prompt payments have been made. Another provision would
eliminate the fine print in credit card agreements and solicitations,
where fees and penalties are hidden. This print would have to be
enlarged. Finally, parents would have to agree in writing to increases
in the credit limit of cards which they have cosigned.
____________________
HONORING GORDON WOOD
______
HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a great deal of Texas
pride to recognize
[[Page 30807]]
an outstanding individual, Gordon Wood of Brownwood, Texas.
In today's edition of the Dallas Morning News, the newspaper named
Coach Wood, the ``Coach of the Century'' as part of its 100 Years of
Texas High School Football series. I can think of no one more
deserving. Coach Wood not only led and inspired many young people
during his career but also brought great achievements to several Texas
communities.
``Coach'' was an important figure during the formative years of my
life, and he has remained so. Early in his career, he coached in my
hometown of Stamford. He led our team to two State championships, and I
am proud to have been part of his early success. He went on to lead the
Brownwood Lions to seven State championships and won a total of 405
games in his 43-year career.
Coach Wood is a legend in Texas not only for his coaching but for the
way he has led his life. To me, that puts him in the Ranks of Tom
Landry, Bear Bryant and Joe Paterno.
I wish to include in the Record a copy of the article that ran this
morning in the Dallas Morning News.
This honor is a great tribute to Coach Wood and his wife, Katharine,
and I know there are many folks who join me in sending them
congratulations and best wishes.
[From the Dallas Morning News, Nov. 17, 1999]
Always in the Game--Football, Gordon Wood Style, Still Absorbs Coach of
Century
(Kevin Sherrington)
Brownwood, Texas.--Gordon Wood wears hearing aids in both
ears. He had a triple bypass in 1990, and five years ago a
stroke punched a few holes in his memory. He's working on his
third artificial hip. He's diabetic. A faint white web of
scars runs wild over his mottled face, the vestiges of 13
skin tumors.
This is what can happen to you if you live 85 years.
He can't play golf because of the bad left hip. He won't
play checkers anymore because that's what he was doing when
the world started spinning, and he walked into a restroom and
couldn't find his way out. A stroke, the doctors told him. A
woman came to get him in the restroom and asked him to step
back with his right foot. He tried to comply but stepped
forward instead, right into the toilet.
Checkers was fun, and he was good at it, but it's not worth
it if it reminds him of that. So now the only hobby he has
left is football.
This is what can happen to you if you coach 43 years.
Or maybe this is what happens if you're Gordon Wood, the
greatest coach in the history of Texas high school football.
A Dallas Morning News panel of college coaches and sports
writers chose Wood over a group that included Waco's Paul
Tyson, who won four state championships in the 1920s, and
Abilene's Chuck Moser, who won 49 consecutive games. Joe
Golding got some consideration at Wichita Falls, as did
Amarillo's Blair Cherry.
Wood wasn't a hard choice, though. He won nine state
championships, two at Stamford and seven at Brownwood, which
in the 40 years before he arrived had won only a single
district title.
He won 405 games overall, which was more than anyone else
in the nation when he retired in 1985 at 71.
But, if you're looking for numbers to define Wood's
greatness, you must know that he is the only coach to win 100
games in three different decades, and the only coach who won
state titles in three decades, as well.
Those numbers indicate that he never lost his enthusiasm
for the game, never thought he knew so much that he couldn't
learn more, never won so much that he got enough of it.
Not when he retired 14 years ago.
Not even now.
The numbers say a lot about Gordon Wood. But, if you really
want to know why he was so great, you only have to go to a
game with him.
He is better-looking in person than in photographs.
Pictures can't capture his vitality or regal posture, his
warmth, his habit of extending both hands to someone in
greeting, or his habit of holding on to the hand of a young
person while he's talking to him. In most pictures, he looks
almost sad, or, at best, blank. They couldn't be less
telling. Pictures can't show the balletic movement of a
curious, inquisitive mind.
He is sitting in the press box of the stadium named after
him, talking about his offense between bites of a ham
sandwich.
Did you always run the Wing-T?
``I have since the war,'' Wood says.
He means World War II. He put in the offense at the counsel
of Clyde ``Bulldog'' Turner, once called the toughest
football player ever. But it was Turner's old college coach,
Warren Woodson, who invented the offense, the same one he
used at Hardin-Simmons and New Mexico State and Arizona, and
in the process was the only coach ever to produce the
nation's top rusher four years in a row.
``Warren Woodson was one of the greatest offensive coaches
that ever was,'' Wood says. ``Cocky little devil, too. He
watched us one time and came up to me afterward and said,
`Coach, don't tell anybody you run our offense. You did such
a lousy job.'
``Yeah, he was the best offensive coach I ever saw.''
He takes a bit out of his sandwich.
``Sorriest defensive coach, too.''
Warren Woodson is dead. So is Bulldog Turner. They are
great names lost to a younger generation that wouldn't know a
Wing-T offense from a wingtip shoe. Wood knew Turner and
Woodson, and he knows Darrell Royal, who calls Wood ``one of
the all-time great football coaches, regardless of the
level.'' He is a friend of Bum Phillips, who calls Wood the
best coach he knows. Bear Bryant told Wood's son, Jim, that,
had he stayed at Texas A&M, ``I would have given your dad a
heck of a run for the best coach in Texas.''
Wood knows Bill Parcells. Maybe you remember the story that
came out a couple of years ago, when Parcells took over as
coach of the New York Jets after going to Super Bowls with
two different organizations. Parcells told reporters about
the time he coached linebackers for Texas Tech in the 1970s.
They had 20 spring practices, and at more than a dozen, he
saw the same leathery old man in a maroon cap with a ``B'' on
it. Parcells introduced himself and asked the old man where
he was from.
``A little town down the road here,'' the man said.
``Outside Lubbock?'' Parcells asked.
``No, a little further.''
``How far is it?''
``Well, it's 2\1/2\ hours one way.''
Wood drove five hours a day to watch Tech's linebackers. He
drove every day for two weeks to learn something from a coach
half his age. Parcells said Wood had as much influence on him
as Halas, Lombardi, Noll or Landry, and he thinks about him
every summer when training camp starts, thinks about the old
man with more than 300 wins ``driving five hours a day to
find out something.''
Wood has gone farther than that. Every year, for 43 years,
he has traveled around the country to the American Football
Coaches Association meeting. He has lectured at coaching
clinics in 18 states, most of them more than once. He spoke
in Tennessee last summer.
He went to Canada three times, in the summers of 1967, '70
and '71. He was guest coach for the CFL's Winnipeg Blue
Bombers, coached by a man named Jim Spavitol, who played at
Oklahoma State and first met Wood in the Navy.
After one of his summer trips north, Katharine, his wife of
56 years, asked him what it was like working with
professional players.
``They're just overgrown boys,'' he said.
He only had a few players who went on to play professional
football. The best probably was Lawrence Elkins, the Baylor
receiver, his career ruined by injuries in the NFL. The best
set was the three Southall brothers--Si, Terry and Shae--all
quarterbacks, the sons of his long-time assistant, Morris
Southall.
Southall helped run the offense. In the Wing-T, the Lions
flipped the offensive line to double their number of plays
and simplify blocking assignments. Wood told Royal about it
in 1960, when Royal invited him on a trip to New York. Royal
used the flip-flop in 1963, when he won his first national
championship.
``We ran more formations than most teams run plays,'' Wood
says. ``We'd run 36, 39, 42 plays a week in practice, and the
second team got just as many reps as the first team.''
And, always, the rules were the same.
``Kid makes a mistake in practice,'' Wood says, ``we run it
over again.''
Wood hates mistakes. He made a point in his career of
making players believe in themselves. He won a state
championship his first season at Brownwood, in 1960. He says
that, if you severely criticize a player at practice, you
have to make sure you do something to build him up again.
But it is his obsessive perfectionism that drives him. He
watches anxiously from a press box cubicle as the Lions play
host to Joshua, a heavy underdog. He talks until a play
starts and then stops talking until it's over. If the play is
a success for Brownwood, he might say nothing, most likely
picking up his speech where he left off. If the play favors
Joshua, it might give him fits.
Like, say, a 10-yard burst on a trap play by Joshua.
``You go back to our state championship teams,'' he says,
irritated, ``and see how many zeroes it has there for what
the other teams scored.''
He is up from his press box seat, talking to someone about
how in the world Joshua can be moving the ball at all when he
suddenly realizes that the Joshua band is playing.
``Did they score?'' he asks, incredulous.
Forty-one-yard field goal, someone says. Makes it 21-3,
Brownwood.
``Gaw-dang,'' Wood says.
He settles down and goes back to talking about offense. He
got plays everywhere. He'd see something in a college game on
Saturday
[[Page 30808]]
afternoon and put it in the game plan Sunday night.
He has spoken at so many clinics that most of what he says
seems as if he were reading it off the walls of a locker
room.
On a coach who wouldn't leave his team for a week: ``If you
can't leave for four days, you've got a poor group of
assistant coaches. And if you leave for four days, the kids
will listen to you more when you come back.''
On the variety of offenses available: ``It doesn't make a
dang what you line up in; it's what you do after you get
there.''
On his coaching philosophy: ``It's not the big things that
beat you; it's a million little things.''
The little things might surprise you. He watched a coach in
practice one day and noticed that, on every offensive play,
he put the ball down on a yard line. Wood couldn't believe
it. How often does that happen in a game? Move the ball
around, he told them. Make the players look to see where the
ball is, and maybe they won't draw foolish penalties for
lining up offsides.
His assistants knew what he wanted. Southall, the only
assistant over elected president of the Texas High School
Coaches Association, worked for him 31 of his last 38 years
in coaching.
Southall left him only a couple of times, once to be head
coach at Winters after Wood left from Stamford, where he won
state championships in 1955 and '56.
``If I'd had him at Stamford . . .'' Wood says of Southall
and stops in mid-sentence when a ball bounces off a Brownwood
receiver and into the hands of a Joshua defensive back.
``That's two balls they've dropped,'' he says.
He shakes his head.
``If I'd had him at Stamford,'' he says again, ``I'd have
won three state championships there. No doubt. He was the
best quarterback coach in the state.''
He thinks about the interception again and winces.
``That kills me when they do things like that,'' he says.
He sees mistakes everywhere. He watches the Cowboys every
Sunday. He is a friend and ``great fan'' of Tom Landry, a
reluctant admirer of the impersonal Jimmy Johnson and a
defender of Barry Switzer.
But he is amazed at what happens on a professional football
field. He cites a play in a recent game where Emmitt Smith
fumbled on a pitch.
``You know why they fumbled and lost it?'' he asks. ``Damn
poor coaching, that's what.''
He says he thought about writing Cowboys coach Chan Gailey
and telling him so. Wood is big on writing letters. They
appear occasionally in The News and the Abilene Reporter-
News, mostly defending teachers of U.S. Rep. Charles
Stenholm, a former all-state end for Wood at Stamford.
Sometimes he just writes to correct mistakes of any nature.
He'd write Gailey, he says, but he's not sure it would do
any good. He pulls out a sheet of paper and diagrams his
trademark play, the power pitch. Any team that wanted to beat
his, he says, first had to stop the power pitch. They'd run
it 20 times a game and never fumble.
Here's why the Cowboys fumble, he says, whether it's Tony
Dorsett or Emmitt Smith: Coaches teach the running back to
run at an angle toward the line of scrimmage before taking
the pitch. Wood says they should have backs run parallel with
the line, which would better allow them to catch the pitch,
then square their shoulders before they hit the hole.
But wouldn't the Cowboys argue that a back gets to the hole
faster if he runs at an angle?
``Might be quicker to the hole,'' Wood says tersely, his
eyes returning to the field, ``but you aren't gonna get to
the hole with the ball.''
He stares straight ahead.
``Just a fundamental mistake,'' he mutters. ``S'all there
is to it.''
Asked his favorite college coaches, he immediately cites
Texas Tech's Spike Dykes and Texas' Mack Brown. He is
intrigued by Oklahoma's comeback under Bob Stoops, he's
impressed by Kansas State Bill Snyder, and he's a great
friend of Florida State's Bobby Bowden.
In his 1992 book, ``Gordon Wood's Game Plan to Winning
Football'', he lists 36 coaches who have contributed to his
beliefs, ranging from former assistants to Bo Schembechler,
W.T. Staple, Gene Stallings and a high school coach from Ohio
named Bron Bacevich.
Wood's education in football seems funny, considering how
he started. His father was a farmer outside Abilene who
didn't believe a man needed much in the way of schooling.
``If you get to third grade and can read and write,'' A.V.
Wood told his eight children, ``you're wasting your time
going to college. You'll just be a teacher or preacher, and
you'll starve.''
Gordon Wood was the only one of A.V.s four sons to earn a
high school diploma. He went on to Hardin-Simmons and never
starved. But he didn't get rich, either. The most he ever
made coaching and teaching, he says, was $42,000. He had an
offer in the '50s to be an assistant coach at Texas Tech, but
he didn't like the travel required in recruiting.
He and Katharine, who reared a son and daughter, live in a
little three-bedroom house just two blocks from the high
school, the same place they've lived since the early '60s,
two doors down from Southhall. The day that Wood retired, he
fulfilled a promise to himself when he bought a luxury car
and the best golf cart he could find.
He drove the car into the garage, and Katharine told him it
was nice. She also told him she'd never ride in it.
``There are too many hungry people in this town,'' she told
her husband.
So he took the car back. He listens to Katharine, as long
as she's not trying to send in a couple of new plays. He says
he probably would have coached one more year, but she
insisted that he retire, and he reluctantly agreed.
``It was time for me to quit,'' he says.
He sounds sincere. But he still has a radio program on
Thursday evenings to talk about high school football, still
has coffee with friends to talk about it. He watches it on
television, reads about it in newspapers, visits coaches and
players.
And, nearly every week, he goes to a game. ``I enjoy
watching,'' he says. ``I really do.''
Most of the time, anyway. With five minutes left in the
Joshua game, he gets up to leave the press box and beat the
rush. Brownwood is up, 35-6, and sitting on Joshua's goal
line.
At one of the exits, he says to hold up a second. ``Let's
see if they score,'' he says.
As if on cue, a Brownwood player is flagged for illegal
motion.
``Aw, crap,'' Wood says, and turns for the parking lot.
Mistakes kill him, and always did. ``I'd die if we had two
or three penalties a game,'' he says.
Mistakes kill him, but he says he didn't make one by
staying at Brownwood all those years. Katharine had put it in
perspective earlier. ``You take Tom Landry and Spike Dykes
and Grant Teaff and Hayden Fry,'' she said. ``They're all
great coaches, but they were all just kids who played high
school football in Texas.''
And Gordon Wood was a Texas high school football coach, the
best ever, his peers say.
Even an old perfectionist couldn't beat that.
``I wouldn't change anything,'' he says softly, sitting in
his driveway in his sensible sedan. ``No.''
____________________
HONORING RONALD R. ROGERS AS HE IS INSTALLED AS GRAND MASTER OF THE
GRAND LODGE OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS IN OHIO
______
HON. ROB PORTMAN
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ronald R. Rogers,
a constituent, who recently became Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of
Free and Accepted Masons for 1999-2000.
Mr. Rogers has an extensive Masonic record. He began his Masonic
career as Master Councilor of Ivanhoe Chapter of the Order of DeMolay.
He received his Chavalier Degree in 1952 and was awarded the Active
Legion of Honor in 1976. He became a Master Mason in Norwood Lodge No.
576 in 1972. Before becoming Grand Master, Mr. Rogers was elected
Junior Grand Warden in 1996, Senior Grand Warden in 1997, and Deputy
Grand Master in 1998.
A Cincinnati native, Mr. Rogers is a graduate of Norwood High School
and received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati. He worked for
Clayton L. Scroggins, a management consulting firm in Cincinnati, for
35 years. Mr. Rogers is the proud father of a daughter, Robin, and the
proud grandfather of a granddaughter, Leslie.
Active in his community, Mr. Rogers is a member of the Forest Chapel
United Methodist Church. He has served Forest Chapel as Chairman of
Finance, Chairman of Music and a member of the Administrative Board. He
sang in the Forest Chapel Chancel Choir and also served as its
president. Mr. Rogers is a past Area Financial Officer of United Way
and past President of the Forest Park Band Boosters.
We congratulate Ronald Rogers on his position as Grand Master, and
wish him every success during his tenure.
____________________
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1999
______
speech of
HON. TOM BLILEY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3261. I am pleased
that today we will
[[Page 30809]]
pass on suspension in bipartisan fashion our satellite reform and
privatization legislation, H.R. 3261. The fact that we will pass this
decisively and that no one has indicated he or she will vote against
this bill indicates the widespread support in the House for this
legislation. It is high time to end the current cartel-like ownership
and management structure of INTELSAT and Inmarsat. They must not only
be privatized, they must be privatized in a pro-competitive market. We
must eliminate their privileges and immunities, warehoused orbital
locations or frequencies, and limit their ability to use their
governmental privileges to expand their services and assets pending
privatization. There is no reason for government to be providing
commercial communications services. We must also replace monopoly
control with competition and provide full direct access in the United
States to INTELSAT and Inmarsat.
As the author and manager of this legislation, I think it is
important to specify what will be the legislative history for H.R.
3261. With the exception of section 641, the deletion of old section
642, the addition of section 649, and several date related changes,
H.R. 3261 is identical to the bill the House passed on May 6, 1998,
H.R. 1872. We have put this legislation on the suspension calendar
because Members already voted for the same text year by a margin of 403
to 16. Because most of the bill is identical to last year's bill, it is
unnecessary to go through the Committee hearing and report process
again this year. Thus, no report will be filed with H.R. 3261. Instead,
we intend that the Committee report for H.R. 1872 (See House Rpt. 105-
494), the record for the legislative hearing held on September 30,
1997, and the floor debate on H.R. 1872, in relevant part, be used as
legislative history for H.R. 3261.
What follows is a specific discussion of changes that have been made
in H.R. 3261 when compared to H.R. 1872, which, when taken together
with the H.R. 1872 legislative history discussed above, will serve as
the legislative history for H.R. 3261.
Section 601(b)(1) advances the dates for the privatization of
INTELSAT and Inmarsat, respectively, from January 1, 2002 to April 1,
2001, for INTELSAT, and from January 1, 2001 to April 1, 2000, for
Inmarsat. The reason for this change is that it has become clear that
the long transition periods provided in H.R. 1872 are no longer
necessary. Both organizations have taken some steps toward some form of
privatization. For example, Inmarsat moved to end its intergovernmental
status, although it still has not proceeded with an initial public
offering of its stock. Moreover, the INTELSAT Assembly of Parties
announced some steps which could move INTELSAT in the direction of
privatization.
Section 602(a)(1)(A) and section 621(1) also have been changed to
reflect the new dates set out in section 601(b)(1). Similarly, the
dates set out in 603(b) for the Federal Communications Commission to
make annual findings and report to Congress on INTELSAT's progress
toward privatization have been advanced to reflect the fact that longer
transition periods are not needed. Thus, the first Commission finding
is required on or before January 1, 2000.
Furthermore, given the fact that over a year has elapsed since
passage of H.R. 1872, the number of annual findings has been reduced
from four to three, with the second finding of H.R. 1872 now included
in the first annual finding, as set out in section 603(b)(2). The last
finding is due January 1, 2002, which is later than the April 1, 2001
date established for INTELSAT privatization. It may be appropriate to
make the FCC finding date the same as the privatization date of April
1, 2001 at the next stage in the legislative process.
Finally, there have been changes in the dates by which the privatized
INTELSAT and Immarsat must conduct initial public offerings of their
shares; from January 1, 2001 to April 1, 2001 for INTELSAT, and from
January 1, 2000 to April 1, 2000 for Inmarsat.
Section 624 deals specifically with Inmarsat. While there already
have been some changes in the Inmarsat structure and some provisions of
this section may need to be adjusted, such as the reference to the
Inmarsat Signatory, this section is still applicable. While Inmarsat
has conducted what it deems to be a privatization, that privatization
has not been conducted in a pro-competitive manner.
Section 641 of H.R. 3261 ends the monopoly of COMSAT over access to
the U.S. market for INTELSAT services. The Commission is to comply with
section 641, by adopting orders ensuring the full implementation of all
forms of direct access as provided in section 641(a).
Section 641 of H.R. 1872 dealt with various issues raised by ending
COMSAT's exclusive access to INTELSAT and Inmarsat. We do not believe
it necessary for the new section 641 to address these issues. First,
given the changes at Inmarsat, and the provisions of other parts of the
legislation dealing with Inmarsat, such as section 624(1), there is no
need to specify direct access to Inmarsat in the new section 641.
Second, it is appropriate to permit both non-investment, or contract,
direct access (also known as Level 3) and investment (also known as
Level 4) direct access to INTELSAT immediately upon the effective date
of this legislation. All such direct access is in the public interest.
It will increase competition for access to INTELSAT services and lower
prices for consumers of INTELSAT services.
The Commission currently has the authority to pursue contract or
Level 3 direct access. As was the case with respect to H.R. 1872, by
including provisions on direct access in H.R. 3261, we do not intend to
imply that there is a need to amend any provision of the Communications
Satellite Act of 1962 to provide for direct access.
There are several other differences between H.R. 3261 and H.R. 1872
in section 641 regarding direct access. First, H.R. 3261 does not
provide for or specifically authorize any signatory support costs. This
is a change from H.R. 1872, which permitted compensation to INTELSAT
signatories for support costs that the signatories would not otherwise
be able to avoid under a direct access regime. Second, H.R. 3261 does
not limit the ability of non-U.S. signatories of INTELSAT to provide
direct access in the United States. Thus the sections of H.R. 1872
dealing with signatory fees and foreign signatories, along with section
641(1)(A)(iii) regarding carrier pass through of savings realized as a
result of direct access, were deleted.
H.R. 3261 does not grant the Commission authority to impose a
signatory fee or limit direct access by foreign signatories nor should
the statement indicating that the Commission has authority to implement
direct access be interpreted as meaning that the Commission has the
authority to impose signatory fee or limit direct access by foreign
signatories.
New section 641 also does not direct the Commission to take action on
COMSAT's petition to be treated as a non-dominant common carrier
because the FCC already has acted on this petition. Furthermore,
section 641(4), stating that direct access regulation would be
eliminated after a pro-competitive privatization of INTELSAT or
Inmarsat is achieved was unnecessary and thus was deleted.
H.R. 3261 does not include an equivalent of section 642 of H.R. 1872
dealing with the renegotiation of monopoly contracts, which is also
known as ``fresh look.'' The sections of H.R. 3261 following section
641 were renumbered to reflect the deletion of old section 642.
New section 649 is intended to prevent U.S.-licensed international
carriers and satellite operators from using leverage they may have in
foreign markets to exclude other U.S.-licensed international carriers
and satellite operators from gaining access to those foreign markets.
The effect of Section 649 is to apply this policy to all foreign
satellite operators seeking to do business in the United States.
Exclusive market access is a critical barrier to the provision of
competitive satellite services by United States companies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
____________________
CONGRATULATING SOUTH GRAND PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. MARTIN FROST
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate South Grand Prairie
High for winning one of 13 New American High School awards from the
Department of Education. This designation recognizes South Grand
Prairie's tremendous efforts in raising academic standards and student
achievement.
South Grand Prairie is a diverse high school of over 2,400 students.
It reflects the changing demographics of the surrounding community,
half of the student body comes from minority backgrounds. In 1996,
South Grand Prairie undertook an extensive reform program to raise
academic performance by the school's ``middle majority,'' the large
segment of the student body whose needs were not entirely being met.
The high school created a full-academy model that incorporates Advanced
Placement-level curricula with career-oriented programs.
Students at South Grand Prairie pursue a rigorous academic program in
an area that best suits them--Business and Computer Technology,
Creative and Performing Arts, Health Science and Human Services,
Humanities or Law, and Math, Science and Engineering. This allows
students to raise their performance by capitalizing on their interests.
[[Page 30810]]
South Grand Prairie has enlisted the entire community in this effort.
They have formed partnerships with local middle schools and area
colleges. An Academic Advisory Board comprised of students, teachers,
and prominent local business and industry leaders, has been formed to
develop a curriculum and assessments of the program. And the Chamber of
Commerce participates in a teacher-shadowing program which allows
educators to understand the skills needed in the vocational areas in
which they are teaching.
The results of this innovative program have been remarkable. South
Grand Prairie has raised its students passage rate on Texas' state math
exam by 18 percent. South Grand Prairie students pass the state's
reading test at a 24 percent higher rate than the state average, and
the school has higher SAT scores and rates of college enrollment than
the state's average.
Clearly, South Grand Prairie's academic reforms have been a success,
the school is highly deserving of the New American High School award.
If South Grand Prairie represents the future in American education, the
future looks bright indeed. Congratulations to Principal Roy Garcia and
all of South Grand Prairie's students, faculty, and parents. Your
school is a model for all of America's high schools and you have made
North Texas proud. I am pleased to be able to join South Grand Prairie
officials at their White House award ceremony this Friday.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 5TH ANNUAL COVENANT HOUSE WASHINGTON CANDLELIGHT
VIGIL
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Covenant House
Candlelight Vigil, where I will speak on Tuesday, December 4, 1999. The
Vigil is a national event held every year in early December in some 20
cities across the country. The Candlelight Vigil symbolizes community
hope for the well being of all our children and highlights the plight
of homeless, runaway, and at-risk children.
The Vigil in Washington alone has 3,000 concerned adults and youth
marching, bearing candles and flashlights in support of youth. They
will march shoulder to shoulder for a quarter of a mile to the Covenant
House Washington Community Service Center, setting a tone of joy,
solidarity, commitment, and hope. Similar rallies are held
simultaneously at Covenant House sites across the country.
Since its inception in 1995, Covenant House Washington has invested
over $13 million of private funding in our youth. They have given
hundreds of youth a hand up by providing food, shelter, tutoring, life
skills, job training, legal representation, and positive recreational
opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Covenant
House Washington and their commitment to our most vulnerable young
people and in recognizing the 1999 Covenant House Washington
Candlelight Vigil.
____________________
HONORING THE WORK OF MIKE WOODS
______
HON. BART GORDON
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mike Woods and his
more than 25 years of work as city clerk for the town of Smyrna,
Tennessee. Mike's tenure will soon come to an end. He has decided to
retire on November 30.
As clerk, Mike has seen Smyrna grow from a small community with an
annual budget of $500,000 dollars and 27 employees to being one of
Tennessee's fastest growing cities with a population of more than
20,000, a current budget of more than $25 million dollars and over 300
employees.
Mike worked hard, along with former Mayor Sam Ridley, to make Smyrna
the home of Nissan Motor Manufacturing U.S.A., which has almost 6,000
workers. His vision and invaluable experience have served Smyrna well,
and the city has been recognized with numerous state and national
awards. Mike truly exemplifies the best of public service and will be
sorely missed in city government.
I have known Mike since he first began his tenure in Smyrna and
consider him a close friend. He has given me lots of good advice over
the years, and I thank him for that. I congratulate Mike for his
admirable and distinguished career and wish him the best of luck in
future endeavors.
____________________
SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING DIABETES
______
speech of
HON. EARL F. HILLIARD
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for increased
congressional spending to continue the research now progressing to seek
a cure for diabetes. This devastating disease affects every family in
America--my own brother is a victim of diabetes. The results of the
disease are too numerous to count, but include blindness, loss of
limbs, even shock resulting at times in death. At this time in our
history, the incidence of diabetes in our population appears to be
increasing.
We have made many strides in the treatment of diabetes, but much more
needs to be done. It is very possible that in the near future we will
be able to regenerate damaged beta cells in the pancreas, the cells
which normally produce insulin. Alternatively, we may soon be able to
generate new beta cells; in either case, it appears we will actually be
able to cure the disease.
At this point in the process, we need to make an absolute commitment
to this struggle to end this devastating disease. I commit myself and
my vote to increasing spending on diabetes to an amount which will be
sufficient for our scientists to accomplish this high goal.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AND HONORING WALTER PAYTON AND EXPRESSING CONDOLENCES OF
THE HOUSE TO HIS FAMILY ON HIS DEATH
______
speech of
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support
this measure that recognizes a true sports hero and legend, Walter
Payton.
Payton died of bile duct cancer at age 45. He is survived by his
wife, Connie; his daughter, Brittney; and his son, Jarrett.
But it is not his death that lingers in our minds. It is his way of
life that fills our memories and our hearts.
As a member of the Chicago Bears, Walter Payton stretched athleticism
past the bounds of our imaginations. He bulled and wove throughout the
football field with a creativity that allowed brute force and artistic
expression to merge into one perfect moment.
Payton, the National Football League's leader in yards rushing
(16,726) and carries (3,838), was known for his durability. He missed
just one game in his 13-year career with the Bears. And during that
time, he earned a Super Bowl ring. Payton retired after the 1987
season, and the Bears retired his No. 34. In the first year he was
eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, he was a unanimous
selection.
But we cannot limit his worth to mere statistics and on-the-field
achievement. Walter Payton represented sheer perseverance. Some would
call Walter Payton the Cal Ripken of football. I would suggest that Cal
Ripken is the Walter Payton of baseball. Indeed, Payton is the very
embodiment of the term, ``iron will.''
His commitment to excellence and immense endurance makes his death
seem all the more unbelievable. But Walter Payton did not lose his
battle with liver disease. He simply ran out of time.
During an emotional, invitation-only memorial service that drew about
1,200 people, friends and family remembered Payton's practical jokes,
his passion for those around him, his determination to be the best at
what he did, and his generosity.
The public also had its chance to say goodbye during a ceremony at
Soldier Field. Thousands of Bears fans filed into the stadium, many
carrying signs in tribute and others dressed in Payton's familiar No.
34 jersey.
Yet, sports aficionados are not the only members of society who claim
Payton as their hero. Any American, regardless of race or gender, can
identify with Walter Payton. The consummate statesman, Payton carried
himself on and off the field with dignity and class. He achieved, yet,
he always remained committed to his team--individuality was not his
style. It is because of his gentle and caring demeanor that he truly
earned his nickname, ``Sweetness.'' He was as sweet a person in real
life as he was to watch on the football field.
[[Page 30811]]
And as an African-American, I am proud that an African-American holds
such an imposing NFL record. His rushing record shows that anyone can
achieve lofty goals, regardless of race. It is a record that will stand
for many years and will remain a testament to Payton's excellence.
Teammate Mike Singletary, one of five who offered a tribute at
Payton's service, said if Payton saw people crying he would say: ``Hold
everything--I'm on hallowed ground. I'm running hills, I'm running on
clouds. I'm running on stars. I'm on the moon.''
``He affected so many people in a positive way, not only through
athletic prowess, but through his generosity and for the way he lived
his life,'' said Ditka, the coach of that Bears team that went 18-1.
``Yeah, it isn't fair. Forty-five years on this Earth, you should be in
the prime of your life. But I think it warns us that tomorrow is not
promised.''
We will remember Walter Payton and his famous jersey number ``34''
that he wore first at Jackson State and then with the Bears. We also
will remember Payton in his Chicago uniform with his trademark white
headband.
But most of all, we will remember Walter Payton for his pleasant
smile, his warmth of character, and his will to achieve.
____________________
IN HONOR OF ANDREW SHARP PEACOCK
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say farewell to a good
friend and great leader, Australian Ambassador, Andrew Peacock.
Ambassador Peacock will retire from his duties as the Australian
Ambassador to the United States. There will be a celebration in his
honor to commend him for his many accomplishments and his lifetime
service to his country and to the world's diplomatic corps.
Ambassador Peacock has had a brilliant career and has succeeded in
every endeavor, at every level, and has done so with a joy of life. His
life in public service began at the young age of 17, when he joined the
Young Liberals in his native country, Australia. In just a few short
years, his incredible leadership skills and great wit carried him to
the position of President of the Young Liberal Movement. Shortly
afterwards, Mr. Peacock became Vice-President and then President of the
Victorian Division of the Liberal Party. Andrew Peacock made a great
endeavor and entered Federal Parliament in 1966. As a parliamentarian,
Mr. Peacock was instrumental in the nation's foreign affairs and
industrial relations for almost 30 years. He redefined the Liberal
Party in Australia and has proved his love of Australia throughout his
career.
Mr. Peacock came to the United States from Australia in February 1997
after resigning from the Federal Parliament. His accomplishments here
have been immeasurable and noteworthy. Ambassador Peacock has helped
preserve the outstanding relationship between the United States and our
loyal ally, Australia. Recently, Australia and the United States were
able to move side by side in the peace-keeping efforts in East Timor,
thanks to the enviable diplomatic skills of Ambassador Peacock.
My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring Ambassador Peacock
for dedicating his life to his native land of Australia, to the cause
of human dignity, and to the cause of world peace. Not only has
Ambassador Peacock proven to be a true hero in Australia but also a
great friend to the American people through his great efforts as
Ambassador. On a personal level, I am blessed to consider him a friend
of many years, and I will miss his presence in our nation's capital.
His laugh, his charm, and spirit has touched this city in so many ways.
He has had a profound effect on Australia, America, and the world. I
wish him well on all of his new endeavors.
____________________
IN REMEMBRANCE OF DUB HAYES
______
HON. RALPH M. HALL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise today
to pay tribute to an outstanding individual and close personal friend,
James W. ``Dub'' Hayes of Whitesboro, Texas, who died suddenly on
October 3 of this year. Dub was well-known and well-liked in Whitesboro
and Grayson County as a prominent community leader who genuinely cared
about people. His influence will be felt for generations to come.
Dub was honored as Outstanding Citizen of Whitesboro three times--in
1965, 1978, and 1994--a testimony to the contributions he made to the
life of his home town. At the time of his death he was serving as a
director of the Grayson County College Foundation, treasurer of
Whitesboro Citizens for Excellence in Education and a member of the
Whitesboro Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors.
He was an ardent proponent of education, having served for 33 years
as a Trustee of Grayson County College and as past president of the
board. He served on the Board from 1965, the year the school opened
until 1997.
Dub also served as a charter member of the Texoma Blood Bank Board of
Directors, a member of the Grayson County Airport Board and the Texoma
Regional Planning Commission, past president of the Chamber of
Commerce, Rotary Club and Quarterback Club in Whitesboro. Dub was
active in the First Baptist Church of Whitesboro, where he served for
many years as deacon, treasurer and Sunday School teacher.
Dub and his brother, Ed, owned and operated a retail pharmacy
business in Whitesboro for 28 years. Dub also worked as a pharmacist
for 15 years at Wilson N. Jones Hospital--and continued working until
his death as a relief pharmacist and consultant. Dub will be lovingly
remembered as one of those pharmacists who was willing to get up in the
middle of the night to fill prescriptions for those who were sick.
He was a member of several professional organizations, including the
Grayson, Collin, Cook Pharmaceutical Association, the Texas
Pharmaceutical Association, the Texas Society of Hospital Pharmacists
and the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists.
Born in 1925 in Whitesboro, the son of the late James Albert Hayes
and Ruth Cherry Hayes, Dub graduated from Whitesboro High School,
attended North Texas Agricultural College in Arlington and received his
Pharmacy degree from the University of Texas. He served his county
during World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters. In 1949
he married his wife of 50 years, Ruth Helen Acker.
Dub is survived by his wife, Helen; three children, Diane Hayes
Gibson and her husband, Mark; Dr. Jim Hayes of Dallas; and Bill Hayes
and his wife, Kelly; four grandchildren, Laura and Robert Gibson and
Sarah and Charlie Hayes; brother, Ed Hayes, and his wife, Pat; sister-
in-law Marjorie Acker Laney and her husband, Bobby; three nieces and
two nephews.
Mr. Speaker, Dub Hayes was a truly great man who lived a life of
devotion to his family, his community, his church, and his profession.
He was a community leader who led an exemplary life--and he was loved
by all who knew him. We will miss him--but his memory will be kept
alive in our hearts and in our thoughts--and his legacy will continue
to be felt in Whitesboro and Grayson County. Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn
today for the last time during this century, I ask my colleagues to
join me in paying our last respects to this outstanding man and great
American--James W. ``Dub'' Hayes.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE TELEHEALTH IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
______
HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction
of H.R. 3420, the Telehealth Improvement Act of 1999. As we are
learning, telemedicine services can dramatically improve upon the range
of health care services available in medically underserved areas
through the use of telecommunications technologies and services.
Telemedicine can improve the delivery and access of health care
services, and is especially useful when a patient needs a specialist
who is unavailable in his or her area.
By relying on technologies ranging from interactive video, e-mail,
computers, fax machines, and satellites, patients will be able to
communicate with their doctors and receive the health care they need
regardless of their physical location. These telemedicine technologies
can be used to deliver health care, diagnose patients, read X-rays,
provide consultation, and educate health professionals, among other
things.
Telemedicine services reduce the cost of health care by increasing
the timeliness of care, reducing emergency transportation costs,
improving patient administration, and strengthening the expertise
available to primary-care providers. Telemedicine services
[[Page 30812]]
also help to bring services to medically underserved areas in a quick
and cost-effective manner, and can enable patients to avoid traveling
long distances in order to receive access to health care.
While the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 includes a provision that
provides for some Medicare reimbursement of telemedicine services, the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has interpreted it too
narrowly and as a result, has severely limited the services which are
covered. The Telehealth Improvement Act of 1999 will clarify the intent
of Congress regarding Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine services
and increases telemedicine access to medically underserved areas. This
legislation makes improvements to the way telemedicine services are
currently regulated and reimbursed through the Medicare program, and
applies to rural, underserved, and frontier areas, including areas
designated as health professional shortage areas under the Public
Health Service Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to support and
cosponsor the Telehealth Improvement Act of 1999. We must continue to
provide access to health care to underserved areas and provide adequate
reimbursement to the hospitals and providers that are currently
providing these services.
____________________
HONORING THE LATE D.R. MILLER, ``MR. CIRCUS''
______
HON. WES WATKINS
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the late D.R.
Miller, known as ``Mr. Circus'' to those who knew him best, for his
decades of service to his fellow citizens, and for his lifetime of
providing laughter and fun to children of all ages.
D.R. Miller was born on July 27, 1916, in Smith Center, Kansas. But
it was Hugo, the town in Oklahoma's Third Congressional District that
serves as the winter headquarters for his Carson & Barnes Circus, that
D.R. called home.
D.R. Miller passed away on September 8, 1999, in McCook, Nebraska--
the very town where D.R.'s father and mother took D.R. and his brother
to see their first circus, on August 24, 1924.
In 1937, after numerous business ventures, D.R., his father and
brother, founded the famed Al G. Kelly Miller Bros. Circus, advertised
as the 2nd Largest Circus in America, and toured the U.S. for years.
When Ringling Bros. abandoned big top tents for buildings in 1956, the
Al G. Kelly Miller Bros. Circus became the World's Largest Big Top
Circus.
After several business and personal setbacks in the 1960s and 70s,
D.R. roared back with the Carson & Barnes Circus, which grew and
evolved into the 5 Ring Extravaganza that continues to entertain and
amaze children of all ages.
In addition to his founding of two circuses, D.R. gave of himself to
make this world a better place. D.R. served his country as a proud
member of the Army's 273rd Artillery Division during World War II. He
founded the Endangered Ark Foundation, a non-profit association
dedicated to the preservation and procreation of endangered animals. He
established the D.R. and Isla Miller Scholarship Fund to provide
scholarships to deserving Hugo High School graduates. D.R. established
the non-profit Showman's Rest Trust Fund to provide plots, burials and
proper markers for indigent show people.
D.R. provided countless opportunities to circus artists and fellow
dreamers. He was a friend to all. In January, 1995, he was inducted
into the Circus Ring of Fame in Sarasota, Florida, with his wife and
partner Isla Marie Miller, who preceded D.R. in passing.
D.R. Miller was an entertainer, a showman, a family man, a veteran,
and a model citizen whose example of success and hard work shines like
a beacon for all Americans who aspire to improve their own lives and
the lives of others. D.R. Miller was believed by all who knew him.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that today the House pay tribute to Mr. Circus:
D.R. Miller.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ISRAEL POLICY FORUM
______
HON. NITA M. LOWEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my thanks to Israel
Policy Forum.
Since its founding in 1993, IPF has been a vigorous and effective
advocate for Middle East peace and Israel security. Few organizations
have done so much to shape public attitude's about the peace process or
to educate decision-makers about the significance of American
international leadership.
On November 20th, the directors, members, and friends of Israel
Policy Forum will hold their second Tribute Dinner. In addition to
celebrating recent progress in the Middle East peace negotiations and
welcoming Prime Minister Ehud Barak, this event will also be an
occasion to recognize the outstanding contributions of several
remarkable individuals.
Nathan Gantcher has devoted his considerable intellect and energy to
the challenges of business, education, and community service. A
towering figure in the world of finance, he is widely respected for his
exceptional professional skills and deep devotion to principle.
Robert Lifton has contributed to remarkable range of fields,
including law, real estate, entertainment, finance, and health care.
His personal commitment to American-Israeli relations is evidenced by
his leadership of groups as the American Jewish Congress, AIPAC, the
Council on Foreign Relations, and many others.
Norman Pattiz is the founder and Chairman of Westworld One, the
undisputed leader in the radio industry, with some 7,000 affiliated
stations worldwide. His business acumen is matched by a powerful
commitment to quality programming, and a creative understanding of the
media's role in shaping a stronger society. His devotion to promoting
Middle East Peace is prodigious, and he has pursued this goal both
through personal involvement with Middle Eastern leaders and through
tireless activism in the American Jewish community.
Peggy Tishman is a nationally-recognized philanthropic leader, whose
devotion to the Jewish community has been particularly inspiring. She
was the first President of the merged UJA-Federation, where she helped
lay a strong foundation for the future success of the organization, and
where she demonstrated the character and charisma that would make her
such an invaluable resource to a range of civic endeavors.
I am very pleased to join in this special tribute, to express my
enormous pride in IPF's fine work, and to salute the examples of
dynamic public advocacy IPF's honorees and leaders set every day.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ST. SAVA'S SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I
congratulate St. Sava's Serbian Orthodox Church in Merrillville,
Indiana, as it celebrates its 85th Anniversary as a parish this Sunday.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Reverend
Jovan Todorovich on this glorious occasion.
On November 20th, St. Sava's Serbian Orthodox Church will open its
85th Anniversary celebration at 9:30 a.m. at the church. Reverend
Todorovich will begin with a liturgy, followed by a blessing of a new
icon painting, and a Parastos, or ceremony for the dead. Beginning at
noon in the church's small banquet hall in Hobart, Indiana, the
celebration will continue with a Pomen ceremony, a wreath laying, taps,
and a service by the American Legion in honor of all veterans from St.
Sava's congregation. A banquet will be served at 1:00 p.m. in the main
hall in Hobart. Entertainment will be provided by Drina Tamburitza, and
Nikola P. Kostich will be the guest speaker at this gala occasion.
Nikola Kostich is an attorney from Milwaukee and is the lead counsel
for the Serbian Republic and for the United Nations International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
A church of humble beginnings, St. Sava's Serbian Orthodox Church was
founded in 1914 in Gary, Indiana by about 200 immigrant families.
Today, it is home to 625 families. During the past 85 years, the
congregation at St. Sava's has worshiped in five different locations
and weathered a major disaster when one church building was destroyed
by a fire. The history of the parish, from both a joyous and sorrowful
perspective, will be remembered Sunday when the church celebrates its
85th Anniversary.
The church's roots go back to a group of Serbian immigrants who first
formed a choir. In 1914, the choir members began meeting for church
services at a hall located near 13th Avenue and Washington Street in
Gary. By 1915, they had built and consecrated a church in Gary at 20th
Avenue and Connecticut Street. In 1938, a new church was built at
[[Page 30813]]
13th Avenue and Connecticut Street. The congregation remained there
until 1978, when the church burned down. The congregation held services
at a hall located on their picnic grounds in Hobart, while they raised
money to build a new church in Merrillville. In 1983, the church broke
ground at 9191 Mississippi Street in Merrillville, and in 1991, the
church was completed and consecrated.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join
me in congratulating the parish family of St. Sava's Serbian Orthodox
Church, under the guidance of Reverend Jovan Todorovich, as they
prepare to celebrate their 85th anniversary. All past and present
parishioners and pastors should be proud of the numerous contributions
they have made out of the love and devotion they have displayed for
their church throughout the past 85 years.
____________________
HONORING SOUTH POST OAK BAPTIST CHURCH
______
HON. KEN BENTSEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the members of the
congregation of South Post Oak Baptist Church in my home district of
Houston, Texas for celebrating their church's 40th anniversary. The
South Post Oak Baptist Church family has been a pillar of the
community, effectively ministering to its members for four decades.
South Post Oak Baptist Church was organized October 4, 1959 as a
separate entity of Almeda Baptist Church and was incorporated in 1961.
From its humble beginnings, the church has been a viable point of
spiritual reference for the community. Under the leadership of Rev.
Remus E. Wright, the membership of the church has grown rapidly, from
300 in 1991 to more than 4,500 members in 1999.
Over the past decade Rev. Wright and his wife Mia have worked to make
South Post Oak Baptist Church, ``A Positive Place in a Negative
World.'' Their endurance and tremendous energy in addressing the needs
of South Post Oak Baptist Church's congregation have served their
community well.
The youngest of nine children born to Remus and Elizabeth Wright in
Indianapolis, Indiana, Rev. Wright answered the call to the ministry
during his mid-twenties, becoming an Associate Minister at Grace
Apostolic church. He joined the Pentecostal Ambassadors and recorded
two gospel albums on which he sang, wrote and produced most of the
songs. Upon relocating to Houston, Pastor Wright found his home at
South Post Oak Baptist Church, guiding the church into its largest ever
period of growth. The Church's focus has been on the family; the
responsibilities of men; special needs of our senior citizens; and
``real life'' programs for youth. Rev. Wright's focus on families is a
major reason why he now devotes his energy to ministering to more than
2,500 families at South Post Oak Baptist Church.
While Rev. Wright's religious and spiritual obligations have always
been paramount, as a community leader, he has undertaken his civic
duties with the utmost seriousness and passion, serving on several
boards and organizations. He serves on two local high school boards,
the YMCA board, and is a volunteer with LifeGift Organ Donation
Program. He was selected to serve as a Foreign Missionary and Church
Planter for the Southern Baptist Association in Zimbabwe, Africa. Most
recently, he became part of an on-going Summer Leadership Institute
Program at Harvard University designed to strengthen faith-based
programs throughout urban communities in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, South Post Oak Baptist Church has much to celebrate on
its 40th anniversary. The church has been a haven for its community.
Since its beginnings four decades ago through the last 8 years of
unprecedented growth, South Post Oak Baptist Church should be commended
for its dedication to God and commitment to the needs of its
congregation and surrounding community.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN'S FOOTBALL TEAM
______
HON. TAMMY BALDWIN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University
of Wisconsin's football team. This has been an exceptional season for
the Badgers in many respects.
For the second straight year, the Badgers are off to play in a major
NCAA Bowl Game. The Badgers could go to the Rose Bowl, just as they did
last year, or to another major bowl, depending on how other college
teams fare in the closing weeks of the season. On Saturday, a beautiful
and unusually balmy day at Camp Randall, the Badgers sealed their
ticket to a bowl game by defeating the Iowa Hawkeyes, 41 to 3, and
winning the Big Ten championship.
But securing the championship was not all that was celebrated on
Saturday. Before nearly 80,000 screaming Badger fans, tailback Ron
Dayne made history as he became the all-time rushing leader in NCAA
Division I football. Ron Dayne has finished his collegiate career with
6,397 yards--and is the favorite for winning this year's Heisman
Trophy.
Ron Dayne's historic record and going to a major bowl game for the
second straight year are only part of the triumphant season. The whole
team created this championship. It was particularly heartening to see
the team come together when Coach Barry Alvarez was either coaching
from his hospital bed or the coach's box while waiting for knee
replacement surgery.
The Badgers end the regular season with a 9-2 record. Congratulations
to all the players, students and fans at the University of Wisconsin. I
look forward to enjoying the Fifth Quarter at the bowl game. On
Wisconsin!
____________________
STOPPING ABUSE OF COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITY
PROGRAM
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, one of the good services in Medicare is the
CORF (Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility) program, where
beneficiaries recovering from an illness or operation can get a wide
range of quality rehab services.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a loophole in the law allowing the
establishment of ``satellite'' CORFs. In this scheme, doctors are
getting letters offering to rent part of their office for the placement
of a therapist. The rent offered is often sight-unseen and is far above
what is a reasonable rental rate. It is, in my opinion, a violation of
the anti-kickback laws and is a way to get referrals that greatly
drives up utilization and costs for Medicare.
To stop this proliferation of services we never knew we needed, I am
introducing a bill, with an effective date of today, to require that
all CORF services be provided at one site. I submit a letter from the
HCFA Deputy Administrator on this issue and on the steps Medicare is
taking to avoid fraudulent utilization in this area. The Administration
is to be commended for its efforts to prevent abuse in this area--but
clarifying the law will also be helpful.
Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care
Financing Administration, Deputy Administrator
Washington, DC, Oct. 27, 1999.
Hon. Pete Stark,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Stark: Thank you for your letter to the
Administrator regarding contracts being mailed to doctors to
open uncertified mini-Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation
Facilities (CORFs) in physicians' offices. I am responding on
her behalf, and I apologize for the delay in this response.
You also stated that you earlier copied the Administrator on
a letter you sent to the Department of Health and Human
Services' (DHHS') Office of the Inspector General regarding
this matter. You are requesting that the Administrator
immediately put a halt to the proliferation of these
``satellite'' CORFs.
I share your concern with the apparent proliferation of
satellite CORFs. Based on the information furnished, the
establishment of satellite facilities is consistent with
section 1861(cc) of the Social Security Act (the Act).
Section 1861(cc)(1) of the Act states that in the case of
physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and speech
pathology (SP) services there shall be no requirement that
the item or service be furnished at any single, fixed
location. All other CORF services must be provided at the
site of the CORF approved for Medicare participation.
It should be noted that although the Act exempts these
services from the single, fixed location requirement, it does
not exempt them from any of the other CORF requirements.
Since the CORF must make documentation available to the state
survey agency surveyor demonstrating that it furnishes all
services in compliance with the CORF requirements, we would
expect the documentation at the CORF for services furnished
off-site would not be unlike that for
[[Page 30814]]
services furnished at the CORF. Also, state survey agencies
are not precluded from making visits to the off-site
locations as necessary, to ensure that the CORF requirements
are met.
Recently, a briefing on CORFs and outpatient rehabilitation
facilities was held for Kevin Thurm, Deputy Secretary of
DHHS. I presented the Health Care Financing Administration'
(HCFA's) program integrity action plan based on analysis we
had initiated with the HCFA Miami Satellite Office. The plan
includes intensified medical review in targeted areas,
education of providers and fiscal intermediaries, and
increased reviews of off-site locations. I believe these
interventions and the increased oversight will curb
inappropriate growth of the providers until HCFA is granted
statutory authority to require that PT, OT, or SP be
furnished at a single, fixed location.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Hash,
Deputy Administrator.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO BILL SHIVELY ON HIS RETIREMENT
______
HON. JIM RAMSTAD
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our
nation's best and brightest business leaders.
By any measure of merit, William C. Shively, is a truly visionary
business leader. His hard work and pioneering efforts in the area of
financial management and commitment to public service are absolutely
exemplary--as well as an inspiration to us all.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Shively is retiring as Executive Vice President of
the nationally recognized Gelco Information Network in my Third
District of Minnesota.
Bill had the vision in 1992 to bring corporate America's soundest
financial management practices to the federal government. In his book
Best Practices, Bill Shively identified areas for immediate improvement
and re-engineering. He targeted official business travel within
government since, in the corporate world, travel is the third largest
business expense behind payroll and data processing.
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the federal government was spending over $7
billion on official business travel. Mr. Shively realized the
government was spending unnecessary overhead based on the outdated
business processes that governed federal travel.
The need for improvement in this arena, Mr. Speaker, was the source
for Bill's vision to create a business unit dedicated to identifying
improvements and recommending solutions to save taxpayer money. The
vision's underlying theme was to save taxpayer money through the
implementation of re-engineered systems and processes.
Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Division of Gelco was born on
March 1, 1995 and was comprised of Bill and one other employee. Since
1995, the business has grown to close to 100 employees, supporting
products and services utilized today within every single federal
executive agency within our government.
Bill helped the Department of Defense through the evolutionary stages
of defining its vision, leading to one of the largest non-weapon
procurements--DTS.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Shively leaves a legacy of public service that will
be long remembered. But, more important to Bill, he leaves a legacy to
that is sure to inspire his family for generations to come. Despite the
impact of his visionary actions around the world, Bill Shively's No. 1
priority has been his family. Bill has been a dedicated father of three
sons and a devoted husband to his wife, Betty.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Shively has done much for his country. We must take
the time to pay tribute to great Americans like Bill, citizens who
share their special skills to make outstanding contributions to their
nation. Bill Shively may be retiring, but he has improved federal
processes and driven down costs to taxpayer--truly lasting
contributions that will benefit our country for generations to come.
At a time when good role models are few and far between, a time when
people of integrity are needed more than ever, Bill Shively is a
shining example of how to achieve success in our personal, professional
and public lives.
Mr. Speaker, please join with me today to honor William Shively for
all he has done to help others. We wish him and his family all the best
in his retirement and in all his future endeavors.
____________________
RESIGNATION OF NATIONAL FOREST SUPERVISOR GLORIA FLORA
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Gloria Flora, forest
Supervisor of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada resigned
last week, citing relentless ``fed-bashing.'' Since becoming Supervisor
of the largest national forest in the lower 48 just over a year ago,
Ms. Flora has become embroiled in disputes over grazing, endangered
species protection, and road closures. One of these disputes recently
culminated in Elko County residents, including public officials,
illegally rebuilding a forest road without federal permits, an act
which in turn triggered a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service emergency
listing of the bull trout. At the forefront of these disputes are
extremists whose radical anti-government stance has translated into
several instances of intimidation and harassment of federal land
managers and acts of violence against public servants and property.
It is deeply distressing that public servants who are administering
and enforcing the law are subjected to such hostile circumstances that
they are forced to leave their jobs and homes. We should keep in mind
that federal land managers like Ms. Flora are charged with enforcing
laws passed by the Congress and entrusted with public lands and natural
resources that belong to all the people of this country.
For twenty years, the wise use movement in its various forms--the
Sagebrush rebellion, states' rights, county supremacy--has fomented
hostility and hatred toward officials enforcing the laws of Congress.
Rather than perpetuate the disregard and disdain for the government and
its laws, I urge my colleagues to use their good offices to create a
climate of decency and cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, while I deeply regret that Ms. Flora has chosen to
resign, I sincerely hope that we take this opportunity to express our
support for her and for the many Forest Service employees who share her
concerns. I submit Ms. Flora's letter to her fellow employees.
Open Letter to Employees of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
November 8, 1999
There is no easy way to say good-bye to a group of hard-
working, dedicated employees and friends. But the time has
come when I must do just that. The best part of working on
this Forest is watching each of you perform your work so
well. The results speak for themselves in the outstanding
land stewardship and exemplary business practices found on
this Forest.
I have become increasingly troubled by the difficult
conditions that so many of us face in the state of Nevada. We
now accept as commonplace unwarranted criticisms of and
verbal attacks on federal employees. Officials at all levels
of government in Nevada participate in this irresponsible
fed-bashing. The public is largely silent, watching as if
this were a spectator sport. This level of anti-federal
fervor is simply not acceptable.
It is not like this in other places! As you know, I've
worked throughout the Intermountain West: Montana, Idaho,
Utah and Wyoming. Yes, there are arguments and strong
disagreements over land use policy, but they usually stay
within the bounds of reason. As tensions escalate, others
weigh in with their opinions and the media does in-depth
investigative reporting. There is a sense of balance.
Outlandish words and acts, regardless of the origin, are
repudiated openly by reasonable community members.
Constructive collaboration and discourse are recognized as
the methods to resolve complex natural resource issues. Yes,
things may get heated but all people have a voice.
The attitude towards federal employees and federal laws in
Nevada is pitiful. People in rural communities who do respect
the law and accept responsibility for complying with it are
often rebuked or ridiculed. They are compared to
collaborators with the Vichy government in Nazi-controlled
France! People who support the federal government or
conservation of natural resources ask that they not be
identified for fear of retaliation. When I speak against the
diatribes and half-truths of the Sagebrush Rebellion, I am
labeled a liar and personally vilified in an attempt to
silence me. When I express concerns for Forest Service
employees' safety, I am accused of inciting violence.
This is the United States of America. All people have a
right to speak and all people have a right to protection from
discrimination. However, I learned that in Nevada, as a
federal employee, you have no right to speak, no right to do
your job and certainly no right to be treated with respect. I
could go on and on with examples of those of you who have
been castigated in public, shunned in your communities,
refused service in restaurants, kicked out of motels . . .
just because of who you work for. And we cannot forget those
who have been harassed, called before kangaroo courts, or had
their very lives threatened.
It disturbs me to think that two million people in this
state watch silently, or worse,
[[Page 30815]]
in amusement, as a small percent of their number break laws
and trounce the rights of others with impunity. Worse yet,
there are elected officials who actively support these
offenders. Those whose responsibility it is to help us
enforce the laws passed by Congress and do our mandated jobs,
always seem to have a reason why action must be postponed.
The Jarbidge situation is just another example of how
certain elements would rather fight and excoriate the federal
government than work towards a solution. These people need an
``evil empire'' to attack. When a member of the United States
Congress joins forces with them, using the power of the
office to stage a public inquisition of federal employees
followed by a political fundraiser, I must protest. This
member and others continue to do this, and we, as an agency,
believe that it is best to keep turning the other cheek.
Enough is enough. I am not promoting conflict; I'm simply
advocating that our agency demands fairness and common
decency. It's time to speak up.
But speaking up and continuing to work here are not
compatible. By speaking out, I cannot provide you, my
employees, with a safe working environment. And to date, I
have not been able to convince others that the current
atmosphere is unacceptable and requires a proactive response.
I refuse to continue to participate in this charade of
normalcy.
Equally troubling is our limited ability to perform the
mission of the Forest Service under these conditions. As
stewards for public lands, entrusted with protecting and
restoring natural resources for present and future
generations, we must be able to perform those functions in a
collaborative and cooperative manner. The health of the land
is paramount.
I am choosing to leave for my principles, for my personal
well-being, and so I can actualize my commitment to natural
resource management in a setting where respect and civil
discourse is the norm. I have no definite plans and I am not
seeking special treatment from the agency. I will stay at
least until the end of the year to help ensure a smoother
transition to new leadership.
I leave you with my fondest wishes for continuing your
excellent work and gaining the fulfillment and respect that
you all deserve. As I told you when I first arrived, simply
demonstrate honesty, integrity and ethical behavior and you
will succeed. Thank you for the tremendous support you have
given me, I couldn't have asked for more from you.
Sincerely,
Gloria E. Flora,
Forest Supervisor.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BRIAN LANCE GOTLIEB
______
HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an upstanding
member of our community who is being recognized by the Brighton-
Atlantic Unit #1671 of B'nai Brith on the occasion of its 1999 Youth
Services Award Breakfast.
Brian Lance Gotlieb has earned a well-deserved reputation as a
tireless fighter on behalf of the youth in our community, and is
rightfully honored for his achievements by B'nai Brith on this special
occasion.
Gotlieb, who serves as the liaison to Intermediate School 303 and
Public Schools 90, 100, 209 and 253, is currently working on different
ways to protect our community's children. As a member of the District
21 School Board, he has initiated the process of identifying unsafe
streets throughout District 21 to ensure the safety of all pedestrians.
And, throughout this school year, Gotlieb will be hosting a series of
Child Safety Programs that will provide parents with free copies of
their children's fingerprints along with Polaroid pictures to present
to law enforcement personnel in the event of an emergency.
Further, as my Deputy Chief of Staff, Brian Lance Gotlieb has served
as my liaison to the Board of Education and School Construction
Authority for the last three years. In addition, he is primarily
responsible for the intake and resolution of constituent concerns in my
Community Office located in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn.
Gotlieb, who credits his late mother, Myrna, with teaching him the
importance of helping others and being active in the community, created
the highly successful organization Shorefront Toys for Tots in 1995.
Founded in his mother's memory, Shorefront Toys for Tots has helped
bring Chanukah cheer to more than 7,500 underprivileged children in the
Shorefront community.
As a student at the Rabbi Harry Halpern Day School and its Talmud
Torah High School division, Gotlieb packed and delivered Passover
packages to aid needy senior citizens. Gotlieb strengthened his bond
with the Jewish community as an undergraduate and graduate student
through his involvement with the Jewish Culture Foundation at New York
University and B'nai B'rith Hillel at the University of Florida, where
he served as a Reporter for the Jewish Student News.
Gotlieb is a member of Community Board 13 and serves on it's
Education and Library and Youth Services committees. He also serves his
neighbors as a member of the Board of Directors in Section 4 of Trump
Village and as an Executive Board member of the 60th Precinct Community
Council.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the members of Brighton-Atlantic Unit #1671 of
B'nai Brith for recognizing the achievements of Brian Lance Gotlieb, a
tireless worker for the people of Brooklyn and Queens.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE PASCACK HISTORICAL SOCIETY
______
HON. MARGE ROUKEMA
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Pascack
Historical Society on the recent restoration of its museum, and for all
the work the Society has done to preserve the heritage of the Pascack
Valley.
The Pascack Historical Society Museum, located in Park Ridge, New
Jersey, is a wonderful collection of artifacts depicting life in the
region from the 18th Century through the early 20th Century. It is a
popular destination for tourists and natives alike, and is a treasure-
trove of archival information for scholars of local history.
Special recognition must go to a number of key individuals involved.
The project was ably guided by Historical Society President Katharine
P. Randall, Vice President Fracesca M. Moskowitz, Secretary Ellen
Kramer and Treasurer Richard Ross.
The renovation would not have been possible without the generosity of
the late Ellen Berdais, a long-time member of the Historical Society
who died of cancer in 1995, just after the project began. In her honor,
the annex will be named the Ellen Berdais Hall. In addition, the main
museum building will be named in memory of its longtime curator, Wilma
Uder.
The museum is housed in the 19th century former First Congregational
Church of Park Ridge. During the three-year, $275,000 renovation, the
church building was substantially restored and a dilapidated barn was
replaced with an 18,000-square-foot addition. Its exhibits include the
facade of a country store, a turn-of-the-century parlor, and a
recreation of rooms from a small, Colonial-era home. Artifacts include
items the Leni-Lenape Indian tribe and early settlers used for trading,
farming and manufacturing. A machine for making the ``wampum''
ornaments Native Americans once used as currency is part of the
collection, along with a printing press from a local newspaper and a
wooden horse used by a saddle maker.
The Historical Society was founded in the 1930s by John C. Storms,
publisher of the Park Ridge Local, and was formally incorporated in
1942. A small group of area residents dedicated themselves to
collecting and preserving artifacts and written accounts of Pascack
Valley history, and sharing the collection through exhibits, lectures
and a quarterly newsletter. The society's collection was housed in
various locations until it found a permanent home in 1952 with the
purchase of the church, which had been a Park Ridge landmark since
1873.
During its nearly half-century of operation, thousands of school
classes, civic organizations, researchers and individuals have visited
the museum and attended the Historical Society's lectures. Staffed
entirely by volunteers, the museum has depended on the generosity of
its members and friends for financial support.
It became obvious in 1994 that the adjacent bar--used as a meeting
room, research center, storage area and workroom--was in such a
dangerous state of disrepair that its demolition was ordered by the
borough. With the loss of this facility, it was necessary to
temporarily close the museum and begin a major fundraising campaign to
rebuild. Supports worked for five years to make the dream a reality.
I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in
commending the Pascack Historical Society and all its members on the
hard work and dedication that have preserved this American historic
treasure for the benefit of all.
[[Page 30816]]
____________________
THE BICENTENNIAL OF MONROE, NEW YORK
______
HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note to our colleagues that
the Town of Monroe, New York, in my congressional district is currently
celebrating its 200th anniversary.
With its population estimated in 1996 to be nearly 26,000, the Town
of Monroe has long been considered one of the major hubs of our Hudson
River valley. Within the boundaries of the Town are three incorporated
villages: the Village of Monroe (incorporated in 1894), the Village of
Harriman (incorporated in 1914), and the Village of Kiryas Joel
(incorporated in 1977).
The Village of Monroe sprang up along a mill pond created by the
construction of a dam and grist mill constructed prior to the
Revolutionary War. Soon, stagecoach routes, inns, and taverns grew
along Monroe's Mill Pond, and soon the community became the economic
and social focal point of the area.
The Village of Harriman was the site of a creamery and grist mill,
which early in this century became the site of the estate of the
railroad magnate Edward H. Harriman. The Village was named in his
honor, and became the home of his son, Averill, who served as a cabinet
member, diplomat, and Governor of New York.
The Village of Kiryas Joel is the second legally incorporated
community of Hasidic Jews in the world. The community is a unique
village where traditional values and the centrality of family are the
guiding principles of community life. To preserve these values, Kiryas
Joel remains without television or radio.
The entire Town of Monroe has enjoyed a varied history over the past
200 years. In the earliest days, it was known for its iron mines and
smelting furnaces. The famous giant chain which was stretched across
the Hudson River to prevent invasion by the British army was forged in
Monroe. The Monroe iron mines thrived as late as the 1880's.
For many years, Monroe was the center of a thriving dairy and cheese
industry. We forget today that the concept of shipping fresh milk from
the farm to the city is a relatively new concept which did not come
about until the advent of the railroads. The Town of Monroe was host to
a variety of dairy farms, and beginning in 1841 what are now the
Villages of Monroe and Harriman were the railroad terminals from which
dairy products were shipped.
But it is for cheese that Monroe is most famous. Two types of cheese
beloved throughout the world--velveeta and liederkranz--were invented
in Monroe and originally manufactured at the factory operated by Emil
Frey.
Today, the Monroe Cheese Festival is the biggest and most successful
event held annually in Monroe. Conceived by Village Mayor Robert
Bonney--who tragically passed away soon after he ``sold'' the festival
idea to the community--the cheese festival annually attracts thousands
of visitors of all ages to the community from far and wide.
In 1997, a local newspaper reporter wrote that: ``There are few
places where a kid can wear a giant foam cheese wedge on his head and
still look pretty cool. A Green Bay Packer game may be one. Another,
most definitely, is the Monroe Cheese Festival.''
Other long time traditions which permeate Monroe are the Mombasha
Fire Department, over 100 years old, and the Museum Village, which
preserves for tourists and scholars a typical colonial community. The
legendary showman, George M. Cohan, was a resident of Monroe. When in
his declining years the classic motion picture biography of his life,
``Yankee Doodle Dandy'' was released, he was too ill to travel to New
York City for the grand premiere. So a special screening for Cohan and
his family was arranged to take place at the Mombasha Fire House. Mr.
Cohan applauded the portrayal of his life story by the legendary Jimmy
Cagney.
Today, as we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, the Town of
Monroe and the three Villages within its boundaries all look forward to
the third hundred years with a sense of confidence that the challenges
of tomorrow will be met.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all of our colleagues to join with me in
saluting the town of Monroe, New York, on this milestone occasion.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STEPHEN M. MELTZ
______
HON. DAVID D. PHELPS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Stephen M.
Meltz on his sixieth birthday. Stephen will gather with his friends and
family to celebrate this momentous occasion just after Thanksgiving.
Stephen was born in Chicago, Illinois, on December 15, 1939, to Jacob
and Cecilia Meltz. He is married to Nadine (Greenberg) Meltz and has
two sons: David and Gary. Stephen has lived in Chicago his entire life.
He attended college at the University of Chicago, receiving both his
undergraduate degree in political science and his M.B.A. at the
prestigious university. He also served his country proudly in the
United States Army Reserve.
Stephen M. Meltz is currently the President of Stephen M. Meltz and
Associates, a C.P.A. firm located in Lincolnwood, Illinois. It is a
successful business, where his clients know that the work done by
Stephen's firm is both professional and honest. For the last year his
son David Meltz has joined him at the firm, which now makes it truly a
family business. But for all the success Stephen has had in his
professional life, I know that his family is his greatest sense of
pride and accomplishment.
Stephen has always made the best interests of his family his primary
concern. He has taken care of his wife, his children, his parents, his
wife's parents and many members of his extended family with loving
care. He saw to it that his children received the best educations
available. He made sure that the final years of his and his wife's
parents were lived with dignity and comfort. Like many fathers, his
dedication to his family has sometimes gone unnoticed, but he does not
care for his loved ones for accolades, but because he loves his family.
for all these reasons, Stephen is a patriarch in the truest sense of
the term. A pillar of integrity that all his family can lean on in
their hour of need and celebrate with during times of joy.
Mr. Speaker, it is often said, that the road to the Underworld is
paved with good intentions. Contrary to this premise, Stephen M. Meltz
has always had honor and a strong core of moral beliefs and intentions,
and his actions have always mirrored those values. Aristotle said, ``In
the arena of human life the honors and rewards fall to those who show
their good qualities in action.'' Stephen's rewards are both a devout
family and loyal friends who have witnessed his lifelong ``good
qualities in action'' and will honor him over dinner on his sixtieth
birthday.
Mr. Speaker, lastly, I am particularly pleased to have this
opportunity to congratulate Stephen M. Meltz, on his sixtieth birthday,
because his son Gary C. Meltz is a member of my staff here in
Washington, DC. Gary asked me to put into the Congressional Record a
speech to commemorate his father's birthday. I am honored to do this
for Gary and his father. I urge all my colleagues to join me now in
wishing Stephen M. Meltz a happy sixtieth birthday and Godspeed.
____________________
M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of
my colleagues in the House of Representatives a recent article about
the wonderful medical advances at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in
Houston, Texas. The article tells the stories of two people, a young
college student and the former Speaker of the House Jim Wright, dealing
with cancer of the jaw and their experiences with this once
debilitating disease. Their respective stories highlight the need to
support our Nation's cancer centers and highlight how medical advances
can truly give Americans hope where none previously existed.
Reconstructing Lives by Mary Jane Schier--
For 19-year old James Smith, the quality of survival from cancer of
the jaw is paramount in order to pursue his dream of playing
professional football.
Smith is a junior majoring in health and human performance at McNeese
State University in Lake Charles, LA, where he was an outstanding
defensive tackle until diagnosed with a disease uncommon among
teenagers.
He and his family were stunned to learn in November 1998 that he had
a tumor in his right mandible, the horseshoe-shaped bone that forms the
lower jaw. the mandible, he knows, is the largest and strongest bone in
the face.
Smith was forced to take an extended timeout from the football team
to begin the biggest challenge of his young life. Upon coming to M.D.
Anderson, he joined a new team whose members are nationally ranked for
treating head and neck cancers.
The head coaches in the multidisciplinary treatment regimen that
Smith received are Dr.
[[Page 30817]]
Helmuth Goepfert and Dr. Geoffrey L. Robb, who chair the Department of
Head and Neck Surgery and the Department of Plastic Surgery,
respectively. For the coaches and their specialty colleagues, the
common goal centers on removing patients, cancers and restoring optimal
form and function.
Smith's surgery 3 days before last Christmas involved cutting out his
diseased jaw and reconstructing the mandible with bone and tissue taken
from his left leg. Although he couldn't talk or eat his favorite pizza
for a while, Smith says now, ``I'm getting stronger every day . . . and
I'm eager to play again.''
At the other end of the age spectrum is former U.S. House Speaker Jim
Wright, who at age 76 also illustrates the importance of high quality
in one's life.
I've always been a talker, so I was a little concerned before the
surgery that I wouldn't be able to talk well enough for people to
understand me,'' confides Wright, a Fort Worth Democrat whose 34-year
span in Congress was complete in 1989.
During more than 13 hours of surgery at M.D. Anderson last March 12,
Wright's cancerous right mandible, an adjacent segment of the tongue
and eight teeth were removed, then a six inch piece of bone from his
left leg was used to form a new jaw. Skin from his left thigh overlying
the bone was also transplanted to replace part of his inside of his
mouth and tongue and the external skin of his cheek.
``Believe me, I feel truly blessed,'' Wright says in a strong and
clear voice.
His gratitude has been enhanced by recalling how his father lost a
jaw to cancer more than 30 years ago. ``There was no thought then of
replacing it with bone from somewhere else in the body . . . (He) spent
his last days with a facial disfigurement that was the mark then of
many cancer victims,'' Wright remembers.
This was Wright's second bout with an oral cancer. In 1991, he had
surgery at M.D. followed by radiation treatments. Since his latest
extensive surgery, he has resumed most of his favorite activities,
including writing a regular newspaper column and, of course, ``talking
with anyone who'll listen.''
Intensive collaboration among head and neck surgeons and plastic
surgeons in recent years has ``greatly improved our ability to resect
all sizes of tumors and to restore vital function and appearance as
well as to extend survival,'' observes Dr. Goepfert, who holds the M.G.
and Lillie A. Johnson Chair for Cancer Treatment and Research.
New methods developed by plastic surgeons permit reconstruction of
the oral cavity safely and with increasingly good outcomes. The key to
success involves transferring tissues--together with vital blood
vessels and nerves--from elsewhere in a patient's body to use for
rebuilding parts of the head and neck affected by cancer.
Dr. Robb explains, ``The head and neck is the most difficult area to
reconstruct. But through specialized Micro vascular techniques, we can
move tissues, muscle, fat and bone, along with their blood supply, to
use in reshaping jaws, the tongue, and parts of the nose, ears, and
throat.''
Age is no obstacle for performing big reconstructive procedures so
long as older patients have good blood vessels to transfer with the
tissues. Regardless of age, Dr. Robb says, ``Our primary aim is to
restore form, contour and function to the body parts affected by cancer
surgery so that patients can enjoy the highest quality of life.''
For Wright, being able to talk, chew, swallow and look virtually
normal is a ``miracle'' stemming from remarkable medical progress and
his religious faith. ``The good news is that cancer is conquerable''
and ``useful life is prolongable.''
Realizing the best quality of cancer survival for Smith, however,
will occur when he can return to the football field. During a recent
follow-up visit to M.D. Anderson, his doctors encouraged him to
continue that dream.
____________________
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1999
______
speech of
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the distinguished
Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Chairman Bliley, and Chairman
Tauzin, who have worked diligently to bring satellite privatization
legislation before the House in these last days of this Session. This
bill is an important step toward legislation that will advance
increased competition in the global satellite telecommunications
market.
When the House passed this bill last year, it was with the firm
belief that time and technology had passed by the 1962 law that created
COMSAT. In spite of the overwhelming House support, the bill was
stalled over concerns raised by colleagues in the other body. Since
that time, Lockheed Martin has arrived on the scene to buy COMSAT and
make it a normal, private company without legal immunities or exclusive
access to the Intelsat system. This is exactly what the proponents of
the Bliley-Tauzin bill want and is yet another example of the
marketplace being ahead on Congress.
To date, Lockheed has followed regular order in its acquisition of
COMSAT. It has received the approval of both the Federal Communications
Commission and the Department of Justice to acquire 49% of COMSAT.
Neither federal agency felt that competition or anti-trust laws were
threatened by Lockheed Martin's purchase.
Now it is Congress' turn to weigh on this issue and I believe that
this bill goes to great lengths to achieve honest and fair competition
in the satellite competition in the satellite communications market. I
also believe that we can complete legislative action on this bill
before Congress leaves this year, which I understand the Chairman has
said he intends to do. But as we move toward that legislative
objective, it is important that we realize that certain issues must be
addressed before we can declare a victory for the private competitive
marketplace.
First of all, there is the issue known as ``Level IV direct access''.
In effect, it would result in the forced divestiture of billions of
dollars of Comsat shareholder investment in Intelsat infrastructure--
investment undertaken often at the behest of the U.S. Government. Level
4 direct access simply guts the economic rationale for a private
company to invest in Comsat. Indeed, that may be the rationale behind
this provision: to dissuade Lockheed from acquiring Comsat. If that is
the case, it would be a cynical attempt to manipulate the free market
in the name of ``competition.'' This provision must be changed in
conference. Similarly, Congress should simply repeal the ownership cap
on Comsat upon enactment of final consensus legislation, rather than
making it contingent upon occurrence of unrelated events as it does
now.
Other outstanding differences between the House and Senate have been
raised by other Members and must similarly be resolved in conference. I
urge Chairman Bliley to work with Mr. Dingell toward a consensus,
notably on the privatization criteria, which serve as FCC licensing
criteria, and must be made more flexible.
Again, I consider myself as a supporter of this bill. The Congress
has been very shrewd in letting the telecommunications marketplace work
its will towards fair competition. We should use this opportunity to
continue that successful record. I urge the conferees to consider these
issues when crafting a final package to present to the Congress and
ultimately the President.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO FREDERICK C. MALKUS, JR.
______
HON. STENY H. HOYER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great statesman
and leader in the State of Maryland. With the death of former state
Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr., on November 9, Maryland, as well as
the entire Country, lost a great patriot and a dutiful public servant.
Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. died at the age of 86, having spent all of
his adult life in the service of his fellow citizens. Senator Malkus, a
conservative Democrat, served in the legislature for 46 years--12 in
the House of Delegates and 34 in the Senate--before retiring in 1994.
Upon his retirement, he was the longest serving State Legislator in the
United States.
Born July 1, 1913, in Baltimore, Senator Malkus moved to the 380 acre
Egypt Road farm, nine miles outside of Cambridge, on Maryland's Eastern
Shore where he was raised there by his aunt and uncle. He spent the
past 83 years on the working farm that produces wheat, corn, and
soybeans. He graduated for Western Maryland College in 1934 and
received his law degree four years later from the University of
Maryland Law School. During World War II, Senator Malkus served in the
U.S. Army and rose to the rank of major. He returned to Maryland and in
1947 won a seat in the House of Delegates.
He was, Mr. Speaker, an unforgettable individual who was a wonderful
servant to Maryland and America. To know Fred Malkus was
[[Page 30818]]
to know how deeply he cared for rural America and more specifically for
the Chesapeake Bay region. Senator Malkus was at the forefront of the
fight to save the Bay. Even though he was pro-business in his views, he
was a great environmentalist. His legacy will no doubt live on and
serve as a model for future leaders of our State and our Country.
Senator Malkus is survived by his wife of 41 years, the former
Margaret ``Maggie'' Moorer, his son, Frederick C. Malkus III, two
daughters, Margaret Elizabeth ``Betsy'' LaPerch, and Susan Moorer
Malkus, and three grandsons.
____________________
HONORING JACK A. BROWN III
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the achievements of Jack
A. Brown III.
Jack is a native New Yorker who was born and raised on the lower east
side of Manhattan. He currently resides, in my district, in the Clinton
Hill section of Brooklyn. Jack has had a distinguished seven-year
career with the Correctional Services Corporation (CSC). The
Corporation is a private company contracted by local, State, and
Federal Corrections Department to provide concrete services to the
inmate population. As the Vice President of Correctional Services
Corporation Community Services Division, Mr. Brown maintains overall
responsibility for the day to day operations of the five New York
programs. These programs, three for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
two for the New York State Department of Corrections, are designed to
provide inmates with the tools necessary to successfully reintegrate
back into their prospective communities as self-sufficient,
responsible, law abiding citizens.
Prior to his employment with CSC, Jack served as an officer in the
United States Army's Air Defense Artillery Division for four years. He
is a graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo with a
Bachelor's degree in Human Services, with a concentration in mental
health, and Biology. During his academic years, he gained invaluable
experience in the field of human services holding positions as
Physiatrics Counselor, Chemical Dependency Counselor and Youth
Counselor. In December, Jack expects to earn a double Masters degree,
an MBA and a Master of Science and Economic Development, from the
University of New Hampshire.
I wish Jack Brown success in his future endeavors and I commend his
achievements to my colleagues' attention.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO NATIONAL WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION
______
HON. DAN BURTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1999, the
National Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) will celebrate 125
years in existence, making it the oldest, continuing, nonsectarian
Christian woman's organization in the United States. Their motto is
``For God and Home and Every Land.''
Directed entirely by women from its beginning, the WCTU has united
women from various backgrounds and geographical regions in their
determination to educate the world about the dangers associated with
the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Throughout the years, the
WCTU has advocated for universal voting rights for women and
minorities, the eight-hour work day, equal pay for equal work,
opposition to child labor, shelters for abused women and children, and
world peace. In 1945, the WCTU became a charter member of the United
Nations Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO).
Their first National president, Annie Wittenmyer, was thanked by
Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant for her work during the
Civil War in organizing diet kitchens in military hospitals. Their
second National president, Frances E. Willard, was honored in 1905 by
having her statue placed in the Statuary Hall of the U.S. Capitol--the
first woman and the only woman to be honored for more than 50 years.
The current National president of the WCTU is Sarah Ward, a resident of
the great State of Indiana, and I wish her all the best in her
endeavors with the WCTU as they continue their good work for the
protection of the home.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO JENNIFER MUMMERT
______
HON. JERRY LEWIS
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like today to pay
tribute to Jenny Mummert, a hardworking, highly valued staff member of
the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who is
leaving November 19th after eight years to pursue her career in the
private sector.
Whether she was putting in long days and endless hours working on
behalf of our national defense--or struggling to look serious at the
Paris Air Show--Jenny Mummert couldn't help being her ever-positive
self. She has always been a vital member of the team, doing all she can
to make the defense appropriations subcommittee the best committee in
the House of Representatives.
Now she has decided to leave us to seek new challenges and
opportunities. But she will always be a part of our family. We know
that her husband, Joe, and their four children, Joey, Kandyce, Kevin
and Karley, are excited about her new career. But they are very likely
just as excited about the prospect of mom having a more normal work
schedule.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in wishing all
the best for Jenny in her new endeavor, and to let her know that we
will miss her every day and will always be grateful for what she's done
for the Congress and our national defense.
____________________
THE BOOKER T. WASHINGTON LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE AT HAMPTON UNIVERSITY
______
HON. ROBERT C. SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce ``The Booker
T. Washington Leadership Act of 1999''. This legislation will establish
the Booker T. Washington Leadership Institute at Hampton University in
Hampton, Virginia.
Booker T. Washington is perhaps the most renowned alumnus of Hampton
University. His vision championed the idea that black colleges and
universities should embrace the responsibility not only to train men
and women in their disciplines and trades, but to create and sustain
new institutions and communities driven by the principle of service--
service to God, country, and humankind.
The mission of this Institute reflects this vision. It is based on
Hampton University's fundamental premise that leadership development is
best understood and achieved in the moral context of social
responsibility and service to society. The Institute will be committed
to the development of ethical values, interpersonal skills and the
competencies that are required for effective leadership in a broad
range of business, civic and political environments.
Hampton University is uniquely prepared to launch this Institute. For
the past 130 years, Hampton University has promoted higher education
and positive character development as the cornerstones of effective
leadership and responsible citizenship. Initially founded in 1868 to
train promising young men and women to teach and lead their recently
emancipated people, it has grown into a comprehensive university,
offering a broad range of technical, liberal arts, pre-professional,
professional and graduate degree programs. Over the past twenty years,
Hampton University has doubled the student population from 2,700 to
7,000, and the average student SAT score has increased by 300 points.
Forty-five academic programs have been added, including graduate degree
programs in Business Administration, Museum Studies, Applied
Mathematics and Chemistry, with PhD programs in Physics, Pharmacy,
Physical Therapy and Nursing. Over 40% of Hampton University graduates
enter graduate school within 5 years.
The Booker T. Washington Leadership Institute combines the heritage
of Hampton University with the vision of Booker T. Washington, to
educate young people with the knowledge, skills, insights, and positive
values necessary for leading the United States into the new millennium.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the Booker T. Washington Leadership Act for my
colleagues consideration.
[[Page 30819]]
____________________
SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING DIABETES
______
speech of
HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
important resolution expressing our continued commitment to the fight
against diabetes.
Diabetes is one of the most costly health problems in America. More
than 1 out of every 10 health care dollars in the United States, and
about 1 out of every 4 Medicare dollars is spent on care for people
with diabetes.
The devastation caused by diabetes, however, goes far beyond the
financial costs. Over 16 million Americans suffer from this chronic
disease for which there is no cure. Diabetes is the seventh leading
cause of death in the United States.
While over 10 million Americans know that they are living with
diabetes, another 5.4 million people are not even aware that they have
the disease. Many people only realize that they have diabetes when they
develop a life-threatening complication like blindness, kidney disease,
nerve damage, heart disease or stroke.
Early diagnosis and treatment can help reduce the risk of these
terrible complications. I am pleased to note that constituents in my
district have access to a number of outstanding diabetes education
programs, including those at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin,
Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, Columbia Hospital, Froedtert
Memorial Lutheran Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, St. Luke's Medical
Center, Waukesha Memorial Hospital, and West Allis Memorial Hospital.
The resolution before us today recognizes the important role that these
dedicated health professionals and volunteers play in the fight against
diabetes.
Mr. Speaker, these health providers and their patients need our help.
Improvements in technology and the general growth in scientific
knowledge have created unprecedented opportunities for advances that
might lead to better treatments, prevention, and ultimately a cure.
Congress has a responsibility to support this critical, life-saving
research. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and affirm
their commitment to find a cure for diabetes.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JOHN P. POWELL
______
HON. BOB RILEY
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John P. Powell, who
was honored on November 14, 1999, at the official dedication of the
newly named J.P. Powell Middle School in Chambers County, Alabama.
John P. Powell was born in Chambers County, Alabama, on September 13,
1912. After graduating from Florida A&M University, he began his
teaching career at Langdale School in 1949. On September 24, 1954, he
became the principal of the Chambers County Training School (renamed
Southside Elementary School during the 1970-71 school year) and
remained its principal for 27 years until his retirement on May 28,
1976. The Chambers County Board of Education by official action renamed
the school, now a middle school for grades 6-8, in Professor Powell's
honor on May 19, 1999.
During his career and after his retirement, Mr. Powell was active in
the Lafayette, Alabama, community. He served on the Chambers County
Industrial Board and was active in the Chambers County Extension
Service. His community involvement included the Red Cross, the United
Givers Fund, Powell Chapel United Methodist Church, the Chambers County
Retired Teachers organization and senior citizens' groups. Even now, at
the age of 87, Professor Powell is president of the Birmingham
Rehabilitation Center where he resides.
In 1991, the Lafayette City Council proclaimed John Powell Day in
Lafayette. In the resolution issued, Mr. Powell was commended for his
community involvement and his leadership, particularly in the fields of
education, industry and race relations. Now, once again, he is being
recognized for what he has done to promote respect between races and
the value of education for his students. Most important, however, he is
recognized for his life-long commitment to public service.
I join the residents of Chambers County in thanking John P. Powell
and saluting him on this special day of recognition.
____________________
CONDEMNING ARMENIAN ASSASSINATIONS
______
speech of
HON. PETER T. KING
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the
violence that recently took place in Armenia. The Prime Minister and
the Speaker of the Parliament, as well as other prominent Armenian
politicians, were killed in a hail of gunfire on the floor of the
Armenian Parliament.
Besides my deep concern and sympathy for the individuals who were
brutally murdered and for their families and friends, I fear that this
event could cause a delay or postponement of the peace talks currently
underway between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Thankfully, both governments
have stated that the peace process will not be interrupted by this
tragic event.
Armenia should step up its efforts to push the peace process along.
The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been going on for 11
years now, and more than 30,000 people have been killed and over a
million refugees created on both sides, including over 800,000 in
Azerbaijan. It is time to reach a peace agreement, and Presidents
Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Robert Kocharian of Armenia have met
four times in recent months to discuss such a settlement.
As original sponsor of legislation designed to repeal Section 907 of
the Freedom Support Act, I would like to draw your attention to a
statement in the New York Times, that appeared on November 3, urging to
loft ``the ban on giving Azerbaijan the same kind of economic
assistance that it provides to all other former Soviet republics. This
would serve both to recognize the risks that Heydar Aliyev,
Azerbaijan's President, has taken for peace and begin to bring about
more realistic attitudes in Armenia. If we are to be an effective
broker, we must adopt a balanced approach.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, during the following rollcall votes, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as
indicated below.
Rollcall No. 587, ``yes''; rollcall No. 588, ``yes''; rollcall No.
589, ``yes''; rollcall No. 590, ``no''; rollcall No. 591, ``yes'';
rollcall No. 592, ``yes''; rollcall No. 593, ``yes''; rollcall No. 594,
``yes''; rollcall No. 595, ``no''.
____________________
A PROPOSAL TO GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE TO EVERY AMERICAN CHILD BORN
IN THE NEXT CENTURY: SEEKING IDEAS AND COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is a national disgrace that 11.1 million
children in the United States still do not have health insurance as we
enter a new millennium.
What we have done so far has not worked. Since 1996, the numbers and
percentages of children without insurance have actually crept upward.
They have not yet reached a statistically significant degree of
increase, but we are moving in the wrong direction.
The web of programs we pieced together in 1997, CHIP/Medicaid/
transitional Medicaid, are failing to get health insurance coverage to
more children.
We need to come back to this question, and find something that will
work. America's children deserve health insurance.
I have begun to develop a bill to address this problem, currently in
a rough draft form, which is based on the idea that we need a simple
and comprehensive solution:
We want every child in America to have health insurance.
Every child in America is issued a birth certificate and social
security number at birth. Let's automatically enroll every child at
birth into a Medicare-type program; call it ``MediKids.''
MedKids will be both an umbrella and a safety net for all of the
other programs insuring our children, so that no child will ever fall
[[Page 30820]]
through the enrollment cracks again, much less 11.1 million children.
Our current approach places the burden on already disadvantaged
parents. State and local enrollment and welfare workers are unable to
determine which families match various programs--much less process
pages of forms and documentation in order to enroll children in health
insurance.
Instead, I propose we do what's right, sensible, and directly
accomplishes the goal of health insurance for all of our children: (1)
Enroll every child in MediKids automatically at birth; and (2) allow
parents who do have other choices for a child's health insurance to
attach evidence of coverage to their tax forms, thus exempting
themselves from the premiums used to finance MediKids.
Children are relatively inexpensive to insure, but this program will
have a budget impact. I am developing a plan for covering the costs of
this program. Ultimately, however we pay for it, we must make the stand
that some things are wotrh spending money on, particularly in this time
of unprecedented, record-breaking economic growth.
My staff and I will be refining this bill over the holiday recess.
For example, we will want to adjust the MediKids program to cover the
specific services which children need. As our work progresses, we will
be posting our drafts on our website, http://www.house.gov/stark and we
invite everyone to visit the site and offer their input.
We plan to introduce this bill at the start of the next Congressional
session--the first of the new millennium. I invited all of my
colleagues, and everyone in America who cares about the health of our
children, to join us in developing this idea, and to co-sponsor this
important effort to get every millennium baby off to a good start.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE PANPAPHIAN ASSOCIATION AND SAVAS C. TSIVICOS
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special
tribute to the Panpaphian Association, its members, friends and special
honoree, this year, Savas Tsivicos.
The Panpaphian Association was founded in 1987, by a group of
Cypriot-Americans of Paphian ancestry in order to encourage and help
promote awareness of the customs and traditions of the region of Paphos
and Cyprus. It is a vital philanthropic organization concerned with
education, the health and well-being of students from the United States
and Cyprus, and the liberation of Cyprus from the Turkish invasion of
1974.
This year's honoree, Savas Tsivicos, exemplifies the honorable
characteristics of the people from Paphos. He came to the United States
in 1982 from a farming community in the village of Inia to live the
``American Life.'' His life embodies the dreams, hopes and aspirations
of thousands of immigrants who arrive in the United States to construct
a decent life. Mr. Tsivicos holds a Bachelor's Degree and MBA from
Fairleigh Dickinson University and a Masters Certificate from George
Washington University, where he received numerous scholastic awards and
honors.
Mr. Tsivicos has also become an outspoken community leader. He serves
on the Ethnic Advisory Council of New Jersey and he has been elected
President of the Cyprus Federation of America. He is a member of the
Archdiocesan Council of the Greek Orthodox Church of America and is an
Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Mr. Tsivicos is on the Advisory
Board of the Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies of Queens
College, and on the Board of Directors for the Foundation of Hellenic
Studies, the Greek American Chamber of Commerce, and the Council of
Overseas Cypriots.
Savas Tsivicos is a proud American who has not forgotten his roots.
He is imbued with determination to bring justice and freedom to Cyprus
and has served as Vice President of the International Coordinating
Committee Justice for Cyprus. A very successful businessman, Mr.
Tsivicos is president and owner of Paphian Enterprises, Inc. He is
married to Maria Tsivicos and they have three children, Haralambos,
Elpetha and Evangelos ages 11, 9 and 6.
The Panpaphian Association is now led by Florentia Christodoulidou,
and supported by: George Sophocleous, Debbie Riga Evangelides, Spyros
Stylianou, Michael Hadjiloucas, Kyriaki Christodoulou, Irene Theodorou,
Andreas Pericleous and George Theodorou, plus the Advisory Board,
Stavors Charalambous, Annoula Constantinides, Andreas Chrysostomou,
Anna Chrsostomou, Savvas Konnaris, Georgios Kouspos, Chrusi Kleopas
Notskas, Ismini Michaelides, and Evan Tziazas.
Mr. Speaker, I salute Mr. Savas Tsivicos and the work of the officers
and friends of the Panpaphian Association of America.
____________________
1999 INTERNATIONAL PRESS FREEDOM AWARDS
______
HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this year's
recipients of the 1999 International Press Freedom Awards, presented by
the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
CPJ was founded by American journalists in 1981 to defend the ``human
and professional rights of journalists around the world.'' CPJ works to
protect reporters who are threatened by authoritarian regimes and other
foes of accurate, independent journalism. Its annual awards honor those
journalists working under the most onerous of conditions.
This year's honorees, who have been beaten, jailed, or had their
lives threatened because of their work, will receive their awards at a
ceremony in New York next week. I join CPJ in congratulating: Jesus
Joel Diaz Hernandez, who is serving a four-year prison sentence in Cuba
for starting an independent news agency; Baton Haxhiu, editor of
Kosovo's leading independent newspaper, ``Koho Ditore,'' which he
continued to publish from exile after eluding Serbian police; Jugnu
Mohsin and Najam Sethi, publisher and editor of ``The Friday Times'' of
Lahore, Pakistan--last spring, Sethi was beaten, abducted, and jailed
after the paper published charges of government corruption; and Maria
Cristina Caballerio, a reporter for Colombia's ``Semana,'' who received
frequent death threats as a result of her work covering the country's
civil war.
Mr. Speaker, too often we take a free press for granted. CPJ and this
year's honoree's remind us that press freedoms are vital to the
functioning of democratic government and that journalists often risk
their lives to assure that the rest of us know the truth.
____________________
EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR RECENT ELECTIONS IN REPUBLIC OF
INDIA
______
speech of
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 211.
First let me thank Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Brown, and Mr.
Hastings for co-sponsoring this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the contrasting events in India and Pakistan over a
single 24 hour period speak eloquently about the new challenges and
opportunities that we face in South Asia. In India, we have seen
hundreds of millions of voters enthusiastically exercise their votes in
a free and fair election. In Pakistan, we witnessed a military coup.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, recognizes that the people of India
have a deep and abiding commitment to democracy and it salutes them for
the passion with which they choose their own destiny. No country
reflects our own values more in that part of the world than does India.
It is high time we seriously begin to recognize this fact and
graduate from mere platitudes to some tangible policy changes toward
India.
I believe that it is time to re-examine our basic premise regarding
U.S. policy in South Asia. We should abandon old paradigms and Cold War
hangups and see that India, a democracy, is our natural ally in the
region.
The best way to demonstrate our commitment to the people of India is
by ensuring that the President travels to India as soon as possible, as
the resolution urges him to do.
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
[[Page 30821]]
____________________